Something Is Going Great

[Sandtrap328]

The Dow went past 18,000 yesterday for the first time in history as the stock market continued to record highs. Investors saw this as the latest encouraging news in the economy that showed the US grew at the fastest pace in more than a decade in the third quarter.

This was extracted from The Daily Sun, Dec. 24.

[manaboutown]

"Double, double, toil and trouble..." Shakespeare Quotes: Double, double, toil and trouble Intro (http://www.shmoop.com/shakespeare-quotes/double-double-toil-and-trouble/)

This artificial low interest rate driven bubble will eventually burst as all bubbles eventually do. PEs are not yet in the stratosphere but they are not far beneath it at 19.48 in the S&P 500 as of 12/19/14. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html

Plus, our national debt is now over 18 trillion dollars. http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

[Chi-Town]

A Santa Claus rally continues. Merry Christmas.

[Tennisnut]

Fortunately, US companies are making record profits as a percentage of GDP and our economy is a safe haven compared to the rest of the world. So far stock holders and company executives have done well. In the future, hopefully these same companies will share this good fortune with the employees. Thankfully, these past 9 years I have contributed to the low employee participation rate.

[graciegirl]

Fortunately, US companies are making record profits as a percentage of GDP and our economy is a safe haven compared to the rest of the world. So far stock holders and company executives have done well. In the future, hopefully these same companies will share this good fortune with the employees. Thankfully, these past 9 years I have contributed to the low employee participation rate.


Heck yeah. I am for the CEO and the newest hire making the same. We have to be fair.

[dbussone]

Heck yeah. I am for the CEO and the newest hire making the same. We have to be fair.


GG ....... Bwaaaahaaaaaaa .......Merry Christmas!

[Jimturner]

Where is Robin Hood when he so dearly needed?

[dbussone]

Where is Robin Hood when he so dearly needed?


In the forest where he belongs.

[eweissenbach]

Heck yeah. I am for the CEO and the newest hire making the same. We have to be fair.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/j

[njbchbum]

Sandtrap - Any idea when CEOs and stockholders are going to share the munificence with us retirees who have no Wall Street portfolios? Am finally enjoying lower gas prices - but - I hate the chore of going food shopping! Grocery prices are outta sight! Cost of my healthcare is going up, too; and we may have to cut back on our level of cable tv if that price goes up higher! Am really looking forward to feeling the impact of the alleged improving economy! When will I?

[eweissenbach]

Heck yeah. I am for the CEO and the newest hire making the same. We have to be fair.

Try this again.

CEOs Earn Nearly 300 Times What Their Workers Make | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/12/3448115/ceo-worker-pay-ratio/)

[njbchbum]

Try this again.

CEOs Earn Nearly 300 Times What Their Workers Make | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/12/3448115/ceo-worker-pay-ratio/)

Ed - Am so glad to see that someone highlighted this topic. Every time it is brought up I have to ask some questions:
1.] What SHOULD that ratio of CEO to worker be?
2.] Why should it be as suggested?
3.] What basis did you use to determine what that ratio should be?
To date, no one has been able to come up with logical, factual, non-emotional information to answer to those questions.

As this author pointed out, "EPI’s data measure CEO compensation at the 350 biggest American public companies in a given year..." I have to ask - 'Why' and 'Why not use a sampling of CEO compensation from a variety of economic levels all the way down to the lowest paid?

I feel the questions to be appropriate, especially when the worker salary statistic is derived from "...the annual pay for workers in a given industry,..." Well. how screwy is that? Certainly not comparing apples and apples there? Why are such surveys not measuring compensation levels in a variety of industries? Such surveys suffer from a serious credibility problem.

Does anyone know that since CEO compensation analysis is coming from the biggest companies that the employee compensation analysis is coming from employees in the same industries that the CEOs manage?

And then there is the statement, "...executives are rigging pay in their favor." It fails to take into account those CEO salaries that are established by corporate boards and approved at annual stockholder meetings. I spent the first half of my career working in the field of corporate compensation and cannot recall ANY CEO who set their own salary! Of course, back in those dark ages, both employee and executive compensation was established using salary survey information that was both conducted by the corp and was published by leading compensation authorities.

[eweissenbach]

Ed - Am so glad to see that someone highlighted this topic. Every time it is brought up I have to ask some questions:
1.] What SHOULD that ratio of CEO to worker be?
2.] Why should it be as suggested?
3.] What basis did you use to determine what that ratio should be?
To date, no one has been able to come up with logical, factual, non-emotional information to answer to those questions.

As this author pointed out, "EPI’s data measure CEO compensation at the 350 biggest American public companies in a given year..." I have to ask - 'Why' and 'Why not use a sampling of CEO compensation from a variety of economic levels all the way down to the lowest paid?

I feel the questions to be appropriate, especially when the worker salary statistic is derived from "...the annual pay for workers in a given industry,..." Well. how screwy is that? Certainly not comparing apples and apples there? Why are such surveys not measuring compensation levels in a variety of industries? Such surveys suffer from a serious credibility problem.

Does anyone know that since CEO compensation analysis is coming from the biggest companies that the employee compensation analysis is coming from employees in the same industries that the CEOs manage?

And then there is the statement, "...executives are rigging pay in their favor." It fails to take into account those CEO salaries that are established by corporate boards and approved at annual stockholder meetings. I spent the first half of my career working in the field of corporate compensation and cannot recall ANY CEO who set their own salary! Of course, back in those dark ages, both employee and executive compensation was established using salary survey information that was both conducted by the corp and was published by leading compensation authorities.

