quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: They are nothing but glorified paper pushers.

And it is this bizarre fallacy that is spawning this disasterous blood letting.

Bill Walsh was just a glorified coach I suppose?
Winston Churchill just a glorfied bureaucrat?
Alexander just a glorifed soldier?

Leadership has its rewards. And those rewards are necessarily high. Did all 32 NFL head coaches win the superbowl? Of course not, only one can. But do we fire the other 31 for not winning? Are they all not worth their big paychecks? You guy keep focusing on the Wanye Fonts of the world as if every non Superbowl winner coach is just as inept. The cost is this, if you were to drag down the pay to the lowest common denominator then you will get what you pay for; BAD FOOTBALL! Because the Tom Landrys and Bill Walshs and Mike Tomlins of the world would not put up with the work load for less than they get.

Societies get better by RAISING the bar for all Americans, not lowering it. Instead of putting down wealthy CEOs and dragging them down to our level we should be working to be more like them and raise ourselves to theirs! This is why America won the cold war. Because you will get more out of people with the promise of rewards for success rather than the sanction of punishment for failure. But liberals will never learn this single most DUH concept of human motivation.

This is a sad day for America, for freedom, and for the rights of man. I'm blown away that ANYONE is celebrating this move.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And it is this bizarre fallacy that is spawning this disasterous blood letting. Bill Walsh was just a glorified coach I suppose? Winston Churchill just a glorfied bureaucrat? Alexander just a glorifed soldier? Leadership has its rewards. And those rewards are necessarily high. Did all 32 NFL head coaches win the superbowl? Of course not, only one can. But do we fire the other 31 for not winning? Are they all not worth their big paychecks? You guy keep focusing on the Wanye Fonts of the world as if every non Superbowl winner coach is just as inept. The cost is this, if you were to drag down the pay to the lowest common denominator then you will get what you pay for; BAD FOOTBALL! Because the Tom Landrys and Bill Walshs and Mike Tomlins of the world would put up with the work load for less than they get. Societies get better by RAISING the bar for all Americans, not lowering it. Instead of putting down wealthy CEOs and dragging them down to our level we should be working to be more like them and raise ourselves to theirs! This is why America won the cold war. Because you will get more out of people with the promise of rewards for success rather than the sanction of punishment for failure. But liberals will never learn this single most DUH concept of human motivation. This is a sad day for America, for freedom, and for the rights of man. I'm blown away that ANYONE is celebrating this move.

Just shows you the power of the media to manipulate the masses.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well - either way - so what? current history clearly shows that pay & quality CEOs are NOT in ANY WAY associated.

If I lived in Michigan I would probably have to agree with you. Your state is a catastrophe at all levels but mostly with your government.

But here in the Bay Area I know plenty of CEOs who are amazing inspirations to me. Like any random group of people you find there are a fair number of good and bad. But the press has been focuses on the VERY small number of bad CEOs. It has the effect of making people think all CEOs are inept, much like the Nazis made Jews look like criminals. If you hear an exaggeration often enough you are likely to think it is the norm.

I don't see how you alone can decide your worth. The market decides your worth. If we look at it that way their salaires were hyper inflated worse then the houses in the housing market.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I don't see how you alone can decide your worth. The market decides your worth. If we look at it that way their salaires were hyper inflated worse then the houses in the housing market.

Cant argue with that one, in many cases the market was skewed.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I don't see how you alone can decide your worth. The market decides your worth. If we look at it that way their salaires were hyper inflated worse then the houses in the housing market.

The market decides what it is willing to pay for a particular good or service. But if the market value is not a reasonable value proposition for me then I can choose not to do the work.

for example, the market has decided that burger flippers are worth about $4/hour (let's forget the min wage for a moment, that is a WHOLE other rant). So if I want to flip burgers for a living I will have to live with the wage the market is willing to pay or do something else. well, I have more skills, education, and ambition in my life so I choose not to be a burger flipper. BUT if I was a burger flipper and Mr. Obama randomly decided that I was only worth $3/hour then I would expect lots of American burger eaters would LOVE the decision. YEAH! cheaper burgers! oops, half the burger flippers just quit syaing, "I can get $4 for sweeping floors at the local auto parts store, I'm outta here". What do you think will happen to burger quality after that? Or burger availability (supply)? What would happen to the beef industry? The bread industry? Etc.

