CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if all employees were paid a living wage, would the different prices of different corporate executives become irrelevant?

Yes, as long as the company is still profitable. A unprofitable company will fail, so by definition, that matters.

But as stargazer indicated, the profits must be real and true, not simply gimmicks using government funding or accounting "tricks (moving debt from one entity to another without really paying it off, for example). Also, profit must be long term, not just a matter of months or a single year. Its too easy for companies in today's world to hide real debt and pretend profits when none really exist.

If profit must be long-term, then does this mean that during the onset of the automobile, all horse-and-buggy producers should have had long-term profits?

[caonima]

'and try finding day care for 65 hours. Also, consider what life is like when you wind up working 65 hours, not just on occasion and not with the benefit of coming home to a nice fancy house, money to eat out and go on vacations, but with about the only entertainment you can afford is TV.'

1 - if your children are young enough to need 65 hours of day care, they are preschool. this means that you fairly recently made the poor decision of having children that you are unable to provide care for. this is, however, your responsibility and not your CEO's

2 - i think TGD said he works 65 hours a week, not just 'on occasion'. many people really do work very long weeks, and that is not disproven by the fact that you're putting the keys into your car door every friday at 5:01pm

3 - you assume that having a large house, eating in restaurants and going on vacations (what's that, like 2 weeks a year?) somehow leave people far more content than bumming around and watching tv. a bag of weed can help you find hours of fun in a rock with googly eyes glued on. it's your own fault you're so shallow and materialistic.

[thegreekdog]

The financial houses found new ways to inflate their profits, and that led to the current economic collapse.

How does it involve companies outside of mortagers? They bought the stocks, the Collateralized Debt Obligation packages that went onto the stock market, packages of high-risk loans that got combined with lower-risk loans into a package that went onto the markets as lower-risk, sold, resold, sold again, Mortgage backed Securities - backed by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. That buying/selling which was done outside of legalities (legalities being, someone was supposed to, by law, retain sufficient funds in their bank accounts just in case those debts went default) and the resultant cash paid as bonuses and dividends to the companies involved. NO ONE kept back the funds they were supposed to keep back, which is why when the debts did start going default, the country pretty much went bust... all that money had gotten paid out as additional salaries, bonuses, and stockholder dividends.

In other words, they found another accounting gimmick, exploited that one, too, and who got stuck holding the bag? Again, the taxpayers. Even without the bailouts, the little folk have suffered the most... and WITH the bailouts, that money was frequently used for more salaries, bonuses, and stockholder dividends.

For most of the guys at the top, they created themselves a win-win-win scenario because they had the power to do it.

It's just another example of corporate abuse of power, accounting gimmicks, and f*ck the peons.

I think you're confusing corporate CEOs with financial service providers. They aren't the same thing.

and try finding day care for 65 hours. Also, consider what life is like when you wind up working 65 hours, not just on occasion and not with the benefit of coming home to a nice fancy house, money to eat out and go on vacations, but with about the only entertainment you can afford is TV.

That dollar amount accounts for child care, among other things.

I feel like if thegreekdog was on CC less, he wouldn't have to work so many hours a week.

No shit.

[PLAYER57832]

accounting "tricks (moving debt from one entity to another without really paying it off, for example).

What do you mean by this example? Are you referring to the things that Enron did, which are now completely illegal and for which top executives are now held personally liable, due to the Sarbanes-Oxley act?

I think you're going to have to explain your interpretation and argument on this one Timminz.

My interpretation is that Player doesn't fully understand these supposed "accounting tricks" and the laws regarding them, but I want to give her the chance to clarify her example, rather than just assuming.

Enron were using methods of hiding debt in subsidiary companies, thus inflating the company's perceived value (which is the practice I assume Player was referring to). Shortly following Enron's collapse (as well as a few other huge accounting scandals, like Worldcom), the US passed the Sarbanes-Oxley act which, among other things, requires full consolidation of subsidiary companies (to prevent exactly what Enron had done) and requires that the top executives of public companies sign off personally on the financial statements, meaning they are now personally liable for any fraudulent financial statements, thus removing their ability to hide behind a limited liability corporation when the shit hits the fan.