I am certainly not as expert as you on matters of executive compensation, and could not answer your questions. I provided the link as to provide some context for the topic. It is clear that ceo comp as measured in this study has gone up pretty dramatically as compared to the average worker. According to the chart the ratio was 20 times in the mid 60s climbing to Almost 90 Times in the mid nineties before zooming upward to almost 300 times that of the average worker today. Do they earn that - are they overpaid? That is not a question I can answer. What I do know is the average worker has regressed in average earning power over the last twenty years, and that seems not to make sense in a time when CEO comp has risen so dramatically, and company valuations have risen overall. I don't begrudge anyone making as much money as they can if their efforts are honest, lawful, and ethical. At the same time there have been several cases of CEOs, such as the recent head of JC Penny, who nearly ran their company into the ground, while receiving otherworldly comp packages including huge buy-outs. I am far more interested in seeing average workers benefiting fairly for their contributions to their company's success, as the middle class is the biggest segment of our society and the driver of economic growth. As far as boards awarding the CEO comp packages there have been reports that many boards are staffed with cronies of the CEOs. I don't know if that is true, as I am still awaiting my invitation to sit on the board of an S &P 500 company.

[dbussone]

njbchbum - your statements are right on target. Fortune 500 companies are not typical of the vast majority of businesses. The salary ratio of CEO:worker inmost businesses with which I am familiar is much lower. And your last paragraph notes the practices that I have seen most often used to establish wages and salaries on a company wide basis.

And while we are on the topic, I wonder what the salary ratio is for big union CEOs compared to average union members?

[Tennisnut]

Heck yeah. I am for the CEO and the newest hire making the same. We have to be fair.

I really hope that wasn't a serious comment. Fortunately, others have provide some good insight on the lack of increase of compensation for employees.

[dbussone]

I really hope that wasn't a serious comment. Fortunately, others have provide some good insight on the lack of increase of compensation for employees.


I believe Gracie was speaking with her tongue in her cheek!

[Rags123]

As always, each side of the "aisle" over does the rhetoric. This message about CEO pay will be one of the sides main dish in 2016.

The Wall St Journal puts this public relations campaign in a bit of perspective...

"The AFL-CIO calculated a pay gap based on a very small sample—350 CEOs from the S&P 500. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 248,760 chief executives in the U.S. in 2013.

The BLS reports that the average annual salary for these chief executives is $178,400, which we can compare to the $35,239-per-year salary the AFL-CIO uses for the average American worker. That shrinks the executive pay gap from 331-to-1 down to a far less newsworthy number of roughly five-to-one.
Of course, it’s true that some chief executives heading large multinational companies do command impressive seven- or eight-figure compensation packages. But the data don’t support the rhetorical claim that this slice of the “economic pie” is what’s driving stagnant pay for others on staff."



They go on and give a real life example using YUM brands, the corporate owner of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC to name 3 of their companies.

"The company’s 2013 annual report indicates that it employs 539,000 people, 86% of whom work part-time. If the executive team were able to redistribute 25% of their salaries, incentive pay and stock options to these part-timers, the net impact on hourly pay would be just over a penny-per-hour raise before taxes.

Even if the executive team took a 100% pay cut and distributed the money equally to the company’s 463,000 part-timers, hourly wages would only rise by five cents."

And they conclude the article....

"The point is not that CEOs deserve more money, or less. If an executive is underperforming, the corporation’s board can and should adjust his pay appropriately or terminate his employment. And if the CEO is making the shareholders rich, the board might increase his compensation. But neither voters nor policy makers should make poorly informed decisions about redistributive public policies based on a faulty understanding of how much executives are paid and why entry-level employees aren’t paid more."

Mark Perry and Michael Saltsman: About That CEO/Employee Pay Gap - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-perry-and-michael-saltsman-about-that-ceo-employee-pay-gap-1413150999)

The point is, not matter the issue....does not matter. If you are going to have an intelligent discussion of that issue, you must give context to that discussion or it means nothing whatsoever.

[dbussone]

Thanks for the research Rags; nicely done.

[Chi-Town]

Getting back to the original post the S&P is up 1/2%. If you want bad news go back 5 years

[njbchbum]

Chi-town - Who is benefitting from that 1/2%?

[Rags123]

Getting back to the original post the S&P is up 1/2%. If you want bad news go back 5 years

I didnt bring it up...simply reponded to another post, but would be interested in your input on the question asked by njbchbum.

The thread was started NOT to discuss economics or even our economy, and your post is not meant that way either I do not believe although cannot read the op's mind. However I am open to a discussion on the economy without the p........ aspect of it, but will wait to get your input.

Thanks

[2BNTV]

I believe the topic is how well the stock market is doing and not CEO compensation.

Back to the original topic!

[Chi-Town]

Chi-town - Who is benefitting from that 1/2%?
That's a good question. There are many of us with no pensions for income. And for a lot Social Security has not begun and in most cases is not enough to live on. But interest rates were high and corporate bonds were at par, and you could get an income stream from them. Of course, that model has changed.

Some time ago my financial advisor said that contrary to a natural inclination to become very conservative in your asset mix that equities need to be a higher percentage than I was comfortable with. But I followed the advice. Once a year I sell 4% of my portfolio. The advisor picks the mix. I understand that this formula is far from unique to me.

A higher market let's me cash in for the year and may cushion the next withdrawal during a down year. I retired at the beginning of 2010 and switched to a higher equity mix in an up market. So I bought at yearly highs which was a hard concept but it has worked out due to the bull market. Another thing the advisor said was there were very few places for investors to put their money other than equities which creates a demand for them.

The 4% can be tweaked as circumstances dictate. Your money should outlive you.

[Rags123]

The OP made a relationship between the stock market and our economy and the best way to respond to that is to simply show snippets from the experts...

From the Economist...

