CEO Shaming

[BoyNextDoor]

I think it has to end. Hate the game, not the player.

Seriously.

 

[Ishmael]

I think it has to end. Hate the game, not the player.

Seriously.

Oddly enough I agree with you re. the shaming.

But then I have to ask how you would change the game?

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Oddly enough I agree with you re. the shaming.

But then I have to ask how you would change the game?

Ishmael

Democratise the enterprise.

Those that produce value should have a say in how it is appropriated and distributed.

 

[Porkwarrior]

It's always better to be the man holding the whip, not the slave.

 

[Ishmael]

Democratise the enterprise.

Those that produce value should have a say in how it is appropriated and distributed.

Employee ownership. Fine, buy stock.

Do you really think that that model isn't going to result in the employees wanting to increase the value of their holdings?

I hope that you realize that those big stock traders are investing other peoples money. The retirement funds of major corporations, unions, and John and Mary Lunchbuket's as well. And none of those small investors are going to vote against their own best interests. Your Communist model has been tried over and over again, and failed over and over again. Rational human beings are NOT going to act against their own self interests.

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Employee ownership. Fine, buy stock.

Do you really think that that model isn't going to result in the employees wanting to increase the value of their holdings?

I hope that you realize that those big stock traders are investing other peoples money. The retirement funds of major corporations, unions, and John and Mary Lunchbuket's as well. And none of those small investors are going to vote against their own best interests. Your Communist model has been tried over and over again, and failed over and over again. Rational human beings are NOT going to act against their own self interests.

Ishmael

I agree that rational humans are not going to act against their own self interests. That pretty much defines why I believe that CEO shaming needs to end. Supporting a good leader is admirable. It requires a certain amount of humility. Good CEOs know how to engender loyalty and cause the enterprise to continue to continue to make payroll for everyone. A good organization votes for that economic arrangement with their productivity and effort.

Democratise that process and you will have something cool. Where the lead guy can make what he makes because the people in the organization know he is worth it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Democratise the enterprise.

Those that produce value should have a say in how it is appropriated and distributed.

Nothing stopping people from running that model now.

Other than the fact that companies who let the cashiers and janitors run things don't usually last long.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Nothing stopping people from running that model now.

Other than the fact that companies who let the cashiers and janitors run things don't usually last long.

OK, sure. I agree. I'd also point out that there is not a multi-trillion dollar economy geared around the success of economic democracy.

Instead every law, custom, morale, song and TV show is about god and capitalism.

 

[hashtag45]

Large institutions nowadays are often modelled after the neoliberal market-type ideology which views people mainly as commodities (assets or liabilities), an irrelevant nomber on the payroll, and much less as persons or part of a team.

So there's a double selection going on: high level managers are selected among those who are able to do what ot takes to keep that sort of institution afloat. And people who have a high need for power and are ruthless tend to gravitate towards such jobs.
In saying that, not all are like that, of course.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I always wondered why being apart from Ruth would make a person remorseless. I decided it was just something said by people who cannot vote for an economic arrangement with their productivity and effort because they are lazy.

 

[Ishmael]

I agree that rational humans are not going to act against their own self interests. That pretty much defines why I believe that CEO shaming needs to end. Supporting a good leader is admirable. It requires a certain amount of humility. Good CEOs know how to engender loyalty and cause the enterprise to continue to continue to make payroll for everyone. A good organization votes for that economic arrangement with their productivity and effort.

Democratise that process and you will have something cool. Where the lead guy can make what he makes because the people in the organization know he is worth it.

Ahh, now I see where you're going. You want to limit the re-numeration that a CEO makes. I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is under the notion that by limiting the CEO's compensation the employees would be paid more. Statistically you're right, they might make up to $50 more a year.

Where you err is in thinking that all those numbers thrown out re. compensation are in cash, they aren't. The majority of that compensation is in the form of stock, and or stock options. Meaning that if the SOB doesn't grow the company, he/she losses in the end. It's the bait that drives them.

A great many people seem to think that the Georgie Soros, Billy Gates, and Warren Buffet's have this great vault in their homes, filled with gold that they bathe in every day. The Scrooge McDuck model. Not true, their wealth is mostly paper, the value of which can change on a dime.

What you are suggesting is the corporate model of allowing the employees the ability to vote themselves a raise. Give me a read on the life expectancy of that concern.

