CEO Pay Disclosures Coming Soon?

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
louisehartmann
louisehartmann's picture

Could we be seeing executive pay disclosures soon? An amendment to the financial reform bill, introduced by Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would require all U.S. companies to disclose, for the first time, the gap between what they pay their CEO on an annual basis and what they pay their average workers.  Up until now this information has been very hard to find out.  Let's hope this amendment makes it through the process and becomes part of the final law.  For example, John Stumpf, the CEO of the bailed-out Wells Fargo bank, made over $21 million last year.  That one year income to Stumpf would take the average US worker 665 years to earn.  If Menendez's amendment makes it through, we'll know this statistic for every CEO. 

Here're a few stats. The amount hedge fund manager John Paulson paid Goldman Sachs in 2007 to create and market an investment vehicle based on mortgages Paulson knew would fail is $15 million. The amount a just filed federal fraud case against Goldman says investors in that vehicle eventually lost is over $1 billion. The amount Paulson personally profited from by betting the investment would fail is $1 billion. The amount Paulson donated in 2007 to Center for Responsible Lending to help victims of predatory mortgage loans is $15 million. The amount Paulson spent in 2008 to buy a Southampton vacation home is $41 million.  And his maximum tax rate for his billions of income as a hedge fund manager?  15 percent, with not a penny paid against most of that toward Social Security or Medicare.  After all, only the little people pay payroll taxes.

Comments

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
It's time to mandate what

It's time to mandate what these guys can earn. There's no point to allowing anyone to earn that kind of money for managing money. Also, financialization should be constrained to prohibit innovation, such as creating "investment vehicles". All financialization is is legal gambling, in which the players create the games and rules for their benefit because "investment" in normal production doesn't provide the yields that the greedy require.

slabmaster
Should someone mandate what

Should someone mandate what everyone earns?

Who decides how much is too much and what source of income is worthy?

louisehartmann
louisehartmann's picture
Perhaps...40 to one I would

Perhaps...40 to one I would think at the most. The top person makes no more than 40 times the lowest paid worker. That's the way it used to be largely.

slabmaster
louisehartmann

louisehartmann wrote:

Perhaps...40 to one I would think at the most. The top person makes no more than 40 times the lowest paid worker. That's the way it used to be largely.

How could anyone decide that 40x is "fair" in all businesses though?

I have a part time person that works around her school schedule. She earns about $6,400/year. It is what she wants and chooses and it provides what is needed for us. A couple days per week at most doing mostly marketing assistant functions. 

As the CEO, I would be regulated by a politician to a cap of $256,000/year using the 40/1 scale. What is my incentive to own, operate, and run both businesses if my wages are capped at $256K? 

Would this 40/1 scale apply to my employees also? I have people in sales and production that are compensated by what they produce (as am I). How should I tell them they can never earn over a certain amount based on the lowest denominator. Say it's 20/1 and they are all limited to $126K. I would lose my best talent tomorrow.

I don't understand how one job skill's compensation can be based off of the entry level. Why strive and sacrifice to do more when you bound and gagged by a beurocrat lawmakers idea of fairness? Lumping all CEO's into the fringe Wallstreet money changers compensation complaint won't work.

louisehartmann
louisehartmann's picture
No worries Slab - I just

No worries Slab - I just meant it as a top number - no more than 40 to 1 - CEOs could take less than 40 to 1 if needed. I don't think money is nor should be the primary motivator in starting a business . Btw - 40 to 1 is pretty good and was the rule of thumb for many many years in this county and people in Europe - by in large - still follow.  The "Greed is Good" motto that many companies have adopted as their vision is not working....

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Should someone mandate

Quote:
Should someone mandate what everyone earns?

Sure, their boss maybe. If the person doesn't like it, then that person can shop his or her skills around.

Quote:
Who decides how much is too much and what source of income is worthy?