"An oft-quoted argument for investing in emerging markets is their superior economic growth. But the professors have pointed out in the past that economic growth and equity returns are not correlated at all. Jay Ritter of the University of Florida has a paper on the same issue. If this lack of relationship seems odd, the professors' argument is more subtle; yes, it would be useful to be aware of future economic growth. But being aware of past economic growth does not help; or rather, it is a a contrary indicator. You would be best placed investing in the slower-growing economies of the past, not in the fastest."

Growth and markets: A puzzling discrepancy | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-and-markets)

"In fact, there is little relationship between the magnitude of GDP growth and stock market performance."

Read more: Little Relationship Between Stocks, GDP - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/little-relationship-between-stocks-gdp-2013-12#ixzz3N3GVSPN1)


But to the point about being OFF THREAD SUBJECT, we really werent. There are many who think the economy is steaming but everyone is not sharing, thus the conversation relative to who is enjoying this trend. I believe the conversation was well in line with the thread topic.

The big number is the growth in GDP versus the growth of median income.

While there are a lot of good signs, in the last few years, the gap between the two had widened more than in any years since the beginning of 2000.

Without serious tax reform and an overhauling of entitlements, that gap is going to widen.

The market is not ever going to make our economy better so the 18000 is nice to applaud, it does not push sufficient growth for everyone to enjoy the fruits.

Let us hope that our new congress can work together to get some of this done and then we can cheer loudly.

[JoMar]

Try this again.

CEOs Earn Nearly 300 Times What Their Workers Make | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/12/3448115/ceo-worker-pay-ratio/)

And have 300 times the risk and responsibility of their workers.......generally.

[eweissenbach]

And have 300 times the risk and responsibility of their workers.......generally.

I would agree IF you were talKing strictly about entrepreneur CEOs, however the CEOs of most Fortune 500 companies have little or no skin in the game aside from the value of their stock options. Responsibilility, yes, but often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are. On the other hand, entrepreneurs, such as Morse, are worth all they accumulate because they did take all the risk and created a stellar product out of dirt.

[dbussone]

You may be correct about "most" but I personally know the ceo of the company ranked 324 on the 500 list. Alan Miller founded Universal Health Services (UHS) in 1979. He is the chairman and ceo. The company provides health care to millions each year and employs 80,000 people. Revenue is about $8B. He is as nice as they come, and his salary is well below that of other Fortune 500 companies CEOs. I know-he is not typical and my notation is anecdotal-nonetheless it is a factual account.

[Rags123]

I would agree IF you were talKing strictly about entrepreneur CEOs, however the CEOs of most Fortune 500 companies have little or no skin in the game aside from the value of their stock options. Responsibilility, yes, but often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are. On the other hand, entrepreneurs, such as Morse, are worth all they accumulate because they did take all the risk and created a stellar product out of dirt.

That is quite a huge generalization you make about CEO's. I am sure that folks like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs/Tim Cook might disagree with you totally especially the "skin in the game comment".

Your generalization is impossible to prove and just as impossible to disprove except to ask you to get a list of the Fortune 500 CEOs and read their bio's. I have done that (NOT ALL MIND YOU), and these are men of singular abilities who for the most part are rewarded with stock options which are a direct result of their abilities.

I am not sure your source for such a sweeping statement..."often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. "

I just know that reading about Fortune 500 CEO's is more an inspiring record of achievement than what you are presenting. Most of this men/women have been working hard in the backgrounds of these companies before assuming the control.

I certainly cannot convince you relative to your comment..."Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are." because you give no concrete information as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I find reading autobiographies of CEOs to be some of the most stimulating reading and by the way inspirational. Jack Welch at GE was a great one, and is the first that comes to mind that I have read along with Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Jeff Bezos and a few others I have read.

There surely are bad guys or gals who have been or are CEO's but there are bad union leaders as we all know...and bad any occupation you might want to mention.

I find the vast majority of CEOs to offer a lot of inspiration to anyone who might research them and when you are a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you have no where to hide at all.

I might add that this topic seems, for some reason to be tied to economic inequities, that most of these men give BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to charity.

[dbussone]

That is quite a huge generalization you make about CEO's. I am sure that folks like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs/Tim Cook might disagree with you totally especially the "skin in the game comment".

Your generalization is impossible to prove and just as impossible to disprove except to ask you to get a list of the Fortune 500 CEOs and read their bio's. I have done that (NOT ALL MIND YOU), and these are men of singular abilities who for the most part are rewarded with stock options which are a direct result of their abilities.

I am not sure your source for such a sweeping statement..."often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. "

I just know that reading about Fortune 500 CEO's is more an inspiring record of achievement than what you are presenting. Most of this men/women have been working hard in the backgrounds of these companies before assuming the control.

I certainly cannot convince you relative to your comment..."Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are." because you give no concrete information as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I find reading autobiographies of CEOs to be some of the most stimulating reading and by the way inspirational. Jack Welch at GE was a great one, and is the first that comes to mind that I have read along with Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Jeff Bezos and a few others I have read.

There surely are bad guys or gals who have been or are CEO's but there are bad union leaders as we all know...and bad any occupation you might want to mention.

I find the vast majority of CEOs to offer a lot of inspiration to anyone who might research them and when you are a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you have no where to hide at all.

I might add that this topic seems, for some reason to be tied to economic inequities, that most of these men give BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to charity.


Again, right on Rags. See my post about Alan Miller and Universal Health Services one post above.

[Rags123]

You may be correct about "most" but I personally know the ceo of the company ranked 324 on the 500 list. Alan Miller founded Universal Health Services (UHS) in 1979. He is the chairman and ceo. The company provides health care to millions each year and employs 80,000 people. Revenue is about $8B. He is as nice as they come, and his salary is well below that of other Fortune 500 companies CEOs. I know-he is not typical and my notation is anecdotal-nonetheless it is a factual account.