LOL.. NO ONE fully understands all the accounting tricks. Experts understand some.. and create different games continually.

What I was referring to had nothing to do with Enron. Companies can shift when and where they take profits for tax and other reasons. Greekdog actually gave a decent example some time ago in explaining how international companies pay taxes. He argued it was perfectly reasonable and sensible. A lot of us disagreed.

More directly, there is the whole bit of banks taking bad debt, piling it together into a new named product that suddenly gets great ratings-- mostly because it was not known before.

The point is that you can focus on whatever details.. and they will change almost as soon as they are figured out, folks write new laws, etc, etc. OR you can focus on the bottom line that our system is very unnecessarily complicated and obtuse, because so many people make tons of money in that system.

It even works for a while... but the ultimate truth is that when people are not paid well, they cannot spend well, and that means fewer profits for everyone.

[thegreekdog]

Companies can shift when and where they take profits for tax and other reasons. Greekdog actually gave a decent example some time ago in explaining how international companies pay taxes. He argued it was perfectly reasonable and sensible. A lot of us disagreed.

Hmm... I'm not sure I said it quite like that.

First, there are tax issues and there are accounting issues. These are separate. Tax issues do affect the shareholders, but really only marginally. They mostly affect governments and relative revenues of said governments. Accounting issues affect shareholders in a much more significant way.

First and a half, the point I think you're referring to is that some US companies pay truckloads of taxes in other jurisdictions because that is where they have the majority or most of their operations. If a US company has five facilities in China and one facility in the US, it's going to pay more Chinese taxes than US taxes. Sorry.

Second (and related to stahrgazer), there is a vast difference between the Enron-type accounting scandals and the bubble-bursting investment company stuff. The investment companies aren't really publicly traded entities that do anything other than investment money. It's difficult for me to make them analogous with operating companies for that reason. Therefore, to impugn CEOs because of the activities of rogue financial institutions is not really appropriate.

Third, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the government-created tax scheme in the United States (and elsewhere) invites planning to pay the least taxes. In other words, these companies are paying the least taxes they are permitted to legally pay. In fact, I believe most companies pay more than they legally are required to pay (which is why people like me have jobs). The question you're asking is not "is it legal for Company X to pay the US taxes it pays?" That is not the appropriate question. The appropriate question is - "Is it moral for Company X to pay the US taxes it pays?" And if you have a problem with that, take it up with your elected representatives, not with the company. I highly doubt you pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to pay.

[caonima]

Player: there are mysterious accounting tricks that I don't know but that are definitely helping CEOs avoid paying a living wage

Also, ghosts

[Symmetry]

accounting "tricks (moving debt from one entity to another without really paying it off, for example).

What do you mean by this example? Are you referring to the things that Enron did, which are now completely illegal and for which top executives are now held personally liable, due to the Sarbanes-Oxley act?

I think you're going to have to explain your interpretation and argument on this one Timminz.

My interpretation is that Player doesn't fully understand these supposed "accounting tricks" and the laws regarding them, but I want to give her the chance to clarify her example, rather than just assuming.

Enron were using methods of hiding debt in subsidiary companies, thus inflating the company's perceived value (which is the practice I assume Player was referring to). Shortly following Enron's collapse (as well as a few other huge accounting scandals, like Worldcom), the US passed the Sarbanes-Oxley act which, among other things, requires full consolidation of subsidiary companies (to prevent exactly what Enron had done) and requires that the top executives of public companies sign off personally on the financial statements, meaning they are now personally liable for any fraudulent financial statements, thus removing their ability to hide behind a limited liability corporation when the shit hits the fan.

LOL.. NO ONE fully understands all the accounting tricks. Experts understand some.. and create different games continually.

What I was referring to had nothing to do with Enron. Companies can shift when and where they take profits for tax and other reasons. Greekdog actually gave a decent example some time ago in explaining how international companies pay taxes. He argued it was perfectly reasonable and sensible. A lot of us disagreed.