Oh! I see, you're all worried about those financial guys. They don't do anything and probably shouldn't. Financialization is the ruin of a nation as it produces nothing. Financial markets should be strictly regulated and pay to those running financial companies strictly controlled. Oh, and corporate boards and CEOs should have their pay tied to that of their average employees because they do nothing and produce nothing.

slabmaster
louisehartmann wrote: No

louisehartmann wrote:

No worries Slab - I just meant it as a top number - no more than 40 to 1 - CEOs could take less than 40 to 1 if needed. I don't think money is nor should be the primary motivator in starting a business . Btw - 40 to 1 is pretty good and was the rule of thumb for many many years in this county and people in Europe - by in large - still follow.  The "Greed is Good" motto that many companies have adopted as their vision is not working....

As in my example, my wages would be capped at $256K using a 40/1 measure. My objection is having a beaurocrat dictate my wages based on an entry level part time employee. What gives anyone the right to dictate my wages to me in the company that I own? Can I dictate your wages to you?

I think there are many motivators for starting a business. Mine was freedom of financial constraints and freedom to rise to my abilities constraints imposed on me by my employers. It was their choice and mine was that I wasn't satisfied. I felt I could do more, earn more, and provide more, by doing my own thing and having control of decision making that affected me. It was and is very much about freedom. It is what sets America apart. An outside entity dictating to a business owner how successful he/she will be or how well compensated is governmental tyranny. It is anti-freedom. What you consider as "pretty good" may not be what I consider near enough. Shouldn't I have the choice to fullfill my earning potential?  

I'm not aware of a "greed is good" motto in any business that I've owned nor do business with. I remember Micheal Douglas saying that line on the movie Wall Street as the arch villan, but I don't see it on main street America. Quite the opposite in fact.

slabmaster
jeffbiss wrote:  Sure, their

jeffbiss wrote:

 Sure, their boss maybe. If the person doesn't like it, then that person can shop his or her skills around.

And be handcuffed to never earn more than 40 times that of the lowest paid employee. No matter where you go or what you do, you earn the amount allowed by the nanny state. What a life.

 

Quote:
Oh! I see, you're all worried about those financial guys. They don't do anything and probably shouldn't. Financialization is the ruin of a nation as it produces nothing. Financial markets should be strictly regulated and pay to those running financial companies strictly controlled. Oh, and corporate boards and CEOs should have their pay tied to that of their average employees because they do nothing and produce nothing.

I'm worried about any person that owns a business and the thought of government beaurocrat control over earnings. I am on the board and the CEO of both companies I own. How can you state that I do nothing and produce nothing? My wife is the CFO of one of those companies. All she does is financial stuff....all day. According to you, she doesn't do anything either.

What is the criteria for "doing and producing" for you Jeff? 

I'm just not clear why people think that they can dictate to others what their incomes "should" be. It is none of their business to begin with.

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 Slabmaster- Would you agree

 Slabmaster- Would you agree that there is an objective sense of what a maximum income for a CEO should be? To me this is a seperate question than who decides.

MikeK
MikeK's picture
If the Founders were able to

If the Founders were able to anticipate the emergence of the Industrial Age and the kind of phenomenal wealth it would produce I am certain they were wise enough to realize the kind of problems such amazing prosperity would inevitably cause.  And I am equally certain they would have added provisions to the Constitution which would equitably control the distribution of such abundance and thereby prevent the kind of social and economic malignancies that presently threaten the survival of the Great Experiment.

There is no question that our Democratic Republic's  most menacing enemy is the unrestrained greed of a small number of our own citizens which has for the second time in the past hundred years maneuvered us to the doorstep of fascistic plutocracy.  What I find most interesting is there has been no expressed intention to confront this enemy and deal with it aggressively before it has its way with us. 

I suggest that one direct and uncomplicated means of summarily defeating this enemy is to restore the progressive tax rate of 90% maximum and impose a $20 million limit on accumulation of personal assets. 

While this is indeed a radical proposal I believe it to be necessary to the survival of America as we have known it. 

Comments and criticisms are invited.

 

meljomur
meljomur's picture
Its a bit of a no brainer,

Its a bit of a no brainer, there is a finite amount of wealth in the world.  If some people can earn 200x more than someone else, than there is much less for everyone else. 

Its what happens in the third world, where there is no middle class, and its not so nice for a society (well if you are a thinking person that is).  I guess living in a fortified mansion secluded from the poverty, while the outside world turns into a dump doesn't bother some people.  I never understood that mentality.