You stimulated me to read up on your friend, and as I say, most of the Fortune 500 CEOs are really inspirational. A very quick check of Wiki to find out more about him...

"Throughout his career, Alan Miller has been an ardent supporter of education for students of all economic backgrounds. He served on the executive board of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and is currently a member of The Board of Overseers of the internationally known business school.

He has served as a trustee of The College of William & Mary Endowment Fund and is a life member of the college’s President’s Council. In 2007, the College of William & Mary announced the creation of the Alan B. Miller Center for Entrepreneurship in recognition of Miller’s extensive support for his alma mater. The center, as well as the entire Mason School of Business at the College of William & Mary, will be housed in the new Alan B. Miller Hall. Miller has also served as trustee of the William & Mary Endowment Fund and Is a life member of the school’s President’s Council.

In addition to his work with the business school at the College of William & Mary, Miller also funded the construction of the campus gymnasium and established liberal arts and basketball scholarships to honor his parents, Mary and Manuel. Miller’s involvement is not limited to colleges where he studied. For example, when the University of South Carolina Aiken needed help persuading the state legislature to fund the construction of a new building for its nursing school, he provided a significant financial gift that made it possible to get the remainder of the money it needed from the state of South Carolina. Today, the Alan B. Miller Nursing Building stands on the campus as a reminder of Alan's spirit of community involvement. In 1995 Miller received an Honorary Doctorate in Business Administration from the University of South Carolina Aiken.

He has also served as the chairman of the Philadelphia United Negro College Fund Corporate Campaign, and received that organizations Chairman’s Award in 1996. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, an organization in which he was active for years, has also honored Miller.

A lover of the opera, Miller is chairman emeritus of the Opera Company of Philadelphia and also serves as a director of the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia."

You should be very proud to have him as a friend, and again, in my opinion he is more prototypical of CEO's of large companies than anything.

[Sandtrap328]

The OP made a relationship between the stock market and our economy and the best way to respond to that is to simply show snippets from the experts...

From the Economist...

"An oft-quoted argument for investing in emerging markets is their superior economic growth. But the professors have pointed out in the past that economic growth and equity returns are not correlated at all. Jay Ritter of the University of Florida has a paper on the same issue. If this lack of relationship seems odd, the professors' argument is more subtle; yes, it would be useful to be aware of future economic growth. But being aware of past economic growth does not help; or rather, it is a a contrary indicator. You would be best placed investing in the slower-growing economies of the past, not in the fastest."

Growth and markets: A puzzling discrepancy | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-and-markets)

"In fact, there is little relationship between the magnitude of GDP growth and stock market performance."

Read more: Little Relationship Between Stocks, GDP - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/little-relationship-between-stocks-gdp-2013-12#ixzz3N3GVSPN1)


But to the point about being OFF THREAD SUBJECT, we really werent. There are many who think the economy is steaming but everyone is not sharing, thus the conversation relative to who is enjoying this trend. I believe the conversation was well in line with the thread topic.

The big number is the growth in GDP versus the growth of median income.

While there are a lot of good signs, in the last few years, the gap between the two had widened more than in any years since the beginning of 2000.

Without serious tax reform and an overhauling of entitlements, that gap is going to widen.

The market is not ever going to make our economy better so the 18000 is nice to applaud, it does not push sufficient growth for everyone to enjoy the fruits.

Let us hope that our new congress can work together to get some of this done and then we can cheer loudly.

What the OP (me) did was to take a quotation out of the December 24 issue of The Daily Sun meant to be some good economic news. It did not have sinister political meaning; it did not mean everything is hunky dunkie; it shows a positive direction of the economy.

[dbussone]

Alan is a former military officer and annually supports The Wounded Warrior Project by having UHS match employee contributions. He taught me many things when I was with UHS.

[Rags123]

What the OP (me) did was to take a quotation out of the December 24 issue of The Daily Sun meant to be some good economic news. It did not have sinister political meaning; it did not mean everything is hunky dunkie; it shows a positive direction of the economy.


Nobody said it had any meaning other than what you mentioned. You specifically discussed the 18000 mark reached on Wall St. and the realtionship with the growth in the economy, which by the way I have directly replied to.

Along the way, a few pointed out that companies were makin the money and not sharing it, then someone brought up the amount of pay of CEOs versus the worker, etc. I tried to return to the nature of the thread in post 24, but most seem to want to discuss the disparity in pay between the top and the bottom.

Speaking for myself, I never tried to make any political points and mentioned a few times about the positive aspect of this news. Others felt it more important to come from the aspect of CEOs versus workers.

By the way, as a regular religious watcher of CNBC among others, I welcome any conversations on the economy. This subject you brought up has been discussed quite a bit the last few weeks...it mostly is met with hopeful comments. HOWEVER, those who made it about the wage or salary difference would be disappointed if they actually reviewed the direction of the country in the last few years. There are a number of great analysis of this but they come off very p........ and thus I have not quoted them nor cited them.

I just tried to respond to the posts as they were made but again, I did respond DIRECTLY to what you said.

[eweissenbach]

That is quite a huge generalization you make about CEO's. I am sure that folks like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs/Tim Cook might disagree with you totally especially the "skin in the game"


I assume you are aware that I said I did not include "entrepreneurs" in my comments. I presume you are also aware that Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, Buffet, and Jobs were all founders of their respective companies and therefore fit my definition of "entrepreneur".

[Rags123]

I assume you are aware that I said I did not include "entrepreneurs" in my comments. I presume you are also aware that Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, Buffet, and Jobs were all founders of their respective companies and therefore fit my definition of "entrepreneur".

