CEO Salaries and the inalienable right to be stupid

[tzor]

After looking at the recent CEO thread, I thought I would post my comments there, but I fear that they would be lost in the noise. There is a fundamental assumption that is made in the notion of corporations. You do, in fact, have an inalienable right to be stupid. No government, no power on earth can take that away from you. Companies can and will fail all the time, even though they may have been the greatest company some decades prior. Such companies generally fail because many people are stupid at the same time.

Now before I continue, my uncle was a CEO. I’m not going to waste this post by making a comparison of the good CEO. Hell, even the best CEO can’t save a company from the forces of market conditions, and even though he never took a massive salary nor did he grant himself bonuses when the company failed to do well, his company still had to respond to the market forces around him.

But a bad CEO is a sign of the problems that lie within the entire structure of the company. If a CEO is overcompensated, he is only affecting the bottom line of his own company. He is impacting the bottom line of every shareholder in the company (the principle driver of stupid in any organization since they give money to the company without any due diligence on their part). He is also affecting the bottom line of every employee in the company, although the smart ones know when to jump ship. Not that this matters much, the effect of the problem on the employees will definitely have a significant financial impact on the company in terms of job effectiveness.

This can be seen in large companies where the actions of many have made the company great and the actions of a few make the company bankrupt. Clearly such companies look impressive when they fall, but considering that most small businesses are doomed to failure, one cannot feel sorrow or remorse for the large company that falls into the old mistakes that dooms them in the end.

The free market does, in the end, work ruthlessly well. As long as everyone does their due diligence, everyone can do well. Of course, if everyone did their due diligence, shitty overpaid CEOS would not happen.

[thegreekdog]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

[tzor]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

I said that was the right to be stupid, not the right to fail. Governments really can't do much for a totally stupid company either, unless they remove the stupid, they only have so much money to throw into the money pit of stupidity. Of course not all companies are completely stupid, so GM had parts that were trying to rise above it all while at the same time the company was trying to sell the garbage that was the Volt.

[caonima]

so a company that is starting to struggle should start investing less and less in its management? what about R&D or staff perks? these also affect the 'bottom line'. would you also be happy to target these areas?

and what about overpaid public officials? same thing?

[thegreekdog]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

I said that was the right to be stupid, not the right to fail. Governments really can't do much for a totally stupid company either, unless they remove the stupid, they only have so much money to throw into the money pit of stupidity. Of course not all companies are completely stupid, so GM had parts that were trying to rise above it all while at the same time the company was trying to sell the garbage that was the Volt.

I think taking away the right to fail also takes away the right to be stupid, but whatevs.

[tzor]

I think taking away the right to fail also takes away the right to be stupid, but whatevs.

Because it takes more than preventing a company from failing; a company must succeed. As long as people continue to be stupid, no amount of outside support will make the succeed.

[tzor]

so a company that is starting to struggle should start investing less and less in its management? what about R&D or staff perks? these also affect the 'bottom line'. would you also be happy to target these areas?

Depends on the reason for the struggle. A company whose CEO isn't helping them from getting out of the struggle should not be paid as though he was doing so. The R&D department that isn't helping the LONG TERM bottom line (and really it's the long term bottom line that is important; day trader be damned) should not be supported. Staff perks should be based on staff performance.

Conversely, a CEO that makes a big impact on the bottom line deserves what he gets. Steve Jobs was clearly worth the money; Apple did not do as well without him (when he was still alive).

and what about overpaid public officials? same thing?

You know, I have this one voting share of a stock in this non traded company called "USA." I'm, having the darnedest time trying to convince my fellow voting share holders to fire the CEO; they just voted to have him continue for another four year term. The inalienable right to be stupid at work.

[stahrgazer]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

Definitely before that.

"Government" can make companies via defense contracts. Outside of Haliburton, you have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and GE's aerospace arm.

When the Shuttle was cancelled, alot of smaller companies that supplied it lost alot of business, some went out of business. Similarly when x, y, or z military transport contracts get awarded or cancelled, government has a lot to do with those businesses. In the 1990s, contracts that would be awarded to "one aerospace company" that won the design bid, were instead split, "to keep the defense base competition viable."