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:And be handcuffed to

Quote:
And be handcuffed to never earn more than 40 times that of the lowest paid employee. No matter where you go or what you do, you earn the amount allowed by the nanny state. What a life.

Sounds good to me.
Quote:
I'm worried about any person that owns a business and the thought of government beaurocrat control over earnings. I am on the board and the CEO of both companies I own. How can you state that I do nothing and produce nothing? My wife is the CFO of one of those companies. All she does is financial stuff....all day. According to you, she doesn't do anything either.

Here's the difference between you, and those like you, and those publically owned corporation CEOs, you are your corporation. You work, they don't. You wouldn't be affected, so chill.
Quote:
What is the criteria for "doing and producing" for you Jeff?

CEOs and boards of publically held corporations do nothing and produce nothing, those under them do. They aren't necessary to the degree that people think that they are.
Quote:
I'm just not clear why people think that they can dictate to others what their incomes "should" be. It is none of their business to begin with.

Because corporattions are granted certain legal protections and if they accept them, then they should be required to meet certain requirements, such as CEO pay limits, otherwise they don't get the legal protections.

Art
Art's picture
  Slabmaster wrote:As the

 

Slabmaster wrote:As the CEO,

Slabmaster wrote:
As the CEO, I would be regulated by a politician to a cap of $256,000/year using the 40/1 scale. What is my incentive to own, operate, and run both businesses if my wages are capped at $256K?

$256,000/year isn't an incentive? What else would you do?

 

Quote:
Say it's 20/1 and they are all limited to $126K. I would lose my best talent tomorrow.

Not a problem. Your competitors would surely pick them up.

 

slabmaster
jeffbiss wrote:  Here's the

jeffbiss wrote:

 Here's the difference between you, and those like you, and those publically owned corporation CEOs, you are your corporation. You work, they don't. You wouldn't be affected, so chill.
 

Where was that ever spelled out? Now it's "Publically owned" corps only? What if I sold shares to raise capital to expend? 

slabmaster
Art wrote:    $256,000/year

Art wrote:

 

 $256,000/year isn't an incentive? What else would you do?

 Not enough. What do you mean "what else would you do"?

Quote:

Not a problem. Your competitors would surely pick them up.

 

My employees wouldn't appreciate the decrease for no reason.

Art
Art's picture
Slabmaster wrote:Not enough.

Slabmaster wrote:
Not enough. What do you mean "what else would you do"?
You wrote above about all your incentives for doing what you do. With some of that incentive limited, what would you chose to do with your time?
Quote:
My employees wouldn't appreciate the decrease for no reason.
No, I'm sure that some of them wouldn't. On the other hand, some of your other employees might see an increase.

It would all work itself out in the wash, wouldn't it?

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Where was that ever

Quote:
Where was that ever spelled out?

We're having a discussion, I'm not presenting a fuly developed policy paper or legislation. Sorry.

Quote:
Now it's "Publically owned" corps only?

That's a great start as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
What if I sold shares to raise capital to expend?

Then you'd have to comply. Perhaps there's be contingencies, to account for a CEO who is also the president or manager or machinist. The devil would be in the details. There's no point in alowing those in control of the corporation to operate it for their benefit, such as operating it to increase the share price with no connection to the corporation's real output, as seen with all bubbles. There's also no point in allowing a CEO or board member to be paid as many multiples as the people who actually do the work, as you and your wife do in your corporation. Corporations shoud provide a benefit to society, not just to the CEO and Wall Street.

Eirene
Well, these CEO's don't seem

Well, these CEO's don't seem to be worth their pay since their testimony before the Congress depicted their lack of knowledge as to what was happening in their own corporation. I believe this example indicates another "too big to fail - and too big to manage'.  I would love a job with all the perks and financial gain for not 'knowing what is going on' around me!  :)

 

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Well, these CEO's don't

Quote:
Well, these CEO's don't seem to be worth their pay since their testimony before the Congress depicted their lack of knowledge as to what was happening in their own corporation.

