This is why the dems can't get out of the own way......

[atlkvb]

I'd just like for someone on the Left to explain to the board what's the "equal income" they think everyone should earn and what's the Left's plan to make it work that we should all sign onto?

I could write all day on this topic.

I find it quite amusing yet telling no one on the Left, particularly this OP on the subject has bothered to weigh in with any criticisms of my off the wall suggestions to erase so called "income inequality".

No rebuttals, no one on the Left raking me over the coals for my banal, inane, unworkable, sophomoric, economically inept proposals I just threw out there in jest to have the Government regulate income "tiers" regardless of what actual work was done or skills needed to do the job! My equally nonsensical suggestion for a "living wage" complete with a Government mandated 15.00/hour 'minimum' drew no opposition from any of our astute economists on the Left of this forum, nor did the wholly unworkable sugestion that all incomes in excess of 500,000 annually be 'donated' to the Government to be used to fund requested Social giveaways like automobiles or furniture.

I have to assume the reason there is no Leftist opposition to my totally facetious plan is because I am so hated, and so reviled by most Leftist posters on this board they won't waste their time responding to my totally ludicrous economic platform.

Or could it be the reason I have not received any criticism for my completely comical plan is because it is actually what many of you Leftists would really like to see put into practice but most of you are all just too cowardly to admit to it?

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Yea, I mean why would anyone get paid a “ridiculous” salary and bonus for successfully managing 1000s of employees, implementing corporate strategy for the financial benefit of 1000s of shareholders, and growing business. It’s something any midlevel manager in abundant supply of could do if given the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

I don't think many of us would complain about executive compensation when businesses are booming within an effective risk management framework. You know that isn't always always the case. Let's look at your statement that The Wells Fargo CEO should be given credit for navigating the Great Recession. That person took over in late 2005 or early 2006. The former CEO moved to Chairman of the Board and remained chairman through the recession. One could argue that the former ceo was the person who positioned Wells to weather the storm with a sound capital structure and adequate liquidity. Right? I'm not discounting the CEOs leadership. Just pointing out that he benefited greatly from the groundwork laid by the former CEO. He also inherited a culture that ripped off customers to be fair. The point being is often a CEO isn't the person who built a firm. They just happen to be in the seat through whatever means. Many a poor CEO have ran firms into the ground while taking home massive salaries as well right?

I've worked for two publicly traded companies that had awful CEOs. A third that had a very mediocre one. I've seen amazing CEOs as well. I once investigated a CEO for waste and abuse. Was he canned? No he actually was allowed to retire with a handsome severance package. Corporate sleaze at its finest.

You must realize that corporate boards aren't really independent right? I mean the CEO often hand picks his/her board. I would have thought you would understand that. Rarely do the shareholders collectively agree that board members need to go. Therefore, for that handsome compensation for little work, the board members take care of their executive management.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Yea, I mean why would anyone get paid a “ridiculous” salary and bonus for successfully managing 1000s of employees, implementing corporate strategy for the financial benefit of 1000s of shareholders, and growing business. It’s something any midlevel manager in abundant supply of could do if given the opportunity.

I don't think many of us would complain about executive compensation when businesses are booming within an effective risk management framework. You know that isn't always always the case. Let's look at your statement that The Wells Fargo CEO should be given credit for navigating the Great Recession. That person took over in late 2005 or early 2006. The former CEO moved to Chairman of the Board and remained chairman through the recession. One could argue that the former ceo was the person who positioned Wells to weather the storm with a sound capital structure and adequate liquidity. Right? I'm not discounting the CEOs leadership. Just pointing out that he benefited greatly from the groundwork laid by the former CEO. He also inherited a culture that ripped off customers to be fair. The point being is often a CEO isn't the person who built a firm. They just happen to be in the seat through whatever means. Many a poor CEO have ran firms into the ground while taking home massive salaries as well right?

I've worked for two publicly traded companies that had awful CEOs. A third that had a very mediocre one. I've seen amazing CEOs as well. I once investigated a CEO for waste and abuse. Was he canned? No he actually was allowed to retire with a handsome severance package. Corporate sleaze at its finest.

You must realize that corporate boards aren't really independent right? I mean the CEO often hand picks his/her board. I would have thought you would understand that. Rarely do the shareholders collectively agree that board members need to go. Therefore, for that handsome compensation for little work, the board members take care of their executive management.[/QUOTE]
It’s pointless to have a conversation with you on this. We’re not gonna agree, because I’m fine with “golden parachutes”.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

I don't think many of us would complain about executive compensation when businesses are booming within an effective risk management framework. You know that isn't always always the case. Let's look at your statement that The Wells Fargo CEO should be given credit for navigating the Great Recession. That person took over in late 2005 or early 2006. The former CEO moved to Chairman of the Board and remained chairman through the recession. One could argue that the former ceo was the person who positioned Wells to weather the storm with a sound capital structure and adequate liquidity. Right? I'm not discounting the CEOs leadership. Just pointing out that he benefited greatly from the groundwork laid by the former CEO. He also inherited a culture that ripped off customers to be fair. The point being is often a CEO isn't the person who built a firm. They just happen to be in the seat through whatever means. Many a poor CEO have ran firms into the ground while taking home massive salaries as well right?

I've worked for two publicly traded companies that had awful CEOs. A third that had a very mediocre one. I've seen amazing CEOs as well. I once investigated a CEO for waste and abuse. Was he canned? No he actually was allowed to retire with a handsome severance package. Corporate sleaze at its finest.

You must realize that corporate boards aren't really independent right? I mean the CEO often hand picks his/her board. I would have thought you would understand that. Rarely do the shareholders collectively agree that board members need to go. Therefore, for that handsome compensation for little work, the board members take care of their executive management.

It’s pointless to have a conversation with you on this. We’re not gonna agree, because I’m fine with “golden parachutes”.[/QUOTE]

At least you admitted it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

What’s to admit? I understand the reasoning behind them and think they’re necessary in order to try and attract talent.

In most cases, you’re replacing CEOs and other executive talent because the last person failed in their position. You either promote from within or bring in outside talent. You have to assume, if you’re bringing in outside talent, the person is leaving a stable position where they’ve done well enough to attract attention for other organizations. How do you get them to leave their stable position and come attempt to unfvck your organization mind you, much is going to be outside of their power to change immediately? You incentivize them financially and by providing the parachute, it makes it safe to come over. Think of it like buyout clauses in coaching contracts and coaches taking over unstable programs. You can argue coaches make too much money, but if the market will pay it, then it’s not too much.