Yep, I sure did but your generalization was such that...well, all of those guys I have read extensively about.....know them well. They are not unique as it appears you think they are......but again, my suggestion is that you read about any CEO on the Fortune 500 list and read about their accomplishments in business and their accomplishments in society with giving time and money.

Yes, I know those you mention were founders....just struck me about the comment about no skin in the game....lots more of these guys that did not found but have mucho "skin in the game". Good inspiring men and women.

I also know that you often mention about charity and when and if you do read about most of these men and women, you will be stunned by the amount of money and time they give.

[eweissenbach]

Yep, I sure did but your generalization was such that...well, all of those guys I have read extensively about.....know them well. They are not unique as it appears you think they are......but again, my suggestion is that you read about any CEO on the Fortune 500 list and read about their accomplishments in business and their accomplishments in society with giving time and money.

Yes, I know those you mention were founders....just struck me about the comment about no skin in the game....lots more of these guys that did not found but have mucho "skin in the game". Good inspiring men and women.

I also know that you often mention about charity and when and if you do read about most of these men and women, you will be stunned by the amount of money and time they give.

Read my post again Bucco.

[Rags123]

Read my post again Bucco.

This is your post in total...

" Originally Posted by eweissenbach View Post
I would agree IF you were talKing strictly about entrepreneur CEOs, however the CEOs of most Fortune 500 companies have little or no skin in the game aside from the value of their stock options. Responsibilility, yes, but often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are. On the other hand, entrepreneurs, such as Morse, are worth all they accumulate because they did take all the risk and created a stellar product out of dirt."

I highlighted in red those aspects I chose to respond to.

If you felt I did not understand your post, I am sorry, but I think I understood it totally.

And there I thought I posted as RAGS123, and you used BUCCO again...well, so be it I guess.

I am out of here...the OP did not like the direction of the thread and this is becoming personal posts which is against the rules of TOTV.

[eweissenbach]

This is your post in total...

" Originally Posted by eweissenbach View Post
I would agree IF you were talKing strictly about entrepreneur CEOs, however the CEOs of most Fortune 500 companies have little or no skin in the game aside from the value of their stock options. Responsibilility, yes, but often the underlings answer for poor performance, while the CEO, convinces the shareholders that it was their fault rather than his/hers, or decides that a massive layoff to cut payroll will make the bottom line look better. Now some CEOs are worth every penny, but I am not convinced most are. On the other hand, entrepreneurs, such as Morse, are worth all they accumulate because they did take all the risk and created a stellar product out of dirt."

I highlighted in red those aspects I chose to respond to.

If you felt I did not understand your post, I am sorry, but I think I understood it totally.

And there I thought I posted as RAGS123, and you used BUCCO again...well, so be it I guess.

I am out of here...the OP did not like the direction of the thread and this is becoming personal posts which is against the rules of TOTV.

It s convenient I suppose, or fits your agenda, to respond ONLY to the part of my post that you pull out of context. The preceding sentence CLEARLY stated that I was not including entrepreneurs in my statement.

[pbkmaine]

To me, it's not whether CEOs are good people or bad people. It's about the rate at which CEO pay has risen since I was a kid, and the effect it has had on society. In the 1960's, CEO pay was about 20 times that of the average worker. Now it's about 300 times. I think these articles are questioning the appropriateness of this kind of pay disparity. Is anyone's job worth so much money? Europeans believe a large middle class is the key to a stable society. I think many are seeing in this country the erosion of the middle class. Is income becoming more like a barbell of rich and poor, with fewer in the middle? I don't have any answers myself. I believe that hard work should bring rewards. But some of the rewards seem out of proportion to me.

[Chi-Town]

What the OP (me) did was to take a quotation out of the December 24 issue of The Daily Sun meant to be some good economic news. It did not have sinister political meaning; it did not mean everything is hunky dunkie; it shows a positive direction of the economy.

It's amazing how good news upsets some mind sets.

[graciegirl]

I don't understand some posters are so against big companies and big business.

Big business can buy things in bulk and lower operating costs. Big business is able to do what small business can't do; save consumers money and operate at a number of locations. Why do people on the political left malign this type of business operations over and over. It just looks to me like they are jealous of the big bucks that CEO's make.

Business is business. So many posters expect a business to hand over an advantage, like handing the football to the opposing team.

WHY is it WRONG for a CEO to make big bucks?? WHAT does giving to charity have anything to do with this discussion?

It just sounds like people talking who have always been employed by the government or a school or a non profit.

I really don't understand why people constantly post on Facebook things that put down large corporations. I have unfriended several people because I grow tired of hearing it.

Not all big business are ethical, but not all big business is unethical. It is the same with people of modest means. When you are running a company you use plans to make the company expand, increase profit and employ more people and make more money for yourself. That is how it works.

If a person is successful and makes a lot of money working for large corporations or running large corporation does not mean he or she is not conscious or helpful of others. Nor does it mean that a person of modest means is kind and helpful of others.

AND ED. We all know Rags is Bucco. He has discussed this. There are other posters on here with two screen names too.

[Rags123]

To the discussion about CEO pay and the wages paid to workers. There is an article from the Economist that speaks to this and the rise in GDP versus the median wages.

I know folks are tiptoeing around any p...... reference and I will also but most articles on this subject use terms in the WH as the basis.

" In ...... ....’s first six years GDP rose 16%, but median incomes fell 2%. Under .. ..... it has been even worse: GDP is up 8% and median income is down 4%, according to the Census Bureau and Sentier Research, a private outfit."

Barack Obama and the economy: The woes of the average Joe | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21620199-america-getting-richer-most-voters-cant-feel-it-woes-average-joe)

This is speaking to the last 14 years, and the point is NOT p........ but it is economic.

Hitting 18000 is a good sign, but it does not solve our problems. Tax cuts and addressing entitlements is what is needed. We shall see.