More directly, there is the whole bit of banks taking bad debt, piling it together into a new named product that suddenly gets great ratings-- mostly because it was not known before.

The point is that you can focus on whatever details.. and they will change almost as soon as they are figured out, folks write new laws, etc, etc. OR you can focus on the bottom line that our system is very unnecessarily complicated and obtuse, because so many people make tons of money in that system.

It even works for a while... but the ultimate truth is that when people are not paid well, they cannot spend well, and that means fewer profits for everyone.

Aye, one of the interesting things I read about the Enron case (and I appreciate that this is Timminz' example), was that it was so difficult to pin down, even for the Enron executives. What was presented to the court was (if I remember correctly) a summary of a summary of a summary of what Enron was doing, and that still ran to thousands of pages.

[Timminz]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

[BigBallinStalin]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

You gotta go one question at a time over several weeks. It's slow, but eventually you can stump her.

[Symmetry]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

You gotta go one question at a time over several weeks. It's slow, but eventually you can stump her.

Or you can argue over time and get a thread calling for your death, eh, BBS? Ah, wait, that ain't a Player tactic. Who was it who pulled that one?

[BigBallinStalin]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

You gotta go one question at a time over several weeks. It's slow, but eventually you can stump her.

Or you can argue over time and get a thread calling for your death, eh, BBS?

It's not my fault if the public chooses cake. You'll have to file a complaint against the ConquerClubbers who preferred the greater good.

[Symmetry]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

You gotta go one question at a time over several weeks. It's slow, but eventually you can stump her.

Or you can argue over time and get a thread calling for your death, eh, BBS? Ah, wait, that ain't a Player tactic. Who was it who pulled that one?

It's not my fault if the public chooses cake. You'll have to file a complaint against the ConquerClubbers who preferred the greater good.

Even for a pretend economist, you show poor taste.

[stahrgazer]

I think you're confusing corporate CEOs with financial service providers. They aren't the same thing.

1) Wrong, many financial service providers are companies that have corporate CEOs.
2) Wrong, I said quite clearly, many non-financial-service companies invested, via wall street, in those questionable CDOs and participated in the buying/selling/repackaging of them.
3) Wrong, as I've mentioned before, many CEOs of one company are on the boards of directors of other companies, including financial service provider companies.
4) Wrong. It's just another example of "money-power used unethically to the detriment of the country." As I'd said.

[BigBallinStalin]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

You gotta go one question at a time over several weeks. It's slow, but eventually you can stump her.

Or you can argue over time and get a thread calling for your death, eh, BBS? Ah, wait, that ain't a Player tactic. Who was it who pulled that one?

It's not my fault if the public chooses cake. You'll have to file a complaint against the ConquerClubbers who preferred the greater good.

Even for a pretend economist, you show poor taste.

I can't help it if I enjoy the company of women, my friend. Tastes are subjective!

[thegreekdog]

I think you're confusing corporate CEOs with financial service providers. They aren't the same thing.

1) Wrong, many financial service providers are companies that have corporate CEOs.
2) Wrong, I said quite clearly, many non-financial-service companies invested, via wall street, in those questionable CDOs and participated in the buying/selling/repackaging of them.
3) Wrong, as I've mentioned before, many CEOs of one company are on the boards of directors of other companies, including financial service provider companies.
4) Wrong. It's just another example of "money-power used unethically to the detriment of the country." As I'd said.

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.

[Symmetry]

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

Ah the quintessential TGD argument.

[thegreekdog]

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

Ah the quintessential TGD argument.

Ah the quintessential Symmetry response.

[Symmetry]

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

Ah the quintessential TGD argument.

Ah the quintessential Symmetry response.

As the French say- touch.

[PLAYER57832]

Never in my life before this have I seen, "LOL I have no idea what I'm talking about", act as an effective argument. Somehow, it works here though.


I'm done. Player wins.

I see, you pick a 30 year old example, an example that people are still tangling out, and use it to dispute my claim that firms are using multiple techniques, inventing methods to avoid honest profit and loss reports....

And then go off as if you have actually made a statement?

