The 10 Highest-Paid CEOs Who Laid Off The Most Workers: Institute For Policy Studies

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2010 9:11 PM GMT
    Obviously the lack of hiring is all Obama's fault. It couldn't be the unbridled greed of the corporate robber barons. icon_rolleyes.gif

    HuffingtonPostA grim fact of the recession is that it pays to lay people off.

    The CEOs who laid off the most employees during the recession are also the CEOs who took home the biggest pay checks, according to a study released last week.

    CEOs of the 50 U.S. firms that slashed the most jobs between November 2008 and April 2010 took in 42 percent more than the average CEO at an S&P 500 firm, according to the 17th annual Executive Excess study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington think tank.

    The study also found that 36 of the 50 layoff leaders "announced their mass layoffs at a time of positive earnings reports," suggesting a trend of "squeezing workers to boost profits and maintain high CEO pay."

    The 10 "highest-paid CEO layoff leaders" ranked in the report include the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mark Hurd, who earned $24.2 million in 2009 as the company laid off 6,400 workers and Walmart CEO Michael Duke, who earned $19.2 million as the company laid off 13,350 workers. No Wall Street banks were included in this list, but three banks -- Citigroup, Bank Of America and JP Morgan -- showed up on the study's list of the 50 firms that laid off the most employees.

    Overall, the study found that executive pay remains astronomically high compared to previous decades. "After adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century," the study says. Currently, CEOs of major U.S. companies average 263 times the average compensation of American workers, the study claims.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/ceo-pay-layoffs_n_701908.html

    Full Report:

    http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2010 9:56 PM GMT
    Capitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol

    So let's say you bought the kind of house you really like, and you have a car payment. If laying people off means that you're able to continue to make your payments, of course that's what you are going to do. Are you suggesting that the CEOs do something different? Is there really any difference if it's a 50k house or a 5 million dollar house? We all choose a particular standard of living we want to have and we do everything in our power to maintain it.

    Are you going to sit there and pretend YOU are not greedy?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 01, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidCapitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol

    So let's say you bought the kind of house you really like, and you have a car payment. If laying people off means that you're able to continue to make your payments, of course that's what you are going to do. Are you suggesting that the CEOs do something different? Is there really any difference if it's a 50k house or a 5 million dollar house? We all choose a particular standard of living we want to have and we do everything in our power to maintain it.

    Are you going to sit there and pretend YOU are not greedy?





    Honey, you're insane.
    And, greedy.
    And, heartless.
    In other words, you're a Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2010 10:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie saidCapitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol

    So let's say you bought the kind of house you really like, and you have a car payment. If laying people off means that you're able to continue to make your payments, of course that's what you are going to do. Are you suggesting that the CEOs do something different? Is there really any difference if it's a 50k house or a 5 million dollar house? We all choose a particular standard of living we want to have and we do everything in our power to maintain it.

    Are you going to sit there and pretend YOU are not greedy?


    No, no, no, no. You don't get it.

    It's about the "approved" level of greed.

    It's about what is a "reasonable" amount of compensation.

    And who better to decide than Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?



    Or even Barack Obama!

    "I do think at a certain point you've made enough". Not a socialist gesture at all! icon_neutral.gif

    He must not think that 2 million is enough, because I'm pretty sure that's what he and MIchelle made last year.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2010 10:25 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    mocktwinkie saidCapitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol

    So let's say you bought the kind of house you really like, and you have a car payment. If laying people off means that you're able to continue to make your payments, of course that's what you are going to do. Are you suggesting that the CEOs do something different? Is there really any difference if it's a 50k house or a 5 million dollar house? We all choose a particular standard of living we want to have and we do everything in our power to maintain it.

    Are you going to sit there and pretend YOU are not greedy?





    Honey, you're insane.
    And, greedy.
    And, heartless.
    In other words, you're a Republican.


    So tell me, how much does someone have to make or have before they are evil and greedy?