With a waive of his hand Obama just ****ed the American economy.

well, it is quite clear you are worth anything you can get. well, except farmers. they are not allowed to withhold their services, are they? because they are to important. the single most important people on earth. yet, are they paid as such? of course not. no matter how much anyone cries about "free market" - it aint. it cannot be. or we would all be farmers. because as important as your banks & cars are - they aint squat next to 3 squares a day. we are not allowed to "win" - only compete. we've seen what happens when the compititon is won - everyone loses.

what was microsoft in court for? why did cicuit city fail? what happened to the phone company(s)?

the motivation speech is nice & pretty and all - but it is horsecrap. I dont think our nation could survive if we were all CEO's. the crap shovelers are needed. but, they surely are not paid as if we need them, are they?

it is not what you do - it is who you do it for.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, it is quite clear you are worth anything you can get. well, except farmers. they are not allowed to withhold their services, are they? because they are to important. the single most important people on earth. yet, are they paid as such? of course not.

Of course not? Are you kidding? Farmers are the richest people in America. How do you think they can afford $300,000 combines?

quote what was microsoft in court for?

Suppressing competition. It is one thing to make a better mouse trap. It is another to try to drive someone out of business who is trying to take your market share by building a better mouse trap.

quote why did cicuit city fail?

Crappy customer service. They are extinct like thousands of other failed companies that provide the fertilizer for newer and better companies.

quote what happened to the phone company(s)?

Technology. It was easy when all you had was an exchange and a bunch of wires. Now you have satellites, cell towers, texting, video imaging, etc. New technology and new competition makes things hectic and always will. get used to it.

quote the motivation speech is nice & pretty and all - but it is horsecrap.

It's not a motivation speech. It's reality. And it's fair. Is there cronyism? Hell yes! So how do you deal with it? WITH YOUR WALLET! Don't tell CEOs what they can earn. If you don't like them don't buy their goods! THAT is how you tell them to take a hike.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, it is quite clear you are worth anything you can get. well, except farmers. they are not allowed to withhold their services, are they?

They are *paid* to withhold.. i cant quote the examples but some are paid not to grow.

I see your point Toddster but it is a rare instance, I gues I don't know how great these Ceo's are or if they are pandered to their every whim. Withholding your service for more pay only applies to few who appear so good they cannot be replaced. These days it would be hard to find another job after you refuse one or get dismissed. Contracts I am sure play a role in all that.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: They are *paid* to withhold.. i cant quote the examples but some are paid not to grow.

yes - which is more of what I was saying. because if left to the free market - food costs would be endlessly chaotic.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I see your point Toddster but it is a rare instance, I gues I don't know how great these Ceo's are or if they are pandered to their every whim. Withholding your service for more pay only applies to few who appear so good they cannot be replaced. These days it would be hard to find another job after you refuse one or get dismissed. Contracts I am sure play a role in allt that.

Most of the CEO's I know are not driven by money. Oh yeah, they want the perks of the job but they are mostly ambitious men who are drive to succeed. They want to grow their companies and create an endurable legacy more than anything else. Driving a company into the ground is hardly what they want to be remembered for. They all want to be like a Jack Welsh or a Lee Iaccoca. Just a personal observation.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Most of the CEO's I know are not driven by money. Oh yeah, they want the perks of the job but they are mostly ambitious men who are drive to succeed. They want to grow their companies and create an endurable legacy more than anything else. Driving a company into the ground is hardly what they want to be remembered for. They all want to be like a Jack Welsh or a Lee Iaccoca. Just a personal observation.

I have seen both. Most of the time the ones that didn't care are one that were not around when the company was formed. They fly in, 'save money' with unsustainable actions and move on before reality hits, while leaving what is left to fall apart and go under.

And i have seen ones that were there from the beginning that gave the shirt off their back to try to save the company.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Most of the CEO's I know are not driven by money. Oh yeah, they want the perks of the job but they are mostly ambitious men who are drive to succeed. They want to grow their companies and create an endurable legacy more than anything else. Driving a company into the ground is hardly what they want to be remembered for. They all want to be like a Jack Welsh or a Lee Iaccoca. Just a personal observation.

yup, and I agree with this. but, the few I know are also on the smaller business end.

so, now - how does this statement apply to:
"Good luck finding quality CEOs now to turn those loser firms into profit centers again. Yeah, real smart move Mr. President."

it seems there would be plenty of good ambitous driven folk who see the potential of getting paid 1/2 million/year + stocks and then make them stocks worth $$$ again.

especially since we need how many?

