Posted on 06/14/2016 5:35:35 AM PDT by expat_panama
People at the head of large hierarchies do tend to be sociopathic. Take unions for example. The rank and file actually tend to be conservative, while the leaders tend to be sellouts to their fellow sociopaths in Big Government pretending to be liberal.
If you are only referring to the purchase of an IPO - a one-time event for that traunch of capital - then you would be correct. Those funds are transferred to the corporation and added as an asset.
If you are referring to the stocks you buy or sell on exchanges, then that is incorrect. Those funds are transferred to the seller of the privately held shares.
Stockholders KNOW that some of their property will make its way into the pockets of CEOs.
Incorrect. The working capital of a corporation is different than the allotment of the income and subsequent expenses of a corporation. The CEO does not skim off part of your capital. His or her compensation comes from the cash flow of a corporation and is decided by the crony board.
They, knowing this, voluntarily transfer their private property to CEOs.
Wrong premise leads to this bad conclusion. This is a form of logical fallacy. The working capital does not go to the CEO. Ever.
When I buy stocks (frequently) I know the CEO makes a ton of cash, but I voluntarily transfer my wealth to him anyway.
It is true that a shareholder should know the compensation of the CEO at the time of purchase (not transfer). It is also true that whoever owns the shares owns the company and has a say in compensation through the choice of board members who decide the compensation.Final bad conclusion. You may buy many stocks, which is great. I did a bit of that too - billions. Your understanding is not clear. Fortunately, you do not need to understand what is happening to buy or sell securities.
Finally, your post begs the question as to what is a reasonable amount of compensation to a CEO. It also ignores the issue of who decides how much profit should compensate the CEO vs. being distributed to stock owners.
My brother built a company from nothing to 65 employees.
He often said there wasn’t one person in 1000 worthy of signing the FRONT of a paycheck.
I told him recently that he needed to add another zero-— 1 in 10,000 MIGHT be worthy.
I live in a rural community where there are alot of retirees.
One recently was stunned to learn that I OWN my property-—free & clear. Plus all of my vehicles & rolling stock, appliances & furniture.
All wrong, again...
Stockholders voluntarily transfer their property to the corporation.
If you are only referring to the purchase of an IPO - a one-time event for that traunch of capital - then you would be correct. Those funds are transferred to the corporation and added as an asset.
If you are referring to the stocks you buy or sell on exchanges, then that is incorrect. Those funds are transferred to the seller of the privately held shares.
The point is that property is voluntarily transferred to companies and CEOs by private property holders. This thing about stock going to the private holder other than an IPO is completely beside the ORIGINAL POINT, which is IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS how much a CEO makes, unless you are a stockholder, and then you can sell if you don’t like it.
Stockholders KNOW that some of their property will make its way into the pockets of CEOs.
Incorrect. The working capital of a corporation is different than the allotment of the income and subsequent expenses of a corporation. The CEO does not skim off part of your capital. His or her compensation comes from the cash flow of a corporation and is decided by the crony board.
A GREAT DEAL of CEO pay is often in the form of bonuses tied to stock performance. Period. “The crony board” — there you go again — the quality, make-up, and actions of the board are none of your business, unless you’re a liberal, of course. If I own stock in X and I don’t like their crony board, I sell. If X performs well, I don’t care about their crony board, and I buy.
They, knowing this, voluntarily transfer their private property to CEOs.
Wrong premise leads to this bad conclusion. This is a form of logical fallacy. The working capital does not go to the CEO. Ever.
See above.
When I buy stocks (frequently) I know the CEO makes a ton of cash, but I voluntarily transfer my wealth to him anyway.
It is true that a shareholder should know the compensation of the CEO at the time of purchase (not transfer). It is also true that whoever owns the shares owns the company and has a say in compensation through the choice of board members who decide the compensation.
All of the above is pointless rambling.
Final bad conclusion. You may buy many stocks, which is great. I did a bit of that too - billions. Your understanding is not clear.
Your understanding is not clear. Mine is fine.
Fortunately, you do not need to understand what is happening to buy or sell securities.
Finally, your post begs the question as to what is a reasonable amount of compensation to a CEO. It also ignores the issue of who decides how much profit should compensate the CEO vs. being distributed to stock owners.
FINALLY, you get to the original point, and you get it wrong. My post makes what is “reasonable” ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. A CEO should get paid whatever he can get somebody to voluntarily pay him. Period. What is “reasonable” is the original point. “Reasonable” profit is something that ONLY liberals have been obsessed with for all time. CONSERVATIVES realize that how other people use their wealth, property, and/or capital is none of their business. Period. I bet you would never want a bunch of your fellow liberals sitting around deciding what is a “reasonable” profit for you when you sell the house that you’ve owned for the last 30 years, would you?
Major League baseball players get a minimum $507,000 per year, while little league players get nothing. Now that’s a gap!
Well, good luck to you trading.
Seems the word sociopath is no longer politically correct, and these days we have to call it antisocial personality disorder. It's pretty much the same thing tho and a while folks in charge often seem to be anti-social and lack conscience most of the time it's not the case. OK, so the folks in charge get an idea in their head, they claim it as their own, they ignore all nuance and shades of grey, and yell 'full speed ahead' and woe to anyone who doen't jump.
That is a definition of leadership and humankind functions because we can easily form groups w/ leaders and followers. We need both tho I got to admit I've never fit in very well with either role...
Class warfare is for stupid Marxists who really don't understand how people work.
“To you point about firing, nowadays its a risky thing to do that is fraught with legal, personal and other ramifications”.
