Will the disparity of weath distribution destroy America?

[Invisible_Chimp]

@emacknight

Isn’t cost cutting important? Do you want a CEO that drags along dead weight?

Cost cutting could also be done by cutting executive compensation, but it’s rarely, if ever done.

And while we’re talking salary: Let’s say you’re on the board of directors (or a significant share holder) and your company is up 30% while your rival is up 40%: would you rather your CEO or the competition’s? In that scenario, which CEO is worth more?

This argument is predicated on the idea that the CEO is solely, or largely responsible for a company’s success. How much is a CEO responsible? I have no idea, but I would guess not enough to make up the 10% difference.

[emacknight]

@Invisible_Chimp

Cost cutting could also be done by cutting executive compensation, but it’s rarely, if ever done.

I was sort of expecting Snowboarder Bo to attack you for this statement, he appears to be busy.

http://www.startribune.com/business/40236967.html
“Executives also took a 5 percent pay cut, spokesman Steve Cragle said.”

So it is done, whether or not it’s rare I suppose is a matter of perception.

Now, later that year CEO Bill Hawkins managed to get himself a pay increase of 60%.

We should be shocked right? Wanna know what his pay is now?

$0

Hawkins departure indicates shift in strategy

@Invisible_Chimp

This argument is predicated on the idea that the CEO is solely, or largely responsible for a company’s success. How much is a CEO responsible? I have no idea, but I would guess not enough to make up the 10% difference.

You guess?

What do you suppose would happen if I “guessed” about how unions got pay raises?

How responsible is a coach for the success of a team?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emacknight

Exactly, which is what I said, that was my point.

Of the comments made about CEOs, would you consider any of them to be “ignorant assertions” ?

You answer me first. You were the one who made a baseless, ignorant assertion, then got all upset when you were called on it. Back up your assertion, please, or admit you have nothing.

Your pathetic attempts at “gotcha” can wait until you put up or shut up.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emacknight

You guess?

What do you suppose would happen if I “guessed” about how unions got pay raises?

As has happened, you’d be called on it, asked for a cite, and then you’d evade endlessly.

[emacknight]

@Snowboarder_Bo

You answer me first. You were the one who made a baseless, ignorant assertion, then got all upset when you were called on it. Back up your assertion, please, or admit you have nothing.

Your pathetic attempts at “gotcha” can wait until you put up or shut up.

Ah, so now you want me to shut up because of a baseless, ignorant assertion?

But just me? No one else?

Picture a cop sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun.

Cars go whizzing by one after another, all well in excess of the speed limit. And he just sits there, gunning and watching, gunning and watching.

Then suddenly a car goes by and he freaks out, totally loses his shit. Why do you suppose that was? What did that car do differently than all the other cars that suddenly got the cop’s interest?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emacknight

Ah, so now you want me to shut up because of a baseless, ignorant assertion?

No, I’d like a cite from you that would back up your various statements regarding union pay raises and/or union president pay raises. Do you have one?

@emacknight

But just me? No one else?

Your statements are the only ones I’ve thus far challenged for veracity.

Do you have a cite to back up your assertions?

[SciFiSam]

@xtisme

We are one of the most productive country on earth on an individual worker basis. But WHY has productivity risen? Is it due to the individual skill of the worker…or due to the tools the worker is using? I think it’s due to the tools. The modern systems MAKE workers more productive. At the same time they lower the skills needed by a worker to do a given job, and make the job easier. In my own field, something that used to take a highly trained IT engineer to do is now done for you. Instead of cryptic command lines, there are GUI systems, installation and configuration wizards, and help tabs links to the internet. While I won’t say a monkey could the work, it certainly doesn’t take as high a level engineer to design or configure a system today. The technology makes it easier.

That kinda makes sense, until you remember that the CEOs also benefit from this technology. Why has their pay risen while the workers’ pay has decreased? Don’t say ‘the companies are bigger’ without comparing the rates of pay of, say, the head of Cadbury’s 100 years ago and the current head of the Cadbury’s part of Kraft.