    Is it anything above a double wide? Or a chevy aveo?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 12:25 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    So tell me, how much does someone have to make or have before they are evil and greedy?


    I don't know, but I don't think the living should build the mausoleums of the dead in this society (Egypt, maybe):
    061008-001-kingtut494.jpg
    "Golden Coffins" Make CEOs Modern-Day Pharaohs
    http://consumerist.com/2008/06/golden-coffins-make-ceos-modern-day-pharaohs.html
    Thanks to a change in federal rules 18 months ago, it's now much easier to find out details of so-called "golden coffins," which are�yes, this is real�posthumous payouts to CEOs that can climb into the hundreds of millions. Brian Roberts of Comcast will receive $298.1 million if he dies in office; Robert Iger of Disney will receive $62.4 million; Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon will receive $43.4 million. Ha ha, life insurance is for paupers!

    Companies defend the practice as an appropriate way to take care of an executive's family after an unexpected death. They also note that the benefits often are negotiated as part of a pay package that has many components. In many cases, compensation attorneys say, death benefits are really a form of deferred compensation, structured partly for estate-planning or tax reasons.

    Companies often say one goal of their pay packages is to keep executives from leaving. But "if the executive is dead, you're certainly not retaining them," says Steven Hall, an executive-pay consultant in New York.

    We're fine with this, but only on one condition: that the CEO's family members, pets, and belongings have to be buried with him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 12:31 AM GMT
    CEO and top executives pay is way out of line for what they really do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 12:38 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidCapitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol


    Spoken by somebody who wants hospitals and healthcare workers to work on a volunteer basis out of the goodness of their hearts.
    Where's the idealism? Libertarianism would be nothing but social Darwinism if not for that glimmer of hope that people are essentially good.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:40 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    sfinboston saidCEO and top executives pay is way out of line for what they really do.


    Along with many baseball, basketball, football players.

    And a lot of movie stars, recording artists and TV personalities.

    No?



    Last time I checked, recording artists, TV personalities, movie stars, and sports players, didn't cut jobs to give themselves raises, ship American jobs over seas so they can give themselves raises, or even cut corners resulting in the loss of life or destruction of the environment so that they can give themselves raises.

    Are you even trying?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 2:36 AM GMT
    Well, at last SB and Twinkie reveal themselves for what they really are; corporarists who would rather serve the interests of big business then stand for even true capitalism. Capitalism can only be sustained when the interests of owners and workers. That means that companies provide jobs that sustain the very communities that purchase their goods and services. Once the greed of a few execs means that profits don't "trickle down" to maintain or increase purchasing power, the whole thing falls apart.

    A true capitalist knows that. The great capitalists knew that, so they rewarded their workers and paid them well enough to buy the very products they made. What's happening now is not capitalism, but a completely rigged system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:50 PM GMT
    sfinboston saidCEO and top executives pay is way out of line for what they really do.


    So what should they be payed? What is "fair"? I'm glad you can be the ultimate arbiter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidWell, at last SB and Twinkie reveal themselves for what they really are; corporarists who would rather serve the interests of big business then stand for even true capitalism. Capitalism can only be sustained when the interests of owners and workers. That means that companies provide jobs that sustain the very communities that purchase their goods and services. Once the greed of a few execs means that profits don't "trickle down" to maintain or increase purchasing power, the whole thing falls apart.

    A true capitalist knows that. The great capitalists knew that, so they rewarded their workers and paid them well enough to buy the very products they made. What's happening now is not capitalism, but a completely rigged system.


    So tell us, what is a fair amount of pay? Also, what is a fair amount of money for someone to have and when should they start giving it away? When should that be mandatory?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, at last SB and Twinkie reveal themselves for what they really are; corporarists who would rather serve the interests of big business then stand for even true capitalism.

    As an owner of a small business (14 employees), why would I rather serve "the interests of big business than stand for even true capitalism?"