Ummm, no. Not nearly. Not unless you sack someone for whistleblowing or for EXTREMELY shady reasons. Right now there is such a dire shortage of jobs that workers are as disposable as a Kleenex. Heck, First Data in my homecity is notorious for mass layoffs of the lower ranks right before financial reports are calculated to look good on paper and then hiring most of them back later.
You pretty much have to sign away every right you might ever have to even get in the door of a business for any position past janitor, including any right to sue in favor of ‘arbitration’ or ‘mediation’ which is such a total joke it might as well not exist.
Hell no. The CEO at my last job could have literally trashed the entire company and still retired independently wealthy.
By comparison just watch the !@#$ fireworks if you or I ‘take too long’ telling a particularly stubborn and stupid customer we won’t do what he wants because it’s physically impossible and I won’t transfer him to someone who will do it because we’ll get in even MORE hot water for passing the buck.
Meh. I’m retired now, but when I was earning The Big Bucks, I made 3x what the lowest-paid worker made.
If the schmuck unloading trucks or cleaning toilets could do my job, he’d HAVE my job.
P.S. I started OUT unloading trucks and even as the Manager, I STILL scrubbed a toilet and unloaded a truck when needed. And guess what? The guy earning 3x LESS than me respected me all the more.
Again, Meh. Leftards always have their nose out of joint...when it needs to be against the grind stone! ;)
I love that!
We had a disgruntled, low-level employee who was whining about ‘The Big Boss’ never thanking him personally for all the hard work he does.
I told him he was ‘thanked’ every two weeks and to prove it he should READ the signature on his paycheck.
Idjit. ;)
What happened later is poor Ben'n'Jerry worked for way less than what they were worth and when it came time to retire they found it impossible to find any talent at the rate they were getting. They finally faced the fact that they could either pay a real CEO salary or lay everyone off and close shop.
You missed my point. It was not about mass layoffs in certain types of industries where, I grant you, it can happen with disturbing regularity and for reasons that are often related to the bottom line. Those are really layoffs, not firings per se.
My comment pertained to firing people for cause, be it for performance reasons, unsuitability, aggression, insubordination, misuse of company resources, or other employee misconduct. Even in what many people would consider as cut and dried situations, it can still be a tedious, costly and risky process to dismiss someone. The ramifications of firing can cover a wide range of related considerations: employment laws, union pressures, threats of lawsuits, emotional distress, the multicultural working environment, perceived discrimination, and sometime even veiled or not so veiled threats of violence against the boss and/or company management. The list is actually longer but I trust you get my point: it can quickly become a complicated mess.
Trust me, this is why companies are so guarded about hiring anyone. I don’t know how much management experience you have but I can assure you the firing process is exactly what I said it is. And when you combine that with the steady decline of the American work ethic, management has a lot to deal with.
Telling an employee they are doing a good job, from time to time, is a good thing to do. Some types of personalities like to be stroked to reinforce their self worth and value to the company. I think we all enjoy hearing compliments and it gives us a personal ego boost for a day or two. :)
But most jobs involve interactions with other team members. Singling out someone for praise can have the unintended effect of slighting others (”why didn’t he recognize all the hard work I did?”). There are standouts in every organizations who deserve to be acknowledged for their special skills or contributions, but in general its a good practice to “thank” the team. Its those units that produce the work.
I haven’t done much as a manager, admittedly, but I’m sorry...I just cannot agree. Every company down to and including the most ramshackle seedy call-center jobs I’ve worked at had you sign your name on papers until you had about as many rights as a potted plant. I’ve been nearly fired for looking for a second job when my first job had a cap on pay harder than titanium; threatened to be sent home for saying “that’s none of your business” to a nosy female boss asking about what I did with my personal time.
Maybe its just my experience, but from what I can see unless you are a protected minority or are outright physically assaulted this isn’t true. Heck I was *threatened* and a lawyer told me I’d go broke just getting the case to court let alone beating their phalanx of $100-an-hour pros on retainer.
I don’t doubt your travails and unfortunate experiences. There are times when it can feel like you’re going up against a machine. However, let me assure you I’ve worked in places that would never tolerate some of the things that happened to you. In fact, the managers would have been reprimanded because such incidents can have serious effects on morale, production, and retention of employees. Regardless what you may think, those are important things in many companies because they all effect the bottom line.
It is true that employee protections vary from state to state and of course the work place environment differs in certain types of companies and industries. But in general, I would say that management wants to avoid the potential for conflicts of any kind in the work place. Its in their own interests. And when you throw minorities into the mix along with gender related issues or perceived harassment of any kind, legal considerations can come into play. Another potentially related issue can be the fear of work place violence from individuals who feel wronged (either perceived or actual). In my experiences of many years in both the private and public sectors, firings are a last resort and something to be avoided if possible.
That said, I realize some places just have terrible management that don’t seem to care. Just like with bad people, you need to do yourself a favor and get away from them and their toxic environment ASAP. Not long ago my son went on a job interview and a nosy female manager (sound familiar to you?) started asking what he considered to be inappropriate questions. He concluded right then and there he would never work at that place. It was their loss, not his.
I guess we can agree to disagree on some things. Its been a good discussion.
Regards.
“I haven’t done much as a manager, admittedly”
*************
You didn’t miss out on much. At times it feels like you’re baby sitting instead of managing. And that comment includes the people above you. :)
I was always lavish with the praise and kept the break room stocked with contraband. ;)
THIS particular ‘worker’ wanted a thank you from the Owner...who never even thanked me, his top performing Manager, year after year after year. (I knew how he was going in.)
Meh. I don’t live on praise like some do, though. I’ll take my THANKS in cold, hard cash, Baby! ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.