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 02-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well - either way - so what? current history clearly shows that pay & quality CEOs are NOT in ANY WAY associated.

It isn't just for CEO's.

There is NOT a direct correlation between performance AND ALSO for actual value provided to society; and pay.


It seems that this fact is bothering some people. Some of you want a solution.


Here is where the large divergence begins.

Some of you actually WANT the GOVERNMENT to "solve" this.

This would be the SAME GOVERNMENT that decided that turning corn into ethanol would help make us a better country. Just for one example.

So you WANT the government to step into PRIVATELY OWNED businesses, and to TELL them what they can do. That would violate the constitution and private ownership. But you want them to do that. Because you don't like this inequity between value to society and pay.


Wow. What have we become as a people when we look to the government to solve our problems? What is wrong with you people? I thought you were Americans. I thought you lived in the land of the free.


Again, this particular case doesn't apply because if it is a government loan, then it isn't violating the private company's freedom by putting conditions on a loan.


But the conversation has focused on some definitely wrong things in society, and you are calling for the government to violate the constitution to "fix" them.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, now - how does this statement apply to: "Good luck finding quality CEOs now to turn those loser firms into profit centers again. Yeah, real smart move Mr. President."

Even the most ambitious man doesn't work for free. No one is a slave.

You really need to read Atlas Shrugged.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: It isn't just for CEO's. There is NOT a direct correlation between performance AND ALSO for actual value provided to society; and pay. It seems that this fact is bothering some people. Some of you want a solution. Here is where the large divergence begins. Some of you actually WANT the GOVERNMENT to "solve" this. This would be the SAME GOVERNMENT that decided that turning corn into ethanol would help make us a better country. Just for one example. So you WANT the government to step into PRIVATELY OWNED businesses, and to TELL them what they can do. That would violate the constitution and private ownership. But you want them to do that. Because you don't like this inequity between value to society and pay. Wow. What have we become as a people when we look to the government to solve our problems? What is wrong with you people? I thought you were Americans. I thought you lived in the land of the free. Again, this particular case doesn't apply because if it is a government loan, then it isn't violating the private company's freedom by putting conditions on a loan. But the conversation has focused on some definitely wrong things in society, and you are calling for the government to violate the constitution to "fix" them.

lol - true - we should just revolt, rob them, and then start the same thing all over again.......because this is such a new problem......

I am just looking for refinement of a pretty decent system. probably the best in existance. like every "system" - there are problems & abusers.
I dont like the idea that ANY corporation can get to the size where it threatens the nation. and that is where we are right now.

I seriously think more attention needs to be paid to how much the people who are suppose to represent the general public yet make on average 2 to 3 times more than the average person they are suppose to be representing. Can people who make between $174,000 to $223,500 a year has any real idea what the majority of people in this country have to deal with right now? And those salaries of Congress members does not include the side deals they find themselves in the position to take advantage of that makes a lot of them millionaires. I have a lot less problem with private companies doing what private companies do and a lot more problem with how the Government constantly f%&$# people out of their money. The Government had a whole lot more to do with the current mess we are in than anyone specifically the currently seated Congress.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: 1/2 mil/yer is working for free? + potential stock if you are as good as you think? and, sorry - if not already apparant - not a big reader

Is making burgers for $3/hr working for free? Once again, you do not decide what someone is worth. The market decides. When you interfere with the market process you drag quality and supply down. It may satisfy your short term sense of "equity" but YOU don't have the right to decide what is equitable. Consumers do, with their wallets. If you think the CEO makes too much then don't buy their products. And if everyone else agrees they won't buy his products either. CEO get's fired for driving the business into the ground. Everybody is happy.

Under a Free market... yes. Nobody is complaining about Apple's CEO Steve Jobs earning his pay. That dude is worth his weight in gold and the company is doing pretty good even though the stock took a hit. However, TARP money is a different story. How so?

1. The top executives failed. No foresight into the future of the company.

2. The top executives took-on risky ventures and the company paid heavily for it.

3. Stock falling.

4. Massive lay-offs.

5. TARP money = Govenment owned that is loaned by the tax payers of America.


Are [we] as Americans are saying that the CEO who recieved TARP money are worth the same as those CEO who haven't recieved TARP money and whose company are still afloat? Since when did [we] start paying CEO for failure?

If my child comes home after learning that life isn't a bowl of cherries and is now asking for a handout, telling me what type of lavish car she wants to drive at my expense, and spending my money...... we have a problem. This is exactly what's happening with these top executives.