I gave you a pretty good and well understood example, by-teh-way... the much more recent mortgage crisis, which was very much created by banks doing what can very loosely be called "accouting tricks", but are more often thought of by average people ast just plain fraud and cheating. Trouble is, none of those frauds and cheats, not a single one has been indicted, never mind convicted. Most walked off with hefty bonuses.

And none of that explains what is wrong with someone working hard 40 plus hours a day at a job someone apparently needs to have done, expecting to be able to just live without government assistance in return for that labor.

OR why such a thought generates such derision from so many people who seem to think they ought to have to pay fewer taxes, should not have to support worthless non-working people.


Yeah, its find to talk about companies being held accountable in a purely esoteric sense.... but apparently, just not when it comes to real details. THAT kind of responsibility is only for poor people who are too stupid to make reasonable choices for themselves.

[stahrgazer]

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.

Whether I read through the entire thread to answer stuff I've probably already answered, but you're too blind to see; or whether I don't...

"Just another example," implies similarity, not differences.

There's not much difference between the CEO of GE and the chairman of GS. GE is undermining small businesses by becoming a multiglomerate and taking alot of its manufacturing OUTSIDE the United States, which small businesses cannot compete with. GE became able to do this primarily because of taxpayers and government-awarded contracts and in return, is making its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there, just as the chairman of GS made its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there. In both examples, the taxpayers were left holding the bag, and in both examples, the companies are f*g the American businesses and workers.

It's like this, dearie: Blue and red may be different along the light spectrum, but they both fit somewhere on that spectrum; just as GS and GE may produce different products, but they both conduct practices that undermine rather than support what made them great, and what made this country great.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if all employees were paid a living wage, would the different prices of different corporate executives become irrelevant?

Yes, as long as the company is still profitable. A unprofitable company will fail, so by definition, that matters.

But as stargazer indicated, the profits must be real and true, not simply gimmicks using government funding or accounting "tricks (moving debt from one entity to another without really paying it off, for example). Also, profit must be long term, not just a matter of months or a single year. Its too easy for companies in today's world to hide real debt and pretend profits when none really exist.

If profit must be long-term, then does this mean that during the onset of the automobile, all horse-and-buggy producers should have had long-term profits?

HEY-OHH!!!

Where's teh answer?

[thegreekdog]

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.

Whether I read through the entire thread to answer stuff I've probably already answered, but you're too blind to see; or whether I don't...

"Just another example," implies similarity, not differences.

There's not much difference between the CEO of GE and the chairman of GS. GE is undermining small businesses by becoming a multiglomerate and taking alot of its manufacturing OUTSIDE the United States, which small businesses cannot compete with. GE became able to do this primarily because of taxpayers and government-awarded contracts and in return, is making its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there, just as the chairman of GS made its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there. In both examples, the taxpayers were left holding the bag, and in both examples, the companies are f*g the American businesses and workers.

Right... and what's the point again? It appears that the shareholder of General Electric are content with this situation. Furthermore, and more relevant to our current conversation (see the subject of the thread?), your great diatribe here does not have anything to do with CEO salaries, corporate power and employees.

It's like this, dearie: Blue and red may be different along the light spectrum, but they both fit somewhere on that spectrum; just as GS and GE may produce different products, but they both conduct practices that undermine rather than support what made them great, and what made this country great.

Dearie?

In the context of CEO salaries, corporate power, and employees, there are very stark differences between GE and Goldman. I doubt there are many Goldman employees complaining about their salaries. I doubt the CEO of GE is very concerned about the financial derivatives.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you're confusing corporate CEOs with financial service providers. They aren't the same thing.

1) Wrong, many financial service providers are companies that have corporate CEOs.
2) Wrong, I said quite clearly, many non-financial-service companies invested, via wall street, in those questionable CDOs and participated in the buying/selling/repackaging of them.
3) Wrong, as I've mentioned before, many CEOs of one company are on the boards of directors of other companies, including financial service provider companies.
4) Wrong. It's just another example of "money-power used unethically to the detriment of the country." As I'd said.

Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.