By the way, the link is a very fair article and gives credit where credit is due. It has charts to make its point.

[dbussone]

To me, it's not whether CEOs are good people or bad people. It's about the rate at which CEO pay has risen since I was a kid, and the effect it has had on society. In the 1960's, CEO pay was about 20 times that of the average worker. Now it's about 300 times. I think these articles are questioning the appropriateness of this kind of pay disparity. Is anyone's job worth so much money? Europeans believe a large middle class is the key to a stable society. I think many are seeing in this country the erosion of the middle class. Is income becoming more like a barbell of rich and poor, with fewer in the middle? I don't have any answers myself. I believe that hard work should bring rewards. But some of the rewards seem out of proportion to me.

Please go back and re-read the post by Rags123. He notes a number of important points., including the fact that the AFL-CIO study included only 350 CEO salaries. That there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the U.S. That the average CEO salary is $178,000. That the average worker makes $35,000. And therefore the AVERAGE CEO only makes about 5 times what the average worker makes. It is true that a small percentage make extremely high sums of money. It is also true that the AFL-CIO report is extremely misleading in its efforts to paint all CEOs with the same paintbrush. Rags sources were the WSJ and BLS.

[Rags123]

It's amazing how good news upsets some mind sets.

You are sure misreading this entire thread. OP began a thread based on good news BUT applied it to the economy.

Another poster veered, not that much, but veered to corporate wages versus worker wages and the responses were to that theme.

PLEASE, do not put thoughts into my mind. I am extremely happy about the 18000, but the good news we need is to have congress and the WH get together and attack the real problem...tax reform and the entitlement adjustments. If they can do that, then we will see the economy show real growth.

Anyone who is not happy with the 18000 is living in a cave, but also in a cave if anyone thinks that the dow is the end all to our economic woes especially the divide in wages.

[Rags123]

If you really want a rosy picture of our country right now and want credit to be handed out...read the link below. I will give you just the last paragraph but it is all upbeat and positive...

"You don’t have to endorse Obama’s economic philosophy to realize that it hasn’t wreaked short-term havoc, just as you don’t have to endorse the Obama or George W. Bush anti-terror philosophies to acknowledge that America hasn’t endured a rash of terror attacks since 2001. Last week, polls finally found a majority of Americans recognizing that the economy is improving, which is to say a majority of Americans are recognizing reality. It’s probably time for politicians to discover a new Ebola to scream about.
There is no shortage of candidates in this less-than-perfect union. The U.S. is still plagued by inadequate public schools, crumbling infrastructure, soaring college tuition costs, stark inequality. Many Americans want accountability for reckless bankers, torturers and fatal choke-holders. Washington is still almost as dysfunctional as everyone says it is. Congress this session really was the second least productive ever. And even though Obama is winding down the U.S. involvement in overseas wars, the world remains a scary place. There’s still plenty to worry about."


Read more: Everything Is Awesome! - Michael Grunwald - POLITICO Magazine (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/everything-is-awesome-113801.html#ixzz3N6h9Sgnx)

This is an opinion piece you will love CHITOWN.....

[eweissenbach]

I don't understand some posters are so against big companies and big business.

Big business can buy things in bulk and lower operating costs. Big business is able to do what small business can't do; save consumers money and operate at a number of locations. Why do people on the political left malign this type of business operations over and over. It just looks to me like they are jealous of the big bucks that CEO's make.

Business is business. So many posters expect a business to hand over an advantage, like handing the football to the opposing team.

WHY is it WRONG for a CEO to make big bucks?? WHAT does giving to charity have anything to do with this discussion?

It just sounds like people talking who have always been employed by the government or a school or a non profit.

I really don't understand why people constantly post on Facebook things that put down large corporations. I have unfriended several people because I grow tired of hearing it.

Not all big business are ethical, but not all big business is unethical. It is the same with people of modest means. When you are running a company you use plans to make the company expand, increase profit and employ more people and make more money for yourself. That is how it works.

If a person is successful and makes a lot of money working for large corporations or running large corporation does not mean he or she is not conscious or helpful of others. Nor does it mean that a person of modest means is kind and helpful of others.

AND ED. We all know Rags is Bucco. He has discussed this. There are other posters on here with two screen names too.

I can't tell for sure, but you seem to be scolding me, so I'll respond. So are you saying that someone who has only been employed by government, school, or non profit can't understand these economic issues like you? BTW I was employed by schools for fourteen years but spent 25 years working for mega corporations FWIW. I NEVER stated CEOS on the whole were overpaid, I said some of them seemed to get paid a lot even though they are not producing. The point of the article I linked was that the ratio of CEO comp to average employee comp has skyrocketed over the last twenty years, I left it to the reader to judge if that was good or bad. As far as the study only covering 350 companies there are two points that would make sense to me, 1. Those companies employ a massive amount of the workforce, and 2. The data is readily available on those companies. For those that say all companies should be used to get a ratio of five to one, I would point out the following.
There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO.
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html)
The only conclusion that I drew from the study I linked was that since the average worker has lost buying power over the last twenty years, maybe the average workers comp should be rising commensurately with the CEOs when these corporations succeed.
Also, unfriending people on Facebook because they share certain things that don't fit your worldview is troubling to me. I have friends of all persuasions, some of whom post things I find disgusting, but have never unfriended them. I like to see what everyone is talking about whether I agree or disagree.

[Polar Bear]

I don't understand some posters are so against big companies and big business...WHY is it WRONG for a CEO to make big bucks??...


As usual...what gracie said.

Big bucks for the people at the top is as natural as the falling rain. It's true in all fields. Sports, entertainment, business, industry, you-name-it.

Society is pyramidal by nature. Even socialism has an elite class. In a capitalist society it's the CEO's and other superstars. It doesn't automatically make them good or evil.