Now these managers can telecommute some of the time or take quick flights instead of spending three months travelling to visit an overseas holding, and they can use the technology that you mention to do their work, so their pay should have diminished, surely?

[XT]

Well, just to be clear, the part you quoted has nothing to do with CEO salaries at all.

-XT

[emacknight]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Your statements are the only ones I’ve thus far challenged for veracity.

And why is that? What is it about my statement that sets it apart from all the others? Are you suggesting my statement is the only one that needs to be backed up? What is it about my statement that sets it apart from all the others?

Either this is a place where people backup their assertions or it isn’t. If everyone else gets to spew out partisan rhetoric, why shouldn’t I get too as well?

And because I’ve been through this with you before, and you again fail to man up, here are the precious little cites you crave so bad:

When a union wants a raise, it demands it.
If their demands are refused, they vote to strike.
After striking, they get their pay raise.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

What’s that you say, some unions aren’t allow to strike?

Didn’t stop a transit union strike in 2005. How many more would you like?
Philadelphia Transit Workers Strike

Minneapolis and St Paul just avoided one:

Transit union denies offer

“98 percent of voting union members rejected the first offer”
“The union voted 61 percent to 39 percent to turn down the offer”

Here’s a 25 day transit union strike in LA

Transit union calls off 25-day strike

Now that we’ve cleared that up, feel free to work your way through the thread demanding people back up their baseless claims about CEOs. Or don’t, up to you.

[Zeriel]

@emacknight

When a union wants a raise, it demands it.
If their demands are refused, they vote to strike.
After striking, they get their pay raise.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

And management is always, ALWAYS free to fire the union and hire any other workers who care for the position, subject only to the limits of the contract they themselves agreed to. That is, there are two parties to this negotiation–management, and unions. Unions are never, to the best of my knowledge, in unilateral control of both sides of any negotiation. In 22 states with Right-to-Work laws, the employer and union can’t even agree to require employees to join a union, man, and in the remainder, union shops are only required if the employer agrees to them in contract. Strikes are a negotiating tactic, not a guarantee–the term “scab” wouldn’t exist if that were not true.

I don’t know who the hell you’re accusing of spreading lies about CEOs, but if you think I am doing so, you are not reading what I’m saying. CEOs of publicly traded companies are potentially, POTENTIALLY, due to their higher income able to purchase relatively more shares, giving them relatively more DIRECT control of their own salaries.

Look, no one is going to defend statements they didn’t make. Equally, no one is obligated to attack every potential thing in a thread. Can you please just stick to addressing each poster on their own merits?

[Zeriel]

I went back through the thread.

So far, there have only been four people who’ve opened discussions about CEOs (at least, using the term “CEO”, which I firefox searched for).

Ravenman, who states an (uncited, but not out of line with cites I’ve read) fact about relative CEO compesation, and argues that many defenders of CEOs assert that CEOs always deserve pay raises.

puddleglum, who seems to be on your side anyway (I honestly can’t parse his statement)

Voyager, who seems to be closest to what you’re saying.

and myself, who is expressly not asserting CEOs are evil or anything else, just that the system of stock ownership and corporate liability as currently in place in the US allows for a potential positive feedback loop as a structural issue.

So who, exactly, is **Bo **(or anyone else) supposed to castigate here? I mean, it’s clear that Voyager is talking about the public perception of cases currently in the news in the last year, in which companies that needed TARP bailouts continued to pay executive bonuses. I’m just as happy to say I don’t think that’s an indicator one way or another, and Voyager is not backing his opinion very well. Happy?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emacknight

And why is that? What is it about my statement that sets it apart from all the others? Are you suggesting my statement is the only one that needs to be backed up? What is it about my statement that sets it apart from all the others?

Because your assertion that unions vote themselves a raise is false. In the quote below, you even list a number of steps that take place, including sometimes striking, although you left out the failed negotiations that take place before a strike occurs.

