From: kickstart on
On Aug 13, 4:10 pm, Greasy Rider <greasyri...(a)teranews.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 15:57, Twibil wrote:
>
> > No, but apparently irony is foreign to you.
>
> That's not true....I saw him ironing his chaps on more than one occasion.
>
> Greasy


they get coal in Kentucky NOT Irony
From: JD on
On 8/13/2010 2:20 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:36 pm, JD<jdblackwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind that the cost of production includes
>> management compensation. When you have a CEO that
>> gets $500,000,000 a year that's equivalent to
>> 10,000 employees making $50,000 a year. Now
>> consider that 7000 Boeing employees produce around
>> 40 747's a year at $500,000,000 a pop. It makes
>> more sense to pay the greedy fuckers at the top
>> less and create more jobs. *THAT* is what builds
>> capital.
>
> Of course, executive compensation is higher than it has ever been.
> That notwithstanding, no executive in the top 200 companies (in
> revenues) in the U.S. is making $500 million per year.

>
> Googling found a study of pay from the first 200 U. S. companies with
> fiscal year 2008 revenue of at least $5 billion that filed their proxy
> statements between October 2008 and March 2009.
>
> Exactly one CEO in that list had pay, stock options, and incentives
> over $100 million; the CEO of Motorola.
>
> No one else had total compensation of even $50 million, which is a
> mere 1/10 of your example. In fact, only 13 of the 200 CEOs in the
> list had total compensation of over $25 million, which is only 1/20 of
> your (assumed to be hypothetical) example.
>
> In actual fact, the CEO of Boeing had total compensation of
> $15,606,000, which is about 3% of your example. That would be about
> 180 jobs with a salary of $50,000 - since $50,000 a year salaries
> actually cost about $85,000 per year in total compensation. That's a
> far cry from your 10,000 jobs figure.
>
> In fact, Boeing has 157,000 employees. That means that the CEO got
> just under $100 in total compensation for each employee working for
> the company.
>
> And the company had revenue of $60.9 billion in 2008, with net income
> of $2.67 billion.
>
> So, in fact, the CEO was compensated with approximately 6/10's of one
> percent of the net income of the company.
>
> Now, Mr. McNerney may very well be a greedy man - I don't know him
> personally - but the question of what is wrong with the U.S. economy
> is a lot more complex than just the fact that some "Captains of
> Industry" are phenomenally greedy.

Didn't somebody just bail from a big corporate job
with a $400,000,000 parachute? Can't recall the
name offhand. It's not that uncommon, is it.
Perhaps Boeing wasn't the best example but but
what have in compensatory restraint they more than
destroy with far too many layers of empire
building management. What I'm basically taking
issue with is that executive buying power has
increased exponentially while those on the shop
floor and first line management have experienced a
decrease. Is that "right" in your book? Does it
make sense to send production to a third world
sweat shop to build a product that won't be
purchased here because the target market lost
their jobs?

From: walt tonne on
On Aug 13, 5:43 pm, JD <jdblackwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 2:20 PM, Tim wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:36 pm, JD<jdblackwe...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> Keep in mind that the cost of production includes
> >> management compensation. When you have a CEO that
> >> gets $500,000,000 a year that's equivalent to
> >> 10,000 employees making $50,000 a year. Now
> >> consider that 7000 Boeing employees produce around
> >> 40 747's a year at $500,000,000 a pop. It makes
> >> more sense to pay the greedy fuckers at the top
> >> less and create more jobs. *THAT* is what builds
> >> capital.
>
> > Of course, executive compensation is higher than it has ever been.
> > That notwithstanding, no executive in the top 200 companies (in
> > revenues) in the U.S. is making $500 million per year.
>
> > Googling found a study of pay from the first 200 U. S. companies with
> > fiscal year 2008 revenue of at least $5 billion that filed their proxy
> > statements between October 2008 and March 2009.
>
> > Exactly one CEO in that list had pay, stock options, and incentives
> > over $100 million; the CEO of Motorola.
>
> > No one else had total compensation of even $50 million, which is a
> > mere 1/10 of your example.  In fact, only 13 of the 200 CEOs in the
> > list had total compensation of over $25 million, which is only 1/20 of
> > your (assumed to be hypothetical) example.
>
> > In actual fact, the CEO of Boeing had total compensation of
> > $15,606,000, which is about 3% of your example. That would be about
> > 180 jobs with a salary of $50,000 - since $50,000 a year salaries
> > actually cost about $85,000 per year in total compensation.  That's a
> > far cry from your 10,000 jobs figure.
>
> > In fact, Boeing has 157,000 employees.   That means that the CEO got
> > just under  $100 in total compensation for each employee working for
> > the company.
>
> > And the company had revenue of $60.9 billion in 2008, with net income
> > of $2.67 billion.
>
> > So, in fact,  the CEO was compensated with approximately 6/10's of one
> > percent of the net income of the company.
>
> > Now, Mr. McNerney may very well be a greedy man - I don't know him
> > personally - but the question of what is wrong with the U.S. economy
> > is a lot more complex than just the fact that some "Captains of
> > Industry" are phenomenally greedy.
>
> Didn't somebody just bail from a big corporate job
> with a $400,000,000 parachute? Can't recall the
> name offhand. It's not that uncommon, is it.
> Perhaps Boeing wasn't the best example but but
> what have in compensatory restraint they more than
> destroy with far too many layers of empire
> building management. What I'm basically taking
> issue with is that executive buying power has
> increased exponentially while those on the shop
> floor and first line management have experienced a
> decrease. Is that "right" in your book?  Does it
> make sense to send production to a third world
> sweat shop to build a product that won't be
> purchased here because the target market lost
> their jobs?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The economy will continue to decline. We are losing more and
more of the global market. What are we to sell? McDonald's
and Starbucks products. Anticipate very dramatic and even dangerous
times ahead. Social strife in every city and town.
From: Twibil on
On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Greasy Rider <greasyri...(a)teranews.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 15:57, Twibil wrote:
>
> > No, but apparently irony is foreign to you.
>
> That's not true....I saw him ironing his chaps on more than one occasion.