The only thing wrong with this picture is. Congress should've placed these types of restrictions from the start. Who knew they would sign a blank check w/o first having some type of rules to follow. Otherwise, it would’ve been better that they all filed for bankruptcy.

Nice job Obama..
You've stirred up the class warfare pot and managed to deflect where and what was the cause of most of this mess.

Democrat policies put in place during the Clinton years. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd propping up their buddies at Freddie and Fannie. Pelosi and the Dem controlled house blocking any legislation that would have reigned in the problem before it got out of hand.

The market works, but not when politicians get involved and try and make all things "fair"

Again.. I challenge each and everyone one of you to find me in the Constitution where it's spelled out that life is fair.
We have the freedom to change our lives and our lot in it. But nobody ever said it was going to be easy or fair.

Why aren't you guys ticked about Bud Selig, commissioner of Major League Baseball?

Know what he made in 2007.

SEVENTEEN million dollars.


I never did get an answer why you guys aren't asking Obama to put a limit on what athlete's and movie "stars" can make.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And if they don't WANT to be paid in stock? They have kids to put through college too. They need financial security. Why would anyone worth his salt NOT negotiate the best pay he can get? Sorry Gents. No sale. And as for the "percentage" I get paid, that is negotiated too. For some people and deals I will for 1%. For others, 10%. I reserve the right to walk from any opportunity if the pay doesn't suit my sense of reasonable compensation for the work effort I will expend. So why should a CEO be any different? I know this petty and irresponsible move by Obama satisfies the masses. Cut down 'dem tall poppies! But it destroys the free market concept. I ALONE decide what I am worth, not you! If the corporate owners of some companies are stupid enough to pay a fortune to an incompetent CEO then that is the gamble they take as investors. They could vote him off the board or sell their stock. When I buy stock the first thing I do is check out the managment. If I am not satisfied then I don't buy. Like I said, good luck finding quality CEO until this changes.

But unlike these guys if you do not sell the property you do not get paid.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Of course not? Are you kidding? Farmers are the richest people in America. How do you think they can afford $300,000 combines?

Please tell me that this was sarcasm.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: But those POOR executive deserve all those million dollar salaries because, They are the ones who made all that money for the company. YA RIGHT. I see nothing wrong with a CEO making money even 10 times what his lowest paid employee makes. But when they get 100, 200 or 300 times that it is just outrageous. They are nothing but a glorified paper pusher. I say let them eat what they make. If the company makes money then they should, If the company loses money on their watch then they should lose money.

i agree this is what i seriousley dont get. thoes paper pushers in the offices do hard thinking i will grant them that but its the actual working man that brings the whole thing to life. the welders the fabracaters mechanics so on and so forth that carry ther company. for instance the job i used to work at a sign/ sheet metal company everyone in the office made enough to support a whole family 60k plus a year and all they did was go out to a site take mesurments and do paperwork for the job while sitting in a nice heated/ air conditioned enviroment. where as me and all the crane operators would go to the site prep it wire it and install and erect a sign fixture. doing so would involve working in tough and sometimes unsafe conditions operation of heavy equipment and lineing of high voltage power sources. i wasent to good with the wire work but when it came to crane work and heavy equipment operation i was one of the best and i bearley made 20k a year. seems like the same thing with big business now i feel that they think they can get away with paying the grunt workers low end and there the real workers of an industrey.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Why aren't you guys ticked about Bud Selig, commissioner of Major League Baseball? Know what he made in 2007. SEVENTEEN million dollars. I never did get an answer why you guys aren't asking Obama to put a limit on what athlete's and movie "stars" can make.

That is a sport, not something you have no choice in if you pay for it. If you want to pay the ticket price you are accepting the price and their salary.

The bankers are not anything like that. You have to pay them. Or you don’t get that new car, house or other high dollar purchase.

Not everyone can save enough to buy that new car every year, or new house every time they want to move to keep working.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Not everyone can save enough to buy that new car every year, or new house every time they want to move to keep working.

So do bankers put a gun to the head of these people and make them take out loans and buy the services they offer?

Of course they don’t.

People CHOOSE to buy a new car on credit and not buy a clunker or use mass transit. People CHOOSE to buy a house and not to rent. Just the same as people CHOOSE to go to a ball game.

People have free will.