The fact that you think unions demand raises, instead of asking for them in negotiation, belies my assertion that you really have no understanding of how unions work. Unions are enjoined by law to negotiate in good faith with employers. cite

@Charles B. Craver

Labour unions are chosen by a majority of workers in an appropriate bargaining unit, which may consist of homogeneous skilled workers or heterogeneous industrial workers, become the particular bargaining agent for all of the individuals within that unit. They have the right to demand bargaining over the wages, hours, and working conditions of the affected employees. On the other hand, the NLRA specifically indicates that the duty to bargain does not require either party to agree to specific proposals or to make concessions. They are merely obliged to meet at regular times and to discuss the pertinent issues in good faith.

Charles Craver is a professor at George Washington University, and an expert on labor & employment laws, arbitration and negotiation. Perhaps you have a cite that contradicts what he wrote, and will show conclusively that unions just “vote themselves pay raises”?

@emacknight

Either this is a place where people backup their assertions or it isn’t. If everyone else gets to spew out partisan rhetoric, why shouldn’t I get too as well?

You are free to call others out, as I have called you out. I don’t see you doing that, tho. I only see you attempting to evade providing any cites for your assertions when called on them. Until now, when you provide some cites that thoroughly do not prove your contention.

@emacknight

And because I’ve been through this with you before, and you again fail to man up,

I have nothing to “man up” to; I’ve made no claims except that your claims are false, as I’ll show with some help from your own cites, and from what you yourself quoted from those cites.

@emacknight

here are the precious little cites you crave so bad:

When a union wants a raise, it demands it.
If their demands are refused, they vote to strike.
After striking, they get their pay raise.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

What’s that you say, some unions aren’t allow to strike?

Yes, I did say that. Do you have a cite that contradicts me?

Perhaps you should read the National Labor Relations Act yourself, since you seem to know so little about it. In particular, you might want to familiarize yourself with Section 8(b)(3)&(4).

@National Labor Relations Act

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (b) [Unfair labor practices by labor organization] It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents–
(3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title];

(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is- -

(A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by section 8(e) [subsection (e) of this section];

(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 [section 159 of this title]: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing;

(C) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 [section 159 of this title];

(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work:

Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection (b) [this subsection] shall be construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if the employees of such employer are engaged in a strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom such employer is required to recognize under this Act [subchapter]: Provided further, That for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only, nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the purpose of truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are distributed by another employer, as long as such publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual employed by any person other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods, or not to perform any services, at the establishment of the employer engaged in such distribution;

@emacknight

Didn’t stop a transit union strike in 2005. How many more would you like?
Philadelphia Transit Workers Strike

Minneapolis and St Paul just avoided one:
Transit union denies offer – The Minnesota Daily
“98 percent of voting union members rejected the first offer”
“The union voted 61 percent to 39 percent to turn down the offer”

Here’s a 25 day transit union strike in LA
Transit union calls off 25-day strike

You don’t even have the details right about your cites. To wit:[ul]

In the 2005 NYC transit strike, workers were without a contract yet were still enjoined by law and by direct court order from striking. In other words, they were forced to perform a job for pay they found unacceptable. The union was fined $1,000,000 per day during the strike, and the president of the local went to jail for ten days because of his role in the strike. The strike lasted just under 60 hours.[/ul]

[ul]The Philadelphia transit strike occurred after workers had been without a contract for more than 8 months and both sides agreed that negotiations weren’t productive any longer. cite I see no reason to work for unsatisfactory wages or in unsatisfactory working conditions. I wonder why you think people should be forced to accept whatever an employer is willing to give?[/ul]

[ul]The Twin Cities (Minnesota) strike didn’t actually happen, as both sides were able to come to an agreement. Both sides. That is not “demanding”, as you claim, that is negotiation.[/ul]

[ul]Last, your “25 day transit union strike in LA” never happened. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I’m sure you would find it easier for me to point out what you didn’t understand there, but I think lessons are better when they are learned from personal experience.[/ul]

To sum up: in each of those cases, there were negotiations that failed (or nearly failed). In fact, you quote one story which explicitly talked about a rejected offer. Yet in all your invective, you’ve failed to even acknowledge that unions do not simply vote themselves raises, as you asserted, but that they negotiate for raises with their employers, and if they find the pay to be insufficient for the job, they stop doing the job. If the employers wanted to, they could find other workers. At no time, and in none of the cites you provided, did a union vote itself a raise.