Bingo! These guys do nothing except cause whatever stir is necessary to inflate share price. They don't have to know how to do anything, all they need to do is make the appropriate friends and do or say whatever Wall Street thinks is needed to inflate share prices.

slabmaster
Art wrote:   You wrote above

Art wrote:

  You wrote above about all your incentives for doing what you do. With some of that incentive limited, what would you chose to do with your time?

Probably start another business to split off revenues to so I could collect multiple paychecks. Tax avoidence would be the goal and finding ways around the Marxist regime would occupy more time.

Quote:
My employees wouldn't appreciate the decrease for no reason.
No, I'm sure that some of them wouldn't. On the other hand, some of your other employees might see an increase.

It would all work itself out in the wash, wouldn't it?

[/quote] No.

Stifeling incentive breeds no ambition drones and a lack of productivity. Creativity ceases. Efficiency decreases. Who would see an increase in pay when we lose money? No one.

slabmaster
jeffbiss wrote:  Then you'd

jeffbiss wrote:

 Then you'd have to comply. Perhaps there's be contingencies, to account for a CEO who is also the president or manager or machinist. The devil would be in the details.

That is the scary part of having beauocrats decide others fate of which they know nothing about. Marxism isn't what built this country.

Quote:
There's no point in alowing those in control of the corporation to operate it for their benefit, such as operating it to increase the share price with no connection to the corporation's real output, as seen with all bubbles. There's also no point in allowing a CEO or board member to be paid as many multiples as the people who actually do the work, as you and your wife do in your corporation. Corporations shoud provide a benefit to society, not just to the CEO and Wall Street.

I don't "do the work". I manage the operation overall through a succession of managers, staff, etc....I also don't produce anything. I shape and steer the direction of the many parts. My wife has control of the finances. She doesn't produce anything. She is in a more defensive role and manages through book keepers, accountants, CPA's, etc... Shame on us for our self serving ways and paycheck expectations. Our goal should be to provide for the great "society" and take our places with others that bow to the great politicians that rule us. Our lives should be dictated by beaurocrats as we obviously can't make it on our own. Shame on us for earning more than the janitor we employ. Shame.  

I'm always amazed when I read opinions about corporations that would have the government ruling business. It's like hailing the great government Ceasar. Marx had a great little society where all people were herded like the cattle they became. 

Create a social enemy of business by demonizing the 1/10 of 1% as "not deserving" and attaching "CEO" as the buzzword that triggers the demon thoughts. Promise re-distribution to the masses as "deserving" by birthright. Build the common invisible enemy.  Rule over free business. Confiscate others earned income. It's the perfect plan.
...for Hitler

Art
Art's picture
Slabmaster wrote:Stifeling

Slabmaster wrote:
Stifeling incentive breeds no ambition drones and a lack of productivity.
Well, in out little hypothetical here, stifling your incentive doesn't seem to breed lack of ambition and creativity. In fact, it would seem to encourage more diversification. Start more businesses. Create more jobs. Why would it be any different for your "best talent"? 

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:That is the scary part

Quote:
That is the scary part of having beauocrats decide others fate of which they know nothing about. Marxism isn't what built this country.

And this has nothing to do with Marxism. Controlling how the powerful game the system is good for society. In fact, this country has as a building block a distrust of all things corporate. It's very American to constrain the power of corporations, so don't even attempt that "Marxist" nonsense. Corporations should provide a social good and if they don't, then their corporate charter should be revoked, and thus their legal protections. Hey, let some worthless CEO make 400 times that of his average worker and not have the legal protections that society grants him. I don't have a problem with that.
Quote:
I don't "do the work".

Few CEOs do any work, or are worth their pay, but that doesn't mean that they, or you, are a problem. I see the likes of Ken Lay, et al, to be problems that should be the targets. It isn't necessarily the pay disparity between CEO and janitor, but how CEOs game the system for their benefit at the expense of society and share holders.

One more thing, I don't have a problem with corporations not traded publically, they can pay themselves whatever they want to, as they own and are the corporation. It's the publicaly traded corporations that are the problem. However, there are some very good ones and they shouldn't be the targets.

Quote:
Create a social enemy of business by demonizing the 1/10 of 1% as "not deserving" and attaching "CEO" as the buzzword that triggers the demon thoughts. Promise re-distribution to the masses as "deserving" by birthright. Build the common invisible enemy.  Rule over free business. Confiscate others earned income. It's the perfect plan.