The REAL bottom line is that to the average employee in the US, it really doesn't matter, nor should it.. any more than it really matters in your day-to-day life whether a person is a zoologist or a wildlife biologist. Both should use credible science, come up with credible data.

Whether you call yourself a CEO, a financial service provider executive or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that rules are structured so that folks dealing with lots of money and who benefit the most from various transactions are the same ones who set the rules, who even pretty well decide what is taught in business schools, economic theory.

Meanwhile, most people just want to do their job, do it well and get paid for their hard work, without having to play a lot of gimmics, spend tons of money to hire someone to make sure they are not cheated financially or otherwise.

When you want to claim that working 40 hours a week doesn't entitle someone to have a house and feed their family, then it pretty much seems like you are talking about the 1900's or some other country... not the great US of A.

[stahrgazer]

Dearie?

In the context of CEO salaries, corporate power, and employees, there are very stark differences between GE and Goldman. I doubt there are many Goldman employees complaining about their salaries. I doubt the CEO of GE is very concerned about the financial derivatives.

You can doubt all you like, but you'd be inaccurate.

Goldman Sachs Reacts To Poor Quarter With 1,000 Planned Layoffs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 03791.html

GE Bond Fund Investors Cash Out After Losses From Subprime
Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A short-term bond fund run by General Electric Co.'s GE Asset Management returned money to investors at 96 cents on the dollar after losing about $200 million, mostly on mortgage-backed securities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 7C32asHxJw

Meanwhile:

Not very recently but in a couple of weeks or so we're due to get another raise. GE wants us to forgo any raises until the next contract in (I think)2011.
That's what I suspect this meeting is about. If we don't give up our raises, they may put us all on a 32 hour work week.
Not only will that reduce our wages but it will make us inelligible for supplemental pay that helps make up wages when you're laid off.
BTW, Jeff Immelt CEO of GE gave up his bonus in 2008.(it was $3,300,000 the previous year) Between salary, stock awards, deferred earnings etc he still made $14,096,603 in 2008. In other words he made more in one quarter than any of us will make in our lifetime. Poor baby.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/erie-pa ... KL7L16N0VA

CTJ Report: General Electric Paid 2.3% Federal Taxes on $81 Billion Profit

General Electric paid just 2.3 percent in federal taxes over the last decade, despite earning more than $81 billion in profits over that..
February 29, 2012 with 0 Comments
GENERAL ELECTRIC MADE $14.2 BILLION PROFIT IN 2010; PAID $0.00 IN TAXES
GENERAL ELECTRIC MADE $14.2 BILLION PROFIT IN 2010; PAID $0.00 IN TAXES

General Electric (GE) corporation earned $14,200,000,000 in profits in 2010, but for the second year in a row paid absolutely no federal..

http://morallowground.com/tag/ge-layoffs/

[thegreekdog]

GE doesn't care about financial derivatives

Goldman Sachs lays off some people which is proof that GE does care about financial derivatives.

Wrong company dearie. Try again.

GE loses $200 million on mortgage-backed securities.

There you go! Nice work. Now you need to prove that $200 million is enough for GE to care about AND that GE cares more about it than other companies AND that GE's corporate officers' salaries are influenced by decisions related to mortgage-backed securities. I'm sure you can get your professor to help you.

In 2011, GE forces people to work 32 hours a week to pay them less and not give them supplemental pay when they are laid off. CEO makes $14 million in salary, stock awards, and deferred earnings in 2008.

Other than the fact that the dates are three years apart (and the major portion is from two years ago) and other than the fact that stock awards and deferred earnings probably make up 95% to 99% of that $14 million, it's disturbing. So what? What contributes to this and what do you think we should do about it? Two questions you have yet to answer.

GE paid 2.3% federal taxes on $81 billion of profit.

The same bogus fact that keeps being brought up again and again and again by ignorant media members. How much of those profits were earned in the United States? How much of those profits were earned overseas? How much tax did GE pay overseas? Is this "problem" of GE not paying enough US taxes indicative of GE doing something wrong; if the answer is yes, please explain exactly what GE is doing wrong and how you propose to fix it?