And in most cases, I think they deserve it. They've worked and accomplished things for it.

[njbchbum]

IF:
* "There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
* 21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
* Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
*In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO."

Where did the surveyors find reliable /credible data for 350 CEOs and employees to use in their survey?

[eweissenbach]

IF:
* "There are over 27.7 million companies operating in the U.S.
* 21.7 M of those companies have no employees ( more than 75% have no ratio)
* Of the remaining 6 M, 3.7 M have 1-4 employees, and 1 M have 5-9 employees.
*In other words the vast majority of businesses are eithe sole proprietors with zero employees or mom and pop businesses with fewer than ten employees, which really don't have a CEO."

Where did the surveyors find reliable /credible data for 350 CEOs and employees to use in their survey?

Financial information on publicly Held corporations is Public information.

[njbchbum]

That's a good question. There are many of us with no pensions for income. And for a lot Social Security has not begun and in most cases is not enough to live on. But interest rates were high and corporate bonds were at par, and you could get an income stream from them. Of course, that model has changed.

Some time ago my financial advisor said that contrary to a natural inclination to become very conservative in your asset mix that equities need to be a higher percentage than I was comfortable with. But I followed the advice. Once a year I sell 4% of my portfolio. The advisor picks the mix. I understand that this formula is far from unique to me.

A higher market let's me cash in for the year and may cushion the next withdrawal during a down year. I retired at the beginning of 2010 and switched to a higher equity mix in an up market. So I bought at yearly highs which was a hard concept but it has worked out due to the bull market. Another thing the advisor said was there were very few places for investors to put their money other than equities which creates a demand for them.

The 4% can be tweaked as circumstances dictate. Your money should outlive you.

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!

[Rags123]

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!


I am going to repeat what I said in my earlier post....in the last 10 years the difference between GDP and wages has widened and widened. We keep talking about it and blaming corporations or whatever, but it is something that hopefully congress and the WH will now address....

"
" In ...... ....’s first six years GDP rose 16%, but median incomes fell 2%. Under .. ..... it has been even worse: GDP is up 8% and median income is down 4%, according to the Census Bureau and Sentier Research, a private outfit."


This is speaking to the last 14 years, and the point is NOT p........ but it is economic."


THIS IS NOT THE FAULT OF CORPORATIONS OR CEOS......not in anyway.

The 18000 on the dow is mostly because of the fed keeping interest rates down so you are not getting that high rate, but also not paying any inflation.

This has to be addressed by congress...and soon. EVERYONE is correct..the average Joe is suffering....but everyone keeps looking for a scapegoat. There really isn't any......tax reform, re thinking entitlements, etc is what will work.

[Rags123]

Just addressing the problem a bit more with our economy, I looked through my archives and discovered this gem from a writer at Economist who speaks to the American economy. This was dated just a few weeks ago and instead of blaming people, we shoud put the heat on the WH and congress to TALK to each other about trying to solve the problem.

Posturing for poll numbers, etc is not going to cut it....

This address the interest rates I mentioned earlier....

"America is still in a world in which interest rates are effectively zero. It will be in that world for at least another six months and probably quite a bit longer. Futures markets reckon we will be well into 2016 before rates reach even 1%. For most of the next two years, in other words, the monetary response to any negative shock, domestic or abroad, will come entirely in the form of unconventional policy. That makes me extremely nervous, as the Fed is obviously uncomfortable about relying so heavily on unconventional tools. Any delay or under-response to a shock due to this discomfort makes a recession much more likely. And I would note that over time and across countries tightening cycles off of zero lower bound episodes tend to be much more abbreviated than what we would normally expect. A half point rise would represent the opening act of a tightening cycle in most cases. Coming off of the ZLB, however, it may well represent the beginning, middle and end."

And while I posted a very rosy and optimistic point of view in an earlier post, we have to be realistic......

"One metric might be a cross-country comparison. On that score one might suppose optimism is clearly warranted. America's recovery is the envy of the rich world. On the other hand, that is not saying much. Being the best of the bunch when the bunch has done so miserably is not exactly reason for cheer. And while America is far more insulated from global ups and downs than other economies it is not immune. Poor enough performance abroad would indeed slow American growth, particularly if that poor performance were linked to a major financial meltdown. On a cross-country basis one can make a case for optimism, but it's not a strong one.

An historical comparison, by contrast, leads to a much bleaker assessment of the current recovery. The employment recovery since June of 2009 is the worst of any American rebound in the postwar period, and the GDP recovery is the second worst, outdone only by the performance after the 2001 recession. America remains well below the levels of output and employment one might reasonably have expected it to attain both before the Great Recession and in its immediate aftermath. It is true that growth in GDP and employment has been surprisingly—even shockingly—steady and resilient. But that makes it all the more remarkable that America has made up so little of the ground lost since 2007.

That brings us to another case for pessimism: the limited nature of the recovery. GDP is growing, but you can't eat GDP. You can't even eat employment. Incomes you can eat, if you spend them. Real GDP per capita is only a shade above its level of seven years ago: $50,675 now to $49,455 in the third quarter of 2007. At the median the performance has been much worse; real median household income tumbled from 2007 and has barely recovered."

The real point and brought home by njbchbum post is that nothing is touching the average Joe in anyway. I hope that people will do the math and read and realize that penalizing the corporations will not either.

Lets root for bi partisan working together to address this problem

[Chi-Town]

If you really want a rosy picture of our country right now and want credit to be handed out...read the link below. I will give you just the last paragraph but it is all upbeat and positive...