There's no redistribution to the masses, except of political power and the constraining of the power of CEOs and corporate boards to game the system for their benefit at the expense of society, including workers and share owners.
Quote:
...for Hitler

You don't know what you're talking about do you? That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it. Hitler was a fascist and by default was anti-socialist/anti-Marxist. You can't have it both ways, claiming that constraining CEOs is both Marxist and fascist. It's one or the other. So make up your mind.

slabmaster
Pick your dictator

Pick your dictator Jeff.

Confiscation of earned income is the goal. Create a common enemy and get the lemmings to adopt a mob mentality.

Take your rightful place in line Jeff.  

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
  Slabmaster- Do citizens in

  Slabmaster- Do citizens in this country have any right to a democratic process to establish tax rates?

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Confiscation of earned

Quote:
Confiscation of earned income is the goal. Create a common enemy and get the lemmings to adopt a mob mentality.

CEOs don't earn their money, they confiscate it from the shareholders and employees. I hope to develop an anti-CEO mob that will force them to leave what is others' with the rightful owners.

Quote:
Take your rightful place in line Jeff.

Will do!

Art
Art's picture
My thesis is that the really

My thesis is that the really high earners should be required to perform at a level more commensurate with their income. Limit their income and they will work harder to make up for it. They will have to invest harder in the"means of production" in order to earn their rewards.  That would mean more jobs with higher wages.  (That's pretty much how high marginal taxes used to work).

The idea of directly capping CEO income makes me a little uncomfortable, but the principle makes sense.  

 

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:The idea of directly

Quote:
The idea of directly capping CEO income makes me a little uncomfortable, but the principle makes sense.

For publically traded corporations, capping CEO, and board, income protects the shareholders and employees. These guys do no work beyond manipulating the system for their benefit. Their primary goal is to increase share price through any means possible. They are inpower to please the majority share holder(s) and not to operate the business. While there are many good and ethical CEOs, there are enough bad ones, to warrant capping because the good ones wouldn't be affected as they are compensated properly.

slabmaster
mattnapa wrote:   Slabmaster-

mattnapa wrote:

  Slabmaster- Do citizens in this country have any right to a democratic process to establish tax rates?

It would be nice if we did. The state of WA Business & Occupation just went up to help our idiotshit Governor shore up her multi-billion dollar deficit. That is a tax directly on every dollar that passes through. It affects small business adversly. I was interviewing people yesterday to fill two specific tecnician positions. The starting wage just decreased due to our taxes increasing.

The voters never voted on a tax increase. The Governor just jammed another one down our throat. The only voter option is to rally all that much more to vote the tax and spend liberals as far out of office as possible. Now that Acorn has been rightfully embarrassed out of business and won't be stuffing ballot boxes in metro Seattle, we might get a Gov and state legislature that won't drive all business out of the state.   

slabmaster
Can anyone on the current

Can anyone on the current board of Thomland witch hunters name one evil CEO so we can tell them they are going to get a pay decrease and why?

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
Slabmaster- And do you not

Slabmaster- And do you not think a majority of the public would increase the tax rate on CEO's?

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Can anyone on the

Quote:
Can anyone on the current board of Thomland witch hunters name one evil CEO so we can tell them they are going to get a pay decrease and why?

Any of them making more than100 times that of their average worker. They don't deserve it. A good example is Aubrey K. McClendon who made 3122 times that of Chesapeake Energy Corporation's average worker's pay.

I initially forgot to answer the question why: Because it negatively affects society and the employees . They don't deserve their excessive pay!

slabmaster
jeffbiss wrote: Quote:Can

jeffbiss wrote:

Quote:
Can anyone on the current board of Thomland witch hunters name one evil CEO so we can tell them they are going to get a pay decrease and why?

Any of them making more than100 times that of their average worker. They don't deserve it. A good example is Aubrey K. McClendon who made 3122 times that of Chesapeake Energy Corporation's average worker's pay.

I initially forgot to answer the question why: Because it negatively affects society and the employees . They don't deserve their excessive pay!