    And, back to the issue:

    What should be done to stop this practice of CEOs giving themselves raises and firing employees?


    I have no idea why you prefer big business over small companies, but you constantly attack pro-small business programs, defend corporations sitting on trillions of dollars instead of using them to manufacture products or hire more workers. The central issue here is that corporations have broken the social contract that they implicitly have with the communities that purchase their products and provide their profits. If workers can't afford to buy the products and services companies provide, eventually the companies run out of markets to generate profits, so then they cut more jobs to stay profitable, and so on... That these CEOs are making enormous amounts of money at highly profitable companies while slashing jobs is immoral and unAmerican. You may think greed is good, but unbridled greed is destructive.

    Most of these are public companies, so allowing shareholders to elect actually independent board members would be a good start. Further, since conservatives don't want government involved in their businesses, maybe the government should create a matrix where the ratio of CEO to average worker compensation is considered in granting contracts. If the disparity is too high, the company will not be able to bid or secure the contract.

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:55 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    mocktwinkie saidCapitalism runs on greed so of course they are going to lay people off if things get tight because they want to maintain their lifestyle. Whoever is wise will realize that capitalism has to be worked with. Greed is just a reality of life, it's not something you "fix".

    You almost act like it's something to fight against. lol


    Spoken by somebody who wants hospitals and healthcare workers to work on a volunteer basis out of the goodness of their hearts.
    Where's the idealism? Libertarianism would be nothing but social Darwinism if not for that glimmer of hope that people are essentially good.



    What you forget is that some people ARE essentially good, and therefore the good that exists which you think would otherwise REQUIRE some kind of compulsory government force, would not.

    Regarding hospitals, I told you that they have to decide if they are a business or a charity -- but I would hope that they engage in as much charity work as is humanly possible when we are dealing with lives. At the end of the line the people working at the hospital have families to feed as well. Your logic merely places higher value on the lives of the patients coming in who have no money than the livelihood of the staff.

    You are all the proof I need. I'm almost certain that you would not just endlessly work if you were not getting paid for it. Do you have expenses? A car, a house? Maybe an apartment at this point? Don't we all have a standard of living we are trying to maintain, even if it's a few notches above homelessness?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, at last SB and Twinkie reveal themselves for what they really are; corporarists who would rather serve the interests of big business then stand for even true capitalism.

    As an owner of a small business (14 employees), why would I rather serve "the interests of big business than stand for even true capitalism?"

    And, back to the issue:

    What should be done to stop this practice of CEOs giving themselves raises and firing employees?


    I have no idea why you prefer big business over small companies, but you constantly attack pro-small business programs, defend corporations sitting on trillions of dollars instead of using them to manufacture products or hire more workers. The central issue here is that corporations have broken the social contract that they implicitly have with the communities that purchase their products and provide their profits. If workers can't afford to buy the products and services companies provide, eventually the companies run out of markets to generate profits, so then they cut more jobs to stay profitable, and so on... That these CEOs are making enormous amounts of money at highly profitable companies while slashing jobs is immoral and unAmerican. You may think greed is good, but unbridled greed is destructive.

    Most of these are public companies, so allowing shareholders to elect actually independent board members would be a good start. Further, since conservatives don't want government involved in their businesses, maybe the government should create a matrix where the ratio of CEO to average worker compensation is considered in granting contracts. If the disparity is too high, the company will not be able to bid or secure the contract.

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 2:35 PM GMT
    averagejoe saidThat's business.
    That's life.

    Those CEOs aren't evil; they're intelligent. Remember that whole concept of 'survival of the fittest?' Yeah, it applies to the modern world too. We're bred to be greedy.

    Too bad our government is stupid enough to give them money without expecting direct dividends or control.


    Intelligent and evil are not mutually exclusive.

    And greed is no replacement for intelligence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.