"Tang" breakfast drink was from a government sponsored r&d to find foods for astronauts.

"Velcro" was from a government sponsored r&d to find closures that would work in space.

How about US farms, which are important for our overall economy but land values shot so high and imports coming in to undermine it, that to prevent "all" agricultural lands from being turned into concrete jungles, the government pays farmers to grow or not-grow crops to ensure the US continues to be a viable agricultural producer.

I'm too lazy to come up with more myself, but that's a few, eh?

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

Definitely before that.

"Government" can make companies via defense contracts. Outside of Haliburton, you have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and GE's aerospace arm.

When the Shuttle was cancelled, alot of smaller companies that supplied it lost alot of business, some went out of business. Similarly when x, y, or z military transport contracts get awarded or cancelled, government has a lot to do with those businesses.

"Tang" breakfast drink was from a government sponsored r&d to find foods for astronauts.

"Velcro" was from a government sponsored r&d to find closures that would work in space.

How about US farms, which are important for our overall economy but land values shot so high and imports coming in to undermine it, that to prevent "all" agricultural lands from being turned into concrete jungles, the government pays farmers to grow or not-grow crops to ensure the US continues to be a viable agricultural producer.

I'm too lazy to come up with more myself, but that's a few, eh?

Oh, those policies which favor farmers came AFTER the price of land increased significantly?

[thegreekdog]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

Definitely before that.

"Government" can make companies via defense contracts. Outside of Haliburton, you have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and GE's aerospace arm.

When the Shuttle was cancelled, alot of smaller companies that supplied it lost alot of business, some went out of business. Similarly when x, y, or z military transport contracts get awarded or cancelled, government has a lot to do with those businesses. In the 1990s, contracts that would be awarded to "one aerospace company" that won the design bid, were instead split, "to keep the defense base competition viable."

"Tang" breakfast drink was from a government sponsored r&d to find foods for astronauts.

"Velcro" was from a government sponsored r&d to find closures that would work in space.

How about US farms, which are important for our overall economy but land values shot so high and imports coming in to undermine it, that to prevent "all" agricultural lands from being turned into concrete jungles, the government pays farmers to grow or not-grow crops to ensure the US continues to be a viable agricultural producer.

I'm too lazy to come up with more myself, but that's a few, eh?

As far as I can tell, General Motors to not engage the federal government in a contract whereby General Motors provided products or services. It seems, with the exception of your farms example, there was a trade of products or services for cash. That being said, the ultimate reasoning for engaging in those contracts would be similar to the ultimate reason General Motors was bailed out: namely the expenditure of political capital.

[stahrgazer]

As far as I can tell, General Motors to not engage the federal government in a contract whereby General Motors provided products or services. It seems, with the exception of your farms example, there was a trade of products or services for cash. That being said, the ultimate reasoning for engaging in those contracts would be similar to the ultimate reason General Motors was bailed out: namely the expenditure of political capital.

Even the farm example is a trade of products or services for cash; the government is paying farmers based on which crops they grow.

And depending on how that political capital is spent, the government can make or break a company.

And as we've seen, depending on how the government reserves that political capital (laws and regulations,) companies that get pretty big and operate without patriotic ethics can make or break the economics of a country.

[thegreekdog]

As far as I can tell, General Motors to not engage the federal government in a contract whereby General Motors provided products or services. It seems, with the exception of your farms example, there was a trade of products or services for cash. That being said, the ultimate reasoning for engaging in those contracts would be similar to the ultimate reason General Motors was bailed out: namely the expenditure of political capital.

Even the farm example is a trade of products or services for cash; the government is paying farmers based on which crops they grow.

And depending on how that political capital is spent, the government can make or break a company.

And as we've seen, depending on how the government reserves that political capital (laws and regulations,) companies that get pretty big and operate without patriotic ethics can make or break the economics of a country.

Yeah, again, I don't disagree with any of that. My beef with you is the CEO salary thing. Which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I'm trying to understand a few things about your problems with and solutions to high CEO salaries. This stuff isn't helping advance that discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

After looking at the recent CEO thread, I thought I would post my comments there, but I fear that they would be lost in the noise. There is a fundamental assumption that is made in the notion of corporations. You do, in fact, have an inalienable right to be stupid. No government, no power on earth can take that away from you. Companies can and will fail all the time, even though they may have been the greatest company some decades prior. Such companies generally fail because many people are stupid at the same time.