Are you now the self appointed judge of other peoples income? You want 100/1 ratio to the average worker, and Louise wants 40/1 ratio to the lowest paid worker. 

I think I want anyone that wears saggy pants to be paid half of that of people wearing clothes that fit. People that have silly sagging pants that hinder their ability to walk and has their boxers hanging out negatively affects society and the other employees.

Jeff, I have determined that you don't deserve what you earn either. Therefor, starting today, you will earn no more than the lowest paid employee.

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Are you now the self

Quote:
Are you now the self appointed judge of other peoples income?

Not all other people's but overpaid CEOs and board members.

Quote:
You want 100/1 ratio to the average worker, and Louise wants 40/1 ratio to the lowest paid worker.

Hey, we're a democracy, I think we can work it out. Let's discuss.

Quote:
I think I want anyone that wears saggy pants to be paid half of that of people wearing clothes that fit. People that have silly sagging pants that hinder their ability to walk and has their boxers hanging out negatively affects society and the other employees.

Go for it. It's your company.

Quote:
Jeff, I have determined that you don't deserve what you earn either. Therefor, starting today, you will earn no more than the lowest paid employee.

Then I won't work for you. Your loss.

slabmaster
I'm now in Congress deciding

I'm now in Congress deciding what your wages "should" be. You elected me.

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:I'm now in

Quote:
I'm now in Congress deciding what your wages "should" be. You elected me.

And I yours. You elected me.

DRC
DRC's picture
Slabmeister, you are in a

Slabmeister, you are in a rhetorical blind spot here.  If an "earning cap" were established politically, it would be a democratic representative process, not some "bureaucrat."  You always reject democracy by resort to some personal insult to you and your work or play.   There are speed limits on the highways too.

Your description of your administrative and your wife's financial services to the business are not "no value added" activities.  How much value they add depends upon how well they serve the production floor or delivery of services.  How much you "earn" is not independent of those who work for you, and the idea that there is some boundary where your takings begin to exceed the real value added ought to be where earnings are set.

This may be a bit subjective, but you are not playing with other people's money either.  You may be taking as earnings what others are creating in value beyond your actual contributions, and your being able to earn money is fixed by financial laws, not by nature.  It makes sense to make the laws reflect reality instead of letting reality go to hell because of stupid financial "laws."

Corporations and private business has no right to screw up the society no matter what.  Period.  End opus.  The inadequacy of current laws to do the job needs to be addressed.

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Slabmeister, you are in

Quote:
Slabmeister, you are in a rhetorical blind spot here.

He's in an ideological trap. As a conservative he must defend the privilege of corporate boards to pay themselves excessive amounts of money for nothing. These people are a class above, a closed good ol' boys network that has earned the right to unearned wealth simply because they are the elite and are in the position to grant that to themselves. When politicians increase their salaries, they are pilloried by conservatives, but when boards do it, they are lauded as captains of industry even when they do nothing or even worse, perform poorly. Then they get paid millions to go away! The top 1/10 of the top 1% is indeed the enemy of our democracy.

DRC
DRC's picture
You have to remember that no

You have to remember that no government jobs really contribute to their "real economy" of the free market.  We have a bunch of GOP candidates for governor who are all talking about "job creation" and "cutting taxes."  They do not want to help pay for teachers and nurses to keep their jobs, but they are all for anything that is in the "private sector" even if it subtracts value from society.  Those "jobs" and "careers" are the real ones, even if they are paid for by the most corrupt corporations around.

We need to attack the meme about government and taxes "killing jobs" or "making work" no matter what value is created by the jobs.  I agree that the bloated military is almost entirely "make work" and adds no real value to me and my fellow Americans.  But we could use more safety inspectors in the energy sector, and how about an SEC run by Eliot Spitzer with a really great staff?

Cons disparage the WPA, but we have a lot of productive infrastructure from that tax-paid work.  The whole point is the value created, and whether it is paid for by taxes or profits in the commercial sector has nothing to do with it.  Cutting taxes while calling for job creation and having nothing in bank reform at the same time is ignorance on steroids.

slabmaster
DRC wrote: Slabmeister, you

DRC wrote:

Slabmeister, you are in a rhetorical blind spot here.  If an "earning cap" were established politically, it would be a democratic representative process, not some "bureaucrat."  You always reject democracy by resort to some personal insult to you and your work or play.   There are speed limits on the highways too.