Nobody is entitled to a new car or a new house or much anything else. This is/was a free society where we are allowed to CHOOSE.

quote Originally posted by Bullet: So do bankers put a gun to the head of these people and make them take out loans and buy the services they offer? Of course they don’t. People CHOOSE to buy a new car on credit and not buy a clunker or use mass transit. People CHOOSE to buy a house and not to rent. Just the same as people CHOOSE to go to a ball game. People have free will. Nobody is entitled to a new car or a new house or much anything else. This is/was a free society where we are allowed to CHOOSE.

And no CEO is entitled to a multimillion dollar salary when his company is going bankrupt.

And no banker is entitled to a million dollar salary when they lose your life savings.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: And no CEO is entitled to a multimillion dollar salary when his company is going bankrupt. And no banker is entitled to a million dollar salary when they lose your life savings. Steve

They are if the contract they signed says they are.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: And no CEO is entitled to a multimillion dollar salary when his company is going bankrupt. And no banker is entitled to a million dollar salary when they lose your life savings. Steve

In a free market economy it is not up to you or I to decide and dictate what these CEOs and bankers are entitled to.

They’re entitled to what ever the principles of the company agree to pay them. The only part we play is choosing to do business with these companies or not.

If a struggling company chooses to pay a CEO a ridiculous salary and bonus they should go bankrupt and if allowed to they will.

The banker did not loose my life savings. I lost my life savings. If I CHOOSE to do business with a banker there is always a risk that I will loose.

You can be the VICTIM or take responsibility for your choices and actions. It seems to me that so many today CHOOSE to be a victim.

I think that this may all come down to the pay for executives vs. "the little guy".
Below is a chart that diagrams the payscale increase / decrease for both since 1990. It retty much speaks for itself.
Yeah, I am jealous and want to make that kind of money, (and plan on doing it in the future), but when you look at the disparity between the two, it is just outrageous.

I am in the pink line, (now unemployed since September, not much hope in my industry, yeah, I am changing careers at age 56), the CEO's are the dark blue line.
My pay (if I still had a job), has increased 4.3%, CEO's pay increased considerably more.

"With great risk comes great reward". What eveyone does not seem to connect is that when a CEO takes that great risk, all of the people under that CEO are also taking that risk, like it or not, but not sharing in the great reward.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: They are if the contract they signed says they are.

So let me get this straight,

A CEO’s contract is iron clad, can not be broken,
But a union contract can be broken.
Sounds to me like only those with money matter.
Also sounds like a double standard.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: So let me get this straight, A CEO’s contract is iron clad, can not be broken, But a union contract can be broken. Sounds to me like only those with money matter. Also sounds like a double standard. Steve

Union contracts are renegotiated not broken. Just like a company can renegotiate a CEO contract. No double standard at all.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Union contracts are renegotiated not broken. Just like a company can renegotiate a CEO contract. No double standard at all.

So the governments making auto manufacturers change union contracts is a renegotiation.

But them Changing a CEO’s contract is not?

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: So the governments making auto manufacturers change union contracts is a renegotiation. But them Changing a CEO’s contract is not?

Last I checked the union didn't give up anything to help the auto companies become solvent but the CEOs did. In fact the feds asked the unions to give up things and simply told the CEOs they will give things up. I'm sure you won't understand that slight difference.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Last I checked the union didn't give up anything to help the auto companies become solvent but the CEOs did. In fact the feds asked the unions to give up things and simply told the CEOs they will give things up. I'm sure you won't understand that slight difference.

No the government told them they must both take pay cuts in order to get loans.

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: No the government told them they must both take pay cuts in order to get loans.

No they asked the union. And the union said no. There are threads about it. I'm your good little toady ass was in them saying it was all managements fault and the unions don't have to give up anything.

Here try this out. Find me exactly what the UAW gave up to make the big 3 solvent. I bet you find nothing. I'm sure I can find that POS union leader telling the world how the union will give up nothing more because it already gave up enough.

Stop being a toady tool and for once think for your self and use things called facts.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: No they asked the union. And the union said no. There are threads about it. I'm your good little toady ass was in them saying it was all managements fault and the unions don't have to give up anything. Here try this out. Find me exactly what the UAW gave up to make the big 3 solvent. I bet you find nothing. I'm sure I can find that POS union leader telling the world how the union will give up nothing more because it already gave up enough. Stop being a toady tool and for once think for your self and use things called facts.

why should they? they are doing their jobs.
are the cars built? yup. OK.
it seems perfectly fair that those who screwed up take the heat.