Now before I continue, my uncle was a CEO. I’m not going to waste this post by making a comparison of the good CEO. Hell, even the best CEO can’t save a company from the forces of market conditions, and even though he never took a massive salary nor did he grant himself bonuses when the company failed to do well, his company still had to respond to the market forces around him.

But a bad CEO is a sign of the problems that lie within the entire structure of the company. If a CEO is overcompensated, he is only affecting the bottom line of his own company. He is impacting the bottom line of every shareholder in the company (the principle driver of stupid in any organization since they give money to the company without any due diligence on their part). He is also affecting the bottom line of every employee in the company, although the smart ones know when to jump ship. Not that this matters much, the effect of the problem on the employees will definitely have a significant financial impact on the company in terms of job effectiveness.

This can be seen in large companies where the actions of many have made the company great and the actions of a few make the company bankrupt. Clearly such companies look impressive when they fall, but considering that most small businesses are doomed to failure, one cannot feel sorrow or remorse for the large company that falls into the old mistakes that dooms them in the end.

The free market does, in the end, work ruthlessly well. As long as everyone does their due diligence, everyone can do well. Of course, if everyone did their due diligence, shitty overpaid CEOS would not happen.

Except, we no longer have a free market. We have a corporate controlled marketplace and, in many cases, corporate controlled governments.

That would not be so bad, except that in this case, the stakes are not just failure of a city-state or even a state, but the free world. Whether it is China taking over, the Middle East exploding (literally) and launching a more serious, full scale terror onto our shores or destruction of our climate/near complete loss of critical resources (note.. loss of critical resources and loss of all are not at all the same thing.. not even close, perhaps) the result is the same... disaster for much of the world, if not all of it.

[stahrgazer]

As far as I can tell, General Motors to not engage the federal government in a contract whereby General Motors provided products or services. It seems, with the exception of your farms example, there was a trade of products or services for cash. That being said, the ultimate reasoning for engaging in those contracts would be similar to the ultimate reason General Motors was bailed out: namely the expenditure of political capital.

Even the farm example is a trade of products or services for cash; the government is paying farmers based on which crops they grow.

And depending on how that political capital is spent, the government can make or break a company.

And as we've seen, depending on how the government reserves that political capital (laws and regulations,) companies that get pretty big and operate without patriotic ethics can make or break the economics of a country.

Yeah, again, I don't disagree with any of that. My beef with you is the CEO salary thing. Which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I'm trying to understand a few things about your problems with and solutions to high CEO salaries. This stuff isn't helping advance that discussion.

I could care less whether you have a "beef" with me or not, but I'll try again.

Government Subsidy DOES advance this thread. Here's how:

The government is already subsidizing many of the industries, many of those already-subsidized industries have grown so big that they have a lot of power, and they're using that power to make themselves richer in ways that undermine the very gov't and country that subsidized them.

How are they doing it? By laying off workers to show massive "profits" that they then take as their OWN salaries, so that one guy, or a handful of guys, are making what they laid off thousands of workers to "gain" for their company.

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Breaking a country by causing its people to starve or go into trillions in debt to prevent them from starving is one f*cked-up way to say "thank you" to the taxpayers who helped many of these companies get big enough to do it in the first place.

GOT IT?

[thegreekdog]

As far as I can tell, General Motors to not engage the federal government in a contract whereby General Motors provided products or services. It seems, with the exception of your farms example, there was a trade of products or services for cash. That being said, the ultimate reasoning for engaging in those contracts would be similar to the ultimate reason General Motors was bailed out: namely the expenditure of political capital.

Even the farm example is a trade of products or services for cash; the government is paying farmers based on which crops they grow.

And depending on how that political capital is spent, the government can make or break a company.

And as we've seen, depending on how the government reserves that political capital (laws and regulations,) companies that get pretty big and operate without patriotic ethics can make or break the economics of a country.