Highways are public property paid for by tax contributions. It's not relevent. What is suggested in this thread is that the beaurocracy will establish what my (or yours) earning potential is and limit our potential. That isn't a speed limit on a highway. 

Quote:
Your description of your administrative and your wife's financial services to the business are not "no value added" activities.  How much value they add depends upon how well they serve the production floor or delivery of services.  How much you "earn" is not independent of those who work for you, and the idea that there is some boundary where your takings begin to exceed the real value added ought to be where earnings are set.
Earnings are set by what the market will bare within our business. The value of my contribution is set by the share holders. In my case, I own 100%. My earned income value is based on the performance of the business. If the business does well and makes more money, so do I. Someone outside of the shareholding ownership assuming the role of judging my value is absolute bullshit. You want the nanny state to govern your wages based on some nonsensical class warfare witch hunt, go ahead. Don't include me.

Quote:
This may be a bit subjective, but you are not playing with other people's money either.  You may be taking as earnings what others are creating in value beyond your actual contributions, and your being able to earn money is fixed by financial laws, not by nature.  It makes sense to make the laws reflect reality instead of letting reality go to hell because of stupid financial "laws."
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Where am I "being able to earn money is fixed by financial laws"? My only limit of earning is my ability to produce more and have a margin wide enough to collect the remainder after expenses. If I was using other peoples money, I would be compensated on the results and the contract I negotiated with the BOD and shareholders (or whomever I report to).  

Quote:
Corporations and private business has no right to screw up the society no matter what.  Period.  End opus.  The inadequacy of current laws to do the job needs to be addressed.

If people in or running a corp break laws or do damage, they should be individually held accountable, just like anyone else. I agree that laws need to be addressed. What I don't agree with is demonizing CEO's and judging all CEO's as a some evil entity in a quest to promote class warfare. Now you want to judge peoples income based on the actions of Gietners Wall Street buddies which Obama spoon feeds?   Not in my world. 

 

slabmaster
jeffbiss wrote:  He's in an

jeffbiss wrote:

 He's in an ideological trap. As a conservative he must defend the privilege of corporate boards to pay themselves excessive amounts of money for nothing. These people are a class above, a closed good ol' boys network that has earned the right to unearned wealth simply because they are the elite and are in the position to grant that to themselves. When politicians increase their salaries, they are pilloried by conservatives, but when boards do it, they are lauded as captains of industry even when they do nothing or even worse, perform poorly. Then they get paid millions to go away! The top 1/10 of the top 1% is indeed the enemy of our democracy.

How in the hell would you know what a corporate board of directors does or is "worth"? You want to judge other peoples paychecks based on your own inability to fathom what they do. 

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:How in the hell would

Quote:
How in the hell would you know what a corporate board of directors does or is "worth"?

They do no work. What's to know?

Quote:
You want to judge other peoples paychecks based on your own inability to fathom what they do.

Sure. I do fathom what they do, and it's not worth what they take in compensation. Their take should be limited because there's no competition, boards just give them pay.

slabmaster
Customers just give me pay as

Customers just give me pay as well.

jeffbiss
jeffbiss's picture
Quote:Customers just give me

Quote:
Customers just give me pay as well.

We've already established that you're not the type of CEO I'm referring to. I don't say that to make you like me, even though that would be wonderful, but to establish that I am not talking about all CEOs. I am more than happy to mandate the compensation for those people who are part of interlocking directorates and those CEOs who run publically traded companies who are far out of line with regards to the average CEO compensation. Corporations are legal entities that enjoy certain protections granted by We, the People, and I say that we can reign them in to help ensure a fair and equitable society. You don't, it seems.

slabmaster
Jeff, I own 2 corporations.

Jeff,

I own 2 corporations. What I am reading from Louise and yourself is that CEO's of corporations need to have their pay determined by some pencil neck in WA DC. Apparently, you think it's OK to restrict someone elses livelyhood.