Tell us: why do you think people should be forced to continue working for wages they don’t find acceptable?

I also see that you failed to provide a cite to even try and back up your contention with regard to union presidents.

@emacknight

Now that we’ve cleared that up, feel free to work your way through the thread demanding people back up their baseless claims about CEOs. Or don’t, up to you.

Why haven’t you done that? I don’t know which “claims” you’re referring to, but if you have such a hard-on about them, why haven’t you called people out on what you think are baseless allegations?

It isn’t my job to do your work for you. If you want to know something, call people out on it.

Feel free to try and find a cite that actually backs up your claim that unions vote themselves raises. Voting for or against a mutually negotiated contract is certainly not the same thing you claimed. And voting to strike after a failed negotiation is no guarantee of a raise, no matter how you try and spin it (for instance, the 1914 UMWA strike, the 1892 Homestead strike, the Pullman strike of 1893-94, or the 1981 PATCO strike).

In conclusion, your own cites contradict your assertions, which are, as I’ve said ignorant and baseless.

[randy054]

@marshmallow

Citizens of western nations say that Chinese and Indians – indeed all people – are equal. Yet they want to be paid x1000 more. Funny how that works.

And CEO’s say your paid based on your value in this global free market, but yet are paid 1000X as much as CEO’s in the rest of the world. Funny how that works.

[randy054]

If you want something to boil your blood, read the latest article from the Rolling Stones.

The Real Housewives of Wall Street

**Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?[/B

The Real Housewives of Wall Street: Look Who's Cashing In On the Bailout

What pisses me off the most is the corruption involved between that 1% and our government, where there is a revolving door between the private and public sector. Where there can be no illegal acts committed when they are the ones making the laws to help themselves stuff their pockets at our expense.

Especially with this example:

Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the “other” budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. “Our jaws are literally dropping as we’re reading this,” says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “Every one of these transactions is outrageous.”

and also

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley’s investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.

Matt Taibbi** writes that in 2009, Christy Mack and Susan Karches launched Waterfall TALF Opportunity, a company with a Cayman Islands address, although the two women did not seem “to have any experience whatsoever in finance.” Taibbi reports that with an initial upfront investment of $15 million, Waterfall TALF received $220 million in cash from the Fed, most of which it used to purchase “student loans and commercial mortgages.” He further explains that the loans were set up so that the investors “would keep 100% of any gains on the deal while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90% of the losses.” As of last fall, he continues, $150 million of the total the women borrowed had yet to be paid back.

Then, in regards to presidential elections, many of the top elite heavily fund both sides of the presidential candidates. Like, Goldman Sachs was the top funder for Obama and McCain, meaning both puppets are two sides of the same coin, and Obama’s actions are a carbon copy of Bush’s in this regard.
Were past the point of any real change possible short of a bloody revolution.

[emacknight]

On Union Officials and Their Salaries:

International Brotherhood of Teamsters
*
Teamsters rank and file are also ripped off when their dues go to pay for the lavish salaries of union officials. There are more than 100 union leaders in the Teamsters who earn more than $100,000, according to TDU. Teamsters president Jackie Presser nets more than $500,000 from his various union jobs, more than twice as much as the next highest-paid American union leader, Weldon L. Mathis, secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters.*

You asked for one, there is one.

[emacknight]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why haven’t you done that? I don’t know which “claims” you’re referring to, but if you have such a hard-on about them, why haven’t you called people out on what you think are baseless allegations?

It isn’t my job to do your work for you. If you want to know something, call people out on it.

Because I sit and watch to see who throws out baseless claims, and who lets them slide. And after a page or so, I throw out a random comment in the other direction.

Regardless of the thread topic, there is one side that chooses to push rhetoric over substance, the Fox News Effect if you will. And I watch to see who is willing to side with the devil is it helps further their cause.

Lately it’s been a series of comments about CEO and executive pay. Usually involving a random fact that is completely irrelevant (like CEOs being paid 1000x more). And it seems those who dislike CEOs and are unhappy with executive compensation have no problem letting it slide. One baseless claim after another, as long as it helps support their agenda.