    Dude - That is the worst dodge I've ever read. This is not about "charity", that was someone else's thread. What I was pointing to is the hypocrisy inherent in your and SouthBeach's constant harping on nonprofit executives earning "excessive" compensation or public sector workers being paid too much, but when it's a CEO of a private company, you think that's fine. No matter how truly excessive it is; despite the fact that many studies have shown that their pay is NOT related to performance, and many of them laugh all the way to the bank while driving their companies into the ground.

    You also constantly create a strawman argument that equates regulation or (better) cultural prohibitions with "dictatorship." It's very juvenile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.


    Dude - That is the worst dodge I've ever read. This is not about "charity", that was someone else's thread. What I was pointing to is the hypocrisy inherent in your and SouthBeach's constant harping on nonprofit executives earning "excessive" compensation or public sector workers being paid too much, but when it's a CEO of a private company, you think that's fine. No matter how truly excessive it is; despite the fact that many studies have shown that their pay is NOT related to performance, and many of them laugh all the way to the bank while driving their companies into the ground.

    You also constantly create a strawman argument that equates regulation or (better) cultural prohibitions with "dictatorship." It's very juvenile.


    Your philosophy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a final word from a dictator deciding what is a fair amount of compensation. That is not something compatible with freedom --- your whole idea about the way society should be is incompatible with maximizing freedom.

    SB merely brought up the "excessive" compensation of public sector people to prove that people working in government are just as greedy and no different than people working in the private sector. Because somehow you believe that upward mobility in government is more virtuous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 3:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.


    Dude - That is the worst dodge I've ever read. This is not about "charity", that was someone else's thread. What I was pointing to is the hypocrisy inherent in your and SouthBeach's constant harping on nonprofit executives earning "excessive" compensation or public sector workers being paid too much, but when it's a CEO of a private company, you think that's fine. No matter how truly excessive it is; despite the fact that many studies have shown that their pay is NOT related to performance, and many of them laugh all the way to the bank while driving their companies into the ground.

    You also constantly create a strawman argument that equates regulation or (better) cultural prohibitions with "dictatorship." It's very juvenile.


    Your philosophy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a final word from a dictator deciding what is a fair amount of compensation. That is not something compatible with freedom --- your whole idea about the way society should be is incompatible with maximizing freedom.

    SB merely brought up the "excessive" compensation of public sector people to prove that people working in government are just as greedy and no different than people working in the private sector. Because somehow you believe that upward mobility in government is more virtuous.


    Wow. It's like you can't read. I said no such thing. You think markets are most efficient, which may or may not be true, but as these CEOs prove (and as countless other past examples, like Richard Wagoner, Angelo Mozilo, John Thain, Stanely O'Neal, etc.) is that their compensation is NOT market based. They did not add but rather subtracted value from the firms they ran and yet the walked away with millions, while other people lost their jobs and received no such golden parachute.

    Whether or not you believe in capitalism, what we should agree upon is that this is not capitalism, but cronyism or corporatism.

    I can, and have, pointed to structural problems in gov't pensions (e.g. the policy of having police officers retire after 20 years and collect a full pension for perhaps 40 years is not sustainable), but whenever you're confront with a fallacy of logic in your own belief system, you double down.

    If things do not improve for American workers, there will be significant costs in public unrest that will further damage the economy since it relies on stable markets to function.

    You may think central planning or government regulations are the worst thing possible, but I think you'll find them preferable to angry mobs tearing through your neighborhood, which is the historical answer to this level of inequality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.


    Dude - That is the worst dodge I've ever read. This is not about "charity", that was someone else's thread. What I was pointing to is the hypocrisy inherent in your and SouthBeach's constant harping on nonprofit executives earning "excessive" compensation or public sector workers being paid too much, but when it's a CEO of a private company, you think that's fine. No matter how truly excessive it is; despite the fact that many studies have shown that their pay is NOT related to performance, and many of them laugh all the way to the bank while driving their companies into the ground.