"You don’t have to endorse Obama’s economic philosophy to realize that it hasn’t wreaked short-term havoc, just as you don’t have to endorse the Obama or George W. Bush anti-terror philosophies to acknowledge that America hasn’t endured a rash of terror attacks since 2001. Last week, polls finally found a majority of Americans recognizing that the economy is improving, which is to say a majority of Americans are recognizing reality. It’s probably time for politicians to discover a new Ebola to scream about.
There is no shortage of candidates in this less-than-perfect union. The U.S. is still plagued by inadequate public schools, crumbling infrastructure, soaring college tuition costs, stark inequality. Many Americans want accountability for reckless bankers, torturers and fatal choke-holders. Washington is still almost as dysfunctional as everyone says it is. Congress this session really was the second least productive ever. And even though Obama is winding down the U.S. involvement in overseas wars, the world remains a scary place. There’s still plenty to worry about."


Read more: Everything Is Awesome! - Michael Grunwald - POLITICO Magazine (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/everything-is-awesome-113801.html#ixzz3N6h9Sgnx)

This is an opinion piece you will love CHITOWN.....

Actually this is the end of the article:

"But for now be merry! And may the new year be as awesome as this year."

Rags123, I know where you're coming from. This has been a trying year. Sometimes we need a little good news to get us through.

[eweissenbach]

Just addressing the problem a bit more with our economy, I looked through my archives and discovered this gem from a writer at Economist who speaks to the American economy. This was dated just a few weeks ago and instead of blaming people, we shoud put the heat on the WH and congress to TALK to each other about trying to solve the problem.

Posturing for poll numbers, etc is not going to cut it....

This address the interest rates I mentioned earlier....

"America is still in a world in which interest rates are effectively zero. It will be in that world for at least another six months and probably quite a bit longer. Futures markets reckon we will be well into 2016 before rates reach even 1%. For most of the next two years, in other words, the monetary response to any negative shock, domestic or abroad, will come entirely in the form of unconventional policy. That makes me extremely nervous, as the Fed is obviously uncomfortable about relying so heavily on unconventional tools. Any delay or under-response to a shock due to this discomfort makes a recession much more likely. And I would note that over time and across countries tightening cycles off of zero lower bound episodes tend to be much more abbreviated than what we would normally expect. A half point rise would represent the opening act of a tightening cycle in most cases. Coming off of the ZLB, however, it may well represent the beginning, middle and end."

And while I posted a very rosy and optimistic point of view in an earlier post, we have to be realistic......

"One metric might be a cross-country comparison. On that score one might suppose optimism is clearly warranted. America's recovery is the envy of the rich world. On the other hand, that is not saying much. Being the best of the bunch when the bunch has done so miserably is not exactly reason for cheer. And while America is far more insulated from global ups and downs than other economies it is not immune. Poor enough performance abroad would indeed slow American growth, particularly if that poor performance were linked to a major financial meltdown. On a cross-country basis one can make a case for optimism, but it's not a strong one.

An historical comparison, by contrast, leads to a much bleaker assessment of the current recovery. The employment recovery since June of 2009 is the worst of any American rebound in the postwar period, and the GDP recovery is the second worst, outdone only by the performance after the 2001 recession. America remains well below the levels of output and employment one might reasonably have expected it to attain both before the Great Recession and in its immediate aftermath. It is true that growth in GDP and employment has been surprisingly—even shockingly—steady and resilient. But that makes it all the more remarkable that America has made up so little of the ground lost since 2007.

That brings us to another case for pessimism: the limited nature of the recovery. GDP is growing, but you can't eat GDP. You can't even eat employment. Incomes you can eat, if you spend them. Real GDP per capita is only a shade above its level of seven years ago: $50,675 now to $49,455 in the third quarter of 2007. At the median the performance has been much worse; real median household income tumbled from 2007 and has barely recovered."

The real point and brought home by njbchbum post is that nothing is touching the average Joe in anyway. I hope that people will do the math and read and realize that penalizing the corporations will not either.

Lets root for bi partisan working together to address this problem

Yup

[Chi-Town]

Wow! Sounds like the folks with an "asset mix" and a financial advisor stand to benefit from the 1/2%. Good for them! Wonder if the rest of us without such mix and advice ever will; or if what purchasing power the rest of us have is responsible in some way for that 1/2%! I liked the days of higher interest rates when even I could make some $$!

I think we all slept better. I know I did.

[graciegirl]

[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.

[eweissenbach]

The problem with high interest rates is that they are generally accompanied by inflation. In the late seventies and early eighties you could get 12% on a CD, but if you had to borrow for a home or a car you paid 15% or more. Inflation during those years was 10-14% so after paying taxes on your earned interest, your buying power was basically negative. The inflation rate currently is 1.3%, so the buying power on your income is not eroding much. At seven percent inflation your buying power is cut in half over about ten years, not good for people on fixed incomes. There are always pros and cons to any investment and economic scenario, but low inflation plays pretty well into most people's strategy.

[Chi-Town]

[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.


njbchbum mentioned at the end of her post that she liked the higher interest rates where you could make some money. I did too, because if it was a bond or a cd you would know how much would be paid for a certain period of time without the worry of market fluctuations.
[

Sometimes it is hard to follow the train of thought on here.

[zonerboy]

Yes, I remember when you could buy a short term CD with practically zero principal risk and earn 10 t0 12 percent. But those days are gone.
You don't have to have a financial advisor or a mixed basket of equities in order to participate in the stock market gains. There are many, many, many ETF's which you can purchase with practically zero sales charge and which contain a large basket of stocks in almost any sector of business you care to choose. Some even pay dividends way higher than interest rates of current CD's or government bonds. There is risk, of course, in the case of a market collapse. But that is the price you pay for higher returns. This is why generally the owner of a corporation has a higher salary that the employees. If the company fails, the owner looses the money he invested. While the employees only lose their job.