Yeah, again, I don't disagree with any of that. My beef with you is the CEO salary thing. Which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I'm trying to understand a few things about your problems with and solutions to high CEO salaries. This stuff isn't helping advance that discussion.

I could care less whether you have a "beef" with me or not, but I'll try again.

Government Subsidy DOES advance this thread. Here's how:

The government is already subsidizing many of the industries, many of those already-subsidized industries have grown so big that they have a lot of power, and they're using that power to make themselves richer in ways that undermine the very gov't and country that subsidized them.

How are they doing it? By laying off workers to show massive "profits" that they then take as their OWN salaries, so that one guy, or a handful of guys, are making what they laid off thousands of workers to "gain" for their company.

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Breaking a country by causing its people to starve or go into trillions in debt to prevent them from starving is one f*cked-up way to say "thank you" to the taxpayers who helped many of these companies get big enough to do it in the first place.

GOT IT?

Of course I get it. I got it before. But I'm not sure you get it. You need to reach the next level, which is realizing that NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT GIVES A f*ck! They are not going to do one goddamn thing. Not Obama H. Christ, not Christopher Chris Christie, not Hillary Roadham Clinton. The two groups who could possibly influence the political discourse in this country were marginalized (incorrectly, I might add) as racists (Tea Party) or were marginalized (correctly, I might add) as hypocritical idiots (The Occupy Movement) and we reverted to status quo.

I said this four/five years ago - the government is going to keep bailing out these companies and giving them tax incentives, regulatory incentives, and the like. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican, they're going to do what's best for themselves and that means caving to special interest groups. So you can keep railing against CEOs and that we need to do something. That's great. But it's not going to change by casting a vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I'm not sure it would change if you cast a vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. But don't you think it's time you moved on to the next level and stop with the hand-wringing, teary-eyed, blind (from the tears) support for your beloved politicians who will fight for the little guy? They don't exist anymore. For Odin's sake, we had two grassroots movements in the last four years that dealt with this exact issue and people widely panned both movements and they became ineffective jokes. What else do you expect? What's your endgame.

There were two questions I asked - what is the problem and what do we do? You can't answer the second question, can you?

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

[stahrgazer]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

[PLAYER57832]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

In this country, its mostly CEOs deciding that paying citizen employees decent wages is "too expensive"... along with moving various financial assets offshore to avoid paying taxes and other expenses normally inherent in doing business.

When you have the biggest players neatly avoiding payment, the system is bound to crash. That average people were tossed a few bones to make it seem as if that avoidance largess was being passed around is really a moot point, nothing more than a pawn play in the game.

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

In this country, its mostly CEOs deciding that paying citizen employees decent wages is "too expensive"... along with moving various financial assets offshore to avoid paying taxes and other expenses normally inherent in doing business.

When you have the biggest players neatly avoiding payment, the system is bound to crash. That average people were tossed a few bones to make it seem as if that avoidance largess was being passed around is really a moot point, nothing more than a pawn play in the game.

I didn't ask you because I knew you'd get this wrong.


Go play in the pit with those plastic balls please.

[GBU56]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

I said that was the right to be stupid, not the right to fail. Governments really can't do much for a totally stupid company either, unless they remove the stupid, they only have so much money to throw into the money pit of stupidity. Of course not all companies are completely stupid, so GM had parts that were trying to rise above it all while at the same time the company was trying to sell the garbage that was the Volt.

You can't compare one product 'Volt" and say ,"Lookie here, this company is a failure."

GM was saved by government intervention and now GM is doing fine...thank you.

Volt was a rallying cry against GM for the rightwing neo-cons, since GM has collective bargaining thus a target against Unions.

[GBU56]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

The Depression aka very bad recession aka huge unemployement, was caused by gambling and outright thievery of the mighty Wall Street Banks.

[tzor]

What causes unemployment?

Supply and demand.

Too many workers chasing too few jobs.

[tzor]

GM was saved by government intervention and now GM is doing fine...thank you.

No it is not. The rot is still there; the cancer continues to grow and spread. GM is still dying; it will just take longer now.

[BigBallinStalin]

What causes unemployment?

Supply and demand.

Too many workers chasing too few jobs.

Hey, a surplus!

+100 saxbucks.

But why was there a surplus of workers?