    You also constantly create a strawman argument that equates regulation or (better) cultural prohibitions with "dictatorship." It's very juvenile.


    Your philosophy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a final word from a dictator deciding what is a fair amount of compensation. That is not something compatible with freedom --- your whole idea about the way society should be is incompatible with maximizing freedom.

    SB merely brought up the "excessive" compensation of public sector people to prove that people working in government are just as greedy and no different than people working in the private sector. Because somehow you believe that upward mobility in government is more virtuous.


    Its hilarious because I'm convinced you guys aren't even having the same argument.

    Its like Christrian73 is staying on topic while Mocktwinkie continues to attempt saving throws with buzzwords.

    Heres a hint mocktwinkie, you aren't rolling 20's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 4:40 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    Given how quick you and Twinkie were to jump all over nonprofits CEOs salaries, my question is what would YOU do?


    First of all, I already give to charity. Secondly, if I was a "trillionaire" I would give massive amounts to good causes. But that's my choice, and it should always be a choice, unless you want dictatorship. How about if I'm the dictator and I decide that having a computer is "too much", how would you feel then? You might be a little angry that you can't enjoy the excessiveness of telling me how greedy I am from your luxurious computer.


    Dude - That is the worst dodge I've ever read. This is not about "charity", that was someone else's thread. What I was pointing to is the hypocrisy inherent in your and SouthBeach's constant harping on nonprofit executives earning "excessive" compensation or public sector workers being paid too much, but when it's a CEO of a private company, you think that's fine. No matter how truly excessive it is; despite the fact that many studies have shown that their pay is NOT related to performance, and many of them laugh all the way to the bank while driving their companies into the ground.

    You also constantly create a strawman argument that equates regulation or (better) cultural prohibitions with "dictatorship." It's very juvenile.


    Your philosophy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a final word from a dictator deciding what is a fair amount of compensation. That is not something compatible with freedom --- your whole idea about the way society should be is incompatible with maximizing freedom.

    SB merely brought up the "excessive" compensation of public sector people to prove that people working in government are just as greedy and no different than people working in the private sector. Because somehow you believe that upward mobility in government is more virtuous.


    Wow. It's like you can't read. I said no such thing. You think markets are most efficient, which may or may not be true, but as these CEOs prove (and as countless other past examples, like Richard Wagoner, Angelo Mozilo, John Thain, Stanely O'Neal, etc.) is that their compensation is NOT market based. They did not add but rather subtracted value from the firms they ran and yet the walked away with millions, while other people lost their jobs and received no such golden parachute.

    Whether or not you believe in capitalism, what we should agree upon is that this is not capitalism, but cronyism or corporatism.

    I can, and have, pointed to structural problems in gov't pensions (e.g. the policy of having police officers retire after 20 years and collect a full pension for perhaps 40 years is not sustainable), but whenever you're confront with a fallacy of logic in your own belief system, you double down.

    If things do not improve for American workers, there will be significant costs in public unrest that will further damage the economy since it relies on stable markets to function.

    You may think central planning or government regulations are the worst thing possible, but I think you'll find them preferable to angry mobs tearing through your neighborhood, which is the historical answer to this level of inequality.


    The instance of subtracting value by laying people off and increasing a salary is something that is up to the owner. Unless you're suggesting that there was some fraud, which has to do with the justice system and law. Because there's a difference between a CEO trying to maximize profit legally (he does so at the peril of being able to reinvest and grow his business and ultimately make more money in the long term) and fraudulently stealing money from someone else.

    Are you suggesting that someone should dictate exactly what the CEO's compensation is going to be in order to ostensibly maximize the number of workers that are hired?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 4:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said The instance of subtracting value by laying people off and increasing a salary is something that is up to the owner. Unless you're suggesting that there was some fraud, which has to do with the justice system and law. Because there's a difference between a CEO trying to maximize profit legally (he does so at the peril of being able to reinvest and grow his business and ultimately make more money in the long term) and fraudulently stealing money from someone else.