Like the fast food employees agitating for $15/hr. Fine, they can agitate all they want. Me? I can cook my own food, I don't need them at all. And especially when the food they serve is overpriced because they're overpaid. To be blunt, the service they render is NOT worth my having to absorb the overhead they've created. Further, I benefit in that my grocery prices will go down because their corporate consumption of commodities will go down, or cease altogether. To be honest I'd be perfectly happy seeing every corporate fast food interest going tits up.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

OK, sure. I agree. I'd also point out that there is not a multi-trillion dollar economy geared around the success of economic democracy.

There is a reason for that.

Economic democracy isn't about making money it's about being 'fair' and 'equal' to the various individuals that make up a corporate entity and making them 'FEEL' good and important etc.

Economic democracy is about bleeding heart warm fuzzies. Which is nice...it really is.

But it just doesn't stand up to human nature or the blood thirsty type of competition seen in relatively free markets.

Instead every law, custom, morale, song and TV show is about god and capitalism.

Because capitalism works better.

Good leaders calling shots works better than the total cluster fuck that is democracy. That's why the military has ranks....Generals don't ask privates and put every decision to a vote, because it's fail.

Like it or not business is war and your employees are your army and armies work best when being led, not when allowed to gaggle fuck about.

 

[underguy1]

Ahh, now I see where you're going. You want to limit the re-numeration that a CEO makes. I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is under the notion that by limiting the CEO's compensation the employees would be paid more. Statistically you're right, they might make up to $50 more a year.

Where you err is in thinking that all those numbers thrown out re. compensation are in cash, they aren't. The majority of that compensation is in the form of stock, and or stock options. Meaning that if the SOB doesn't grow the company, he/she losses in the end. It's the bait that drives them.

A great many people seem to think that the Georgie Soros, Billy Gates, and Warren Buffet's have this great vault in their homes, filled with gold that they bathe in every day. The Scrooge McDuck model. Not true, their wealth is mostly paper, the value of which can change on a dime.

What you are suggesting is the corporate model of allowing the employees the ability to vote themselves a raise. Give me a read on the life expectancy of that concern.

Like the fast food employees agitating for $15/hr. Fine, they can agitate all they want. Me? I can cook my own food, I don't need them at all. And especially when the food they serve is overpriced because they're overpaid. To be blunt, the service they render is NOT worth my having to absorb the overhead they've created. Further, I benefit in that my grocery prices will go down because their corporate consumption of commodities will go down, or cease altogether. To be honest I'd be perfectly happy seeing every corporate fast food interest going tits up.

Ishmael

LOLz. Where you err is in thinking that growing the per share price is growing the company.

Reading you and all your like minded boot lickers here is like 2007 never happened.

 

[underguy1]

Christ on a bike. Human beings form societies.

We're about as opposite 'liberatarian man' as can be.

Sociopaths are abnormal.

Stupid retarded sociopthatic libertarian cunts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You are using a phrase, economic Democracy without describing what it is, what its mechanisms are, and how you believe it would be employed to, I can only assume, make the market more fair by pulling down CEO compensation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Christ on a bike. Human beings form societies.

We're about as opposite 'liberatarian man' as can be.

...

English as a second language...

 

[lylalala]

I agree that rational humans are not going to act against their own self interests. That pretty much defines why I believe that CEO shaming needs to end. Supporting a good leader is admirable. It requires a certain amount of humility. Good CEOs know how to engender loyalty and cause the enterprise to continue to continue to make payroll for everyone. A good organization votes for that economic arrangement with their productivity and effort.

Democratise that process and you will have something cool. Where the lead guy can make what he makes because the people in the organization know he is worth it.

He's never worth THAT MUCH.

 

[coati]

I think it has to end. Hate the game, not the player.

Seriously.

CEO shaming is one of the few tools available to protect consumers from excessive corporate greed and to prevent the destruction of our last remaining natural wild areas. CEOs are paid to take the heat. If they can't stand it, then get out of the kitchen.

 

[hashtag45]

Double post

 

[hashtag45]

CEO shaming is one of the few tools available to protect consumers from excessive corporate greed and to prevent the destruction of our last remaining natural wild areas. CEOs are paid to take the heat. If they can't stand it, then get out of the kitchen.

^^^^this

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"[E]xcessive corporate greed" is a subjective valuation ruled by the sin of envy...