Hint: "irony" has naught to do with either clothing or blacksmithing.
From: JD on
On 8/13/2010 4:36 PM, walt tonne wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:43 pm, JD<jdblackwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/13/2010 2:20 PM, Tim wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 4:36 pm, JD<jdblackwe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Keep in mind that the cost of production includes
>>>> management compensation. When you have a CEO that
>>>> gets $500,000,000 a year that's equivalent to
>>>> 10,000 employees making $50,000 a year. Now
>>>> consider that 7000 Boeing employees produce around
>>>> 40 747's a year at $500,000,000 a pop. It makes
>>>> more sense to pay the greedy fuckers at the top
>>>> less and create more jobs. *THAT* is what builds
>>>> capital.
>>
>>> Of course, executive compensation is higher than it has ever been.
>>> That notwithstanding, no executive in the top 200 companies (in
>>> revenues) in the U.S. is making $500 million per year.
>>
>>> Googling found a study of pay from the first 200 U. S. companies with
>>> fiscal year 2008 revenue of at least $5 billion that filed their proxy
>>> statements between October 2008 and March 2009.
>>
>>> Exactly one CEO in that list had pay, stock options, and incentives
>>> over $100 million; the CEO of Motorola.
>>
>>> No one else had total compensation of even $50 million, which is a
>>> mere 1/10 of your example. In fact, only 13 of the 200 CEOs in the
>>> list had total compensation of over $25 million, which is only 1/20 of
>>> your (assumed to be hypothetical) example.
>>
>>> In actual fact, the CEO of Boeing had total compensation of
>>> $15,606,000, which is about 3% of your example. That would be about
>>> 180 jobs with a salary of $50,000 - since $50,000 a year salaries
>>> actually cost about $85,000 per year in total compensation. That's a
>>> far cry from your 10,000 jobs figure.
>>
>>> In fact, Boeing has 157,000 employees. That means that the CEO got
>>> just under $100 in total compensation for each employee working for
>>> the company.
>>
>>> And the company had revenue of $60.9 billion in 2008, with net income
>>> of $2.67 billion.
>>
>>> So, in fact, the CEO was compensated with approximately 6/10's of one
>>> percent of the net income of the company.
>>
>>> Now, Mr. McNerney may very well be a greedy man - I don't know him
>>> personally - but the question of what is wrong with the U.S. economy
>>> is a lot more complex than just the fact that some "Captains of
>>> Industry" are phenomenally greedy.
>>
>> Didn't somebody just bail from a big corporate job
>> with a $400,000,000 parachute? Can't recall the
>> name offhand. It's not that uncommon, is it.
>> Perhaps Boeing wasn't the best example but but
>> what have in compensatory restraint they more than
>> destroy with far too many layers of empire
>> building management. What I'm basically taking
>> issue with is that executive buying power has
>> increased exponentially while those on the shop
>> floor and first line management have experienced a
>> decrease. Is that "right" in your book? Does it
>> make sense to send production to a third world
>> sweat shop to build a product that won't be
>> purchased here because the target market lost
>> their jobs?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The economy will continue to decline. We are losing more and
> more of the global market. What are we to sell? McDonald's
> and Starbucks products. Anticipate very dramatic and even dangerous
> times ahead. Social strife in every city and town.


As much as I'd like to poo-poo that idea, I fear
you're right. The hell of it is that the means to
avert that apparent inevitability lies with the
people who are at the root of the problem and who
have the most to lose.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Vancouver's biggest bike show Sunday