    Are you suggesting that someone should dictate exactly what the CEO's compensation is going to be in order to ostensibly maximize the number of workers that are hired? I know one way you could accomplish that. Getting rid of minimum wage.


    You're still not engaging with the actual question. If corporate executives eliminate jobs solely to enrich themselves and their shareholders when they are already making significant profits, they are violating the implicit social contract of capitalism. You are such a fan of Ayn Randian capitalism, that I would think this would offend you. It also puts the lie to your and other (SouthBeach, for example) continuous claims that tax cuts for the rich and corporations will translate into more jobs for more workers. As we have seen in just the past 2 years, this is not so. What is happening is that wealth is being transferred from workers (in the form of the labor) to a very few corporate executives and shareholders, who then, instead of reinvesting some portion of their profits into expanding markets, developing new products or increasing their workforce, are keeping an increasing share solely for themselves.

    Much like my critique of pension funds, this is not a sustainable model, because fewer workers leads to fewer consumers which leads ultimately to a smaller market and profits, so corporate execs must take a higher percentage of profits to keep enriching themselves and so on until they have decimated the very consumer markets they are dependent on.

    So, again, what - in your view - is the answer to this downward spiral that will ultimately mean no one can afford something and superfluous as a nutrition consultant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 5:33 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said The instance of subtracting value by laying people off and increasing a salary is something that is up to the owner. Unless you're suggesting that there was some fraud, which has to do with the justice system and law. Because there's a difference between a CEO trying to maximize profit legally (he does so at the peril of being able to reinvest and grow his business and ultimately make more money in the long term) and fraudulently stealing money from someone else.

    Are you suggesting that someone should dictate exactly what the CEO's compensation is going to be in order to ostensibly maximize the number of workers that are hired? I know one way you could accomplish that. Getting rid of minimum wage.


    You're still not engaging with the actual question. If corporate executives eliminate jobs solely to enrich themselves and their shareholders when they are already making significant profits, they are violating the implicit social contract of capitalism. You are such a fan of Ayn Randian capitalism, that I would think this would offend you. It also puts the lie to your and other (SouthBeach, for example) continuous claims that tax cuts for the rich and corporations will translate into more jobs for more workers. As we have seen in just the past 2 years, this is not so. What is happening is that wealth is being transferred from workers (in the form of the labor) to a very few corporate executives and shareholders, who then, instead of reinvesting some portion of their profits into expanding markets, developing new products or increasing their workforce, are keeping an increasing share solely for themselves.

    Much like my critique of pension funds, this is not a sustainable model, because fewer workers leads to fewer consumers which leads ultimately to a smaller market and profits, so corporate execs must take a higher percentage of profits to keep enriching themselves and so on until they have decimated the very consumer markets they are dependent on.

    So, again, what - in your view - is the answer to this downward spiral that will ultimately mean no one can afford something and superfluous as a nutrition consultant.


    There was no question. You keep trying to insinuate that owners should not be able to decide what their own paycheck is going to be, because there are certain instances where CEOs are not expanding business but rather laying off and increasing their own personal profit.

    That being said, there is no way to force the market in a particular direction or expect the very same outcomes for every business. Policies create a climate that is either healthy for business growth or negative for it. Are you trying to suggest that tax increases are going to be BETTER for the economy and ENCOURAGE business growth? You seem to be trying to say that because businesses don't always play according to the intended ideal for capitalism that it's proof we need to make things more difficult?

    Do I believe that lower taxes and less regulation is healthier for business and job growth than higher taxes and more regulation? Absolutely, and I sure as hell hope you do too!


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 5:47 PM GMT
    That´s it. MockTwat blocked. I´ve had it with his corporate cock sucking.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidThat´s it. MockTwat blocked. I´ve had it with his corporate cock sucking.



    So who should decide how much a CEO gets paid?