If the corporation is too greedy not only does the market shun its output, but investors shy away from its stock. Whenever you see vacuous phrases like that you know you are talking to an economic illiterate who choses to blame their status in life on everyone but themselves.

 

[zipman]

Ahh, now I see where you're going. You want to limit the re-numeration that a CEO makes. I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is under the notion that by limiting the CEO's compensation the employees would be paid more. Statistically you're right, they might make up to $50 more a year.

Where you err is in thinking that all those numbers thrown out re. compensation are in cash, they aren't. The majority of that compensation is in the form of stock, and or stock options. Meaning that if the SOB doesn't grow the company, he/she losses in the end. It's the bait that drives them.

A great many people seem to think that the Georgie Soros, Billy Gates, and Warren Buffet's have this great vault in their homes, filled with gold that they bathe in every day. The Scrooge McDuck model. Not true, their wealth is mostly paper, the value of which can change on a dime.

What you are suggesting is the corporate model of allowing the employees the ability to vote themselves a raise. Give me a read on the life expectancy of that concern.

Like the fast food employees agitating for $15/hr. Fine, they can agitate all they want. Me? I can cook my own food, I don't need them at all. And especially when the food they serve is overpriced because they're overpaid. To be blunt, the service they render is NOT worth my having to absorb the overhead they've created. Further, I benefit in that my grocery prices will go down because their corporate consumption of commodities will go down, or cease altogether. To be honest I'd be perfectly happy seeing every corporate fast food interest going tits up.

Ishmael

The CEO pay structure in this country is beyond crazy, it's insane.

But to address your points above, CEO pay is often in the form of stock options - and typically have a 3 year vesting period before they can be exercised. Once they are able to be exercised they often are and the CEO takes those proceeds and diversifies them across the market.

However, CEOs can and do make decisions based on increasing short term value over the long term benefits for organizations to maximize the amount of value of those options. And there is nothing to prevent them from doing that or from holding them accountable.

Just look at the golden parachutes that they often receive as part of their contracts that have no conditions whatsoever. They are granted these by the BoD which often consists of CEOs from other companies. An old boy's network if ever there was one.

Sign me up for CEO shaming as it is the only means available to impact them.

 

[eyerami]

You friggin' progressives crack me the fuck up...

CEOs and RINOs both financially supporting and voting for your progressive presidential candidate, and you still can't do anything but whine like the perpetual little bitches you naturally are.

Can't you just snort some more of that kumbyah stash you're always bragging about, buy the world a Coke, and just revel in the fact that progressives, CEOs, and RINOs (like the Bush family) are all on the same 1% page this election?

No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump
Democrat Hillary Clinton has 11 contributors and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney had far more
http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[hashtag45]

"[E]xcessive corporate greed" is a subjective valuation ruled by the sin of envy...


If the corporation is too greedy not only does the market shun its output, but investors shy away from its stock. Whenever you see vacuous phrases like that you know you are talking to an economic illiterate who choses to blame their status in life on everyone but themselves.

Not sure if everybody is referring to exactly the same thing here.

As far as I'm concerned, I was referring to the current "corporate mentality" that seems to have permeated many larger institutions. Regardless of who the CEO is trying to appease (some State employee who's above him in state based institutions, or some share-holder in private institutions).
- the consummeristic attitude (employees are just commodities, nombers on a payroll, not people)
- and (this is big here btw) they're potential liabilities instead of assets.

And too many top managers nowadays have Their self-interest in mind, and don't give two straws about the employees or the institution. So they often do the most counterproductive things (both for the employees' morale, and for the institution) if they think that it might help them get a raise or keep their job.
-- I've seen managers try to save money by cutting the budget for absolutely vital things, while they spend lavishly on those stupid team building days, or ask people to listen to their pompous, meaningless in-service talks and so on.
-- Or, if one of their measures leads to some inevitable crisis or things go wrong, they automatically go into an over- the top paranoid mode and start witch hunting. Cause better blame some powerless little guy, instead of people pointing the finger at what They did wrong.

 

[hashtag45]

The CEO pay structure is beyond crazy, it's insane.

However, CEOs can and do make decisions based on increasing short term value over the long term benefits for organizations.
And there is nothing to prevent them from doing that or from holding them accountable.

^^^
I might not understand much of the economic lingo used in this thread,
but most regular employees over here would agree with this.