If participants in the thread have enough integrity, they’ll take issue with lies, propaganda, and general rhetoric, even when it’s on their side of the issue. For some people, truth is more important than winning.

There was a great South Park episode about a decade ago where Chef thought the flag was racist and wanted it changed (Chef Goes Nanners). Jimbo thought the flag was part of his heritage and fought to keep it. In the process the Klan shows up to help support Jimbo. Problem was, Jimbo wasn’t a racist and didn’t want to keep the flag for racist reasons, to him it was part of his heritage.

We could all learn a lesson from Matt and Trey about the importance of maintaining integrity.

When Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) lied about Planned Parenthood that said a lot about his character. But it says more about the character of those around him that continued nodding their head. It shouldn’t require a bunch of liberals to pounce all over it. Republican Party leadership should been able to man up and correct the issue.

Watch the followup to that, liberals swing wildly the other way to say it’s 3% not 90%. A number people are happy to nod their head at. Is that even the right number? No one on the liberal side is going to correct it. A conservative has to step in and swing wildly the other way with 15%.

I’m so sick of the bullshit rhetoric that gets spewed in GD, and no one seems to give a shit until suddenly their sacred ox gets gored.

[emacknight]

@randy054

And CEO’s say your paid based on your value in this global free market, but yet are paid 1000X as much as CEO’s in the rest of the world. Funny how that works.

@marshmallow

Citizens of western nations say that Chinese and Indians – indeed all people – are equal. Yet they want to be paid x1000 more. Funny how that works.

mmmm the rhetoric, it is so delicious, please could I have some more?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emacknight

On Union Officials and Their Salaries:

International Brotherhood of Teamsters
*
Teamsters rank and file are also ripped off when their dues go to pay for the lavish salaries of union officials. There are more than 100 union leaders in the Teamsters who earn more than $100,000, according to TDU. Teamsters president Jackie Presser nets more than $500,000 from his various union jobs, more than twice as much as the next highest-paid American union leader, Weldon L. Mathis, secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters.*

You asked for one, there is one.

I’ll assume this is directed at me.

This is the best you can do? An opinion piece from 1987? An opinion piece that relies on information from a group that opposes the Teamster’s president?

What does Jackie Presser have to do with the situation in America now? You prolly don’t even know that he died shortly after that article was originally published.

What do you think you’re proving with this cite?

[emacknight]

@Zeriel

I don’t know who the hell you’re accusing of spreading lies about CEOs, but if you think I am doing so, you are not reading what I’m saying. CEOs of publicly traded companies are potentially, POTENTIALLY, due to their higher income able to purchase relatively more shares, giving them relatively more DIRECT control of their own salaries.

If the CEO is buying more of the shares, he is taking more ownership of the company. This will come as a shock to most people, but it also means he’s taking more risk. Yes, I used the word risk, and you know what, it means both financial risk in the sense that he is investing capital, and it’s also the sissy version where he risks losing his job AND his capital.

So if the CEO owns more of the company he should have more control over his salary, that that point it’s his company!

If he’s not doing a good job either the company sinks or they throw him out.

[Zeriel]

@emacknight

Because I sit and watch to see who throws out baseless claims, and who lets them slide. And after a page or so, I throw out a random comment in the other direction.

Regardless of the thread topic, there is one side that chooses to push rhetoric over substance, the Fox News Effect if you will. And I watch to see who is willing to side with the devil is it helps further their cause.

Lately it’s been a series of comments about CEO and executive pay. Usually involving a random fact that is completely irrelevant (like CEOs being paid 1000x more). And it seems those who dislike CEOs and are unhappy with executive compensation have no problem letting it slide. One baseless claim after another, as long as it helps support their agenda.

If participants in the thread have enough integrity, they’ll take issue with lies, propaganda, and general rhetoric, even when it’s on their side of the issue. For some people, truth is more important than winning.

I note your summation of how you debate neatly sidesteps YOUR requirement to correct anyone, since you choose sides after the fact.

Look, man, there are no programs here to tell which players are on which sides. Engage a damn person on their own merits or not at all.