IDBillzFan Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 No, basically you are a complete idiot. Income disparity is bad when it gets to the point where people are working their ares off for almost nothing and can't afford to support stronger consumer spending and you have these few people making a hundred times more than they will ever need of government issued currency. A few simple questions. 1) Why do you suppose one person is stuck working their ass off for almost nothing while others earn significantly more for owning and running their own companies? 2) Since you are able to determine that some people earn "a hundred times more than they will ever need of government issued currency," what would you cap someone's income at? How much is enough before it's considered too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Juuuuust when some of the other 'tards have made you forgot about him a little, lybob always pops up to remind you that he is the wackiest of the whack jobs, left, right or center. Hoo-boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 No, basically you are a complete idiot. Income disparity is bad when it gets to the point where people are working their ares off for almost nothing and can't afford to support stronger consumer spending and you have these few people making a hundred times more than they will ever need of government issued currency. "Government issued currency?" You think the typical CEO gets handed a briefcase of tens and twenties? You are a !@#$tard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Income disparity is bad when it gets to the point where people are working their ares off for almost nothing Can you provide some examples of people who are 'working their asses off' for 'almost nothing'? I'm wondering if you've ever met anyone who works their ass off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 "Government issued currency?" Yeah, because the government creates wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 No, basically you are a complete idiot. Income disparity is bad when it gets to the point where people are working their ares off for almost nothing and can't afford to support stronger consumer spending and you have these few people making a hundred times more than they will ever need of government issued currency. I'm sure you can't understand this, or choose to ignore it, but if those workers made more money there would be more jobs. And....I'm sure it would eventually mean those jobs would be lost/replaced to technology, but most jobs probably will in the not too distant future. But that's another story. You are still a complete idiot though Oh, so CEO's get paid more at the expense of workers as voted on by the board of directors in a collusive attempt with all other employers' boards of directors and officers, to keep the common man down and limit job growth, thereby limiting the prospective sales base on which they depend, but thats beside the point because these jobs are fungible anyway? I have so much to learn from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not sure why you guys bother. You know he's just trolling, which, I would imagine, takes all the fun out of batting him around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not sure why you guys bother. You know he's just trolling, which, I would imagine, takes all the fun out of batting him around... When Mike Tyson sparred on his days off, did his fans B word "I'm not sure why you bother. He's not even putting up a fight."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Whats the dispersion in this range? Is 20% the rule or are there some significant outliers skewing the figures? Whats the composition of CEO compensation between salary, stock and options and also between guarantees and incentive based pay? i believe he's referring to one of demming's quality principles. i also believe the number is that historically 20X the lowest workers salary is thought to be the most efficient business model to maximize profits. isn't that what businesses and stockholders should most desire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not sure why you guys bother. You know he's just trolling, which, I would imagine, takes all the fun out of batting him around... Because all day long I get people who really know their stuff pointing out the flaws in my work and reminding me that while I read some books I still don't know ****. So even though at best hes a troll its still nice to come here and be better than someone for 5 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Thad Lewis makes $555,000 http://www.spotrac.c...thaddeus-lewis/ Eli Manning makes $20,850,000 http://www.spotrac.c...ts/eli-manning/ Is it fair that a franchise QB should make more than 37x an average player? it's much more in keeping with the 20x principle than the fast food industry. never thought i'd hold up the nil as an example of compensation fairness, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 i believe he's referring to one of demming's quality principles. i also believe the number is that historically 20X the lowest workers salary is thought to be the most efficient business model to maximize profits. isn't that what businesses and stockholders should most desire? That looks pretty suspect to me at first glance, but perhaps. If that were a rule, why have companies bid up the compensation packages of CEOs? The point is that great CEOs are scarce. Their comp is determined by market forces. If CEO comp gets too high, as it can and does as measured by company performance, does this necessitate government intervention? Can't we just wait for the private sector to realize this and return CEO comp to reasonable levels? And since when is employee pay a function of CEO comp? Did the grunts at Citi take a haircut when Pandit was raking in absurd cash? They did not. So either CEO pay is a collusive effort involving every board of directors (who have nothing to gain by paying a CEO more at the detriment of the company and its employees) which restrains wages at all public companies to a below market level and for some reason limits private company wages as well, or maybe, just maybe, grunts and officers alike are compensated based on market principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 it's much more in keeping with the 20x principle than the fast food industry. never thought i'd hold up the nil as an example of compensation fairness, but there you go. So is it unfair to the entry or mid level employee that the executive level employee who has generated considerable wealth to the organization be compensated accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 That looks pretty suspect to me at first glance, but perhaps. If that were a rule, why have companies bid up the compensation packages of CEOs? The point is that great CEOs are scarce. Their comp is determined by market forces. If CEO comp gets too high, as it can and does as measured by company performance, does this necessitate government intervention? Can't we just wait for the private sector to realize this and return CEO comp to reasonable levels? And since when is employee pay a function of CEO comp? Did the grunts at Citi take a haircut when Pandit was raking in absurd cash? They did not. So either CEO pay is a collusive effort involving every board of directors (who have nothing to gain by paying a CEO more at the detriment of the company and its employees) which restrains wages at all public companies to a below market level and for some reason limits private company wages as well, or maybe, just maybe, grunts and officers alike are compensated based on market principles. or they feel demming was wrong and they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 or they feel demming was wrong and they're right. I think you missed the larger point regarding whether officer comp is sinister. As to whether CEO pay should be based on a heuristic of 20x, I'll go out on a limb and say there are better ways than one size fits all. Where does this figure come from? I cannot find anything attributed to Deming in regards to this rule and can't find anything discussing how this figure was derived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 my mistake. it was drucker who stated the 20:1 ratio http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/09/19/whats-the-right-ratio-for-ceo-to-worker-pay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 my mistake. it was drucker who stated the 20:1 ratio http://www.washingto...-to-worker-pay/ Still can't find Drucker's methodology for determining this rule. I'm getting the picture that isn't based on any economic principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) i believe he's referring to one of demming's quality principles. i also believe the number is that historically 20X the lowest workers salary is thought to be the most efficient business model to maximize profits. isn't that what businesses and stockholders should most desire? It never ceases to amaze me that people will come over here a B word to high heaven about a CEO who make 100x's more than the average worker that wouldn't have a job had their company not gone out and found the best CEO. But they cheer on a 25 year old athlete making 100x's more that the Joe Sixpack that pays their salary. The hypocrisy of the left raises it's ugly head again. Edited October 24, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Still can't find Drucker's methodology for determining this rule. I'm getting the picture that isn't based on any economic principle. i suspect it's empirical. don't know. never went to business school. my understanding is that a generous dose of drucker is standard fare there, however. probably some selective memory loss from past students when it comes time to set policies for ceo pay. Edited October 24, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 It never ceases to amaze me that people will come over here a B word to high heaven about a CEO who make 100x's more than the average worker that wouldn't have a job had their company not gone out and found the best CEO. But they cheer on a 25 year old athlete making 100x's more that the Joe Sixpack that pays their salary. The hypocrisy of the left raises it's ugly head again. well, you could account for the average length of career, shortened life expectancy, unpaid on the job training (college sports) and reasonably conclude that you are comparing apples and mangoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts