• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

It pays BIG (for CEO's) to lay off workers...

Focusing on the execs is pointless. What you should be thinking about is how to get the shareholders to be more interested and in control of who's in charge. If the people cared about how the companies were being run instead of just wanting a quick dollar increase, you'd have a different situation. But that's pretty much across the board in all areas of American society.

People don't want to take responsibility for how their society, business, personal relationships turn out. It wasn't Wall St. that fucked up the economy, it was the ignorance and apathy of the people.
 
Last edited:
I think you have to assume ALL CEOs are interested in padding their bank accounts.

Look at the salary growth of NFL quarterbacks since the mid 70s. Why would you expect CEOs to be any different?
 
jacksprat said:
Focusing on the execs is pointless. What you should be thinking about is how to get the shareholders to be more interested and in control of who's in charge. If the people cared about how the companies were being run instead of just wanting a quick dollar increase, you'd have a different situation. But that's pretty much across the board in all areas of American society.

People don't want to take responsibility for how their society, business, personal relationships turn out. It wasn't Wall St. that fucked up the economy, it was the ignorance and apathy of the people.
Click to expand...

YEP!

It is complete bullshit.
6 trillion is the take home pay in America, CEO's take home 2 trillion....A FUCKING THIRD!!

And how are the shareholders and employees doing? Shitty! You know how much the CEO of eBay makes? $50,000 A DAY!

That is obnoxious considering what the stock has done!

Lets see what walstreetpro2 says about this:

[youtube]ZaV2rNXtlXs[/youtube]
 
mlm said:
CEO compensation rates are an issue unto themselves. The environment drives the salaries as much if not more than any individual companies current position. If the company is in bad shape, wouldn't you want the most competent leader at the helm? You expect them to be cheap?

I'm skeptical there is a causal relationship between layoffs and pay.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical there is a causal relationship between pay and leadership competence.
 
Climber said:
If the company was in that much trouble, why was the CEO's compensation so high?

Laying off workers is understandable if a company is in trouble, but the associated relationship between laying off workers and compensation level is troubling.

"Our profits are down. OK, let's lay off a bunch or workers to reduce costs. Cool. Now that I've reduced costs, where's my big bonus?"
Click to expand...

Everyone please keep in mind when replying to Climber you must understand that he is a socialist. His feelings are that if you want more you should not work harder or smarter but rather expect it from the gov't. It is especially odd because he seems to hate the gov't so much and continues to vote for a larger one.

jake
 
jake said:
Everyone please keep in mind when replying to Climber you must understand that he is a socialist. His feelings are that if you want more you should not work harder or smarter but rather expect it from the gov't. It is especially odd because he seems to hate the gov't so much and continues to vote for a larger one.

jake
Click to expand...

:rolleyes

I think everyone here is very aware of Climber's political positions. He certainly doesn't keep his views secret.
 
jake said:
Everyone please keep in mind when replying to Climber you must understand that he is a socialist. His feelings are that if you want more you should not work harder or smarter but rather expect it from the gov't. It is especially odd because he seems to hate the gov't so much and continues to vote for a larger one.

jake
Click to expand...
You don't know jack shit about me. You think you do but your post proves you're an idiot. ;)
 
macadamizer said:
What's a bigger social benefit -- saving some jobs, or increasing the value of the investments (retirement accounts, pensions, etc.) of everyone who is invested in the company, directly or indirectly?
Click to expand...

Germany
 
BTW, I heard the beginning of the Carly-Boxer debate on the radio today. Carly started off by emphasizing that she had created jobs during her career. I wanted to strangle her through the radio.
 
Climber said:
You don't know jack shit about me. You think you do but your post proves you're an idiot. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't get too comfortable there with that last bit ;)

And, jacksprat, stay on point, not the man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top