US Jobs: 26% are now temporary
Me, ...again!
Cover of Business Week for January 18, 2010 issue:
Major article: "The Permanent Temporary Workforce"
taglines on image of female worker (with ID card labeled "contractor")....
-26% of US workers
-No company funded retirement plan
-Easy to lay off, no severance
-No fixed occupancy costs
-Higher rates of depression and anxiety
-Pays for own health insurance
-Zero sick days
-No paid vacation
Old Pif
Sounds like Republican dream comes true.
Econotron
news:e45288c6-7f94-406d...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
==============================================================
It is not a dream. It is a reality of life. I have been working like that
all my life, and the reason I never accepted a full-time job offer, because
I thought it was too good to be true :-)
e.
Me, ...again!
In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
And, there are not that many rich, but a whole lot headed for the
poorhouse.
Republican's dream is a rich guy's dream.
I hate to think that this country is really being taken over by the
greedy-selfish mindset which promotes and expands every kind of
moneyharvesting process it can come up with: further extraction of money
from the underlings, transfer to the overlings.
Me, ...again!
I wonder how old you are. When I was a kid (over 50 years ago), it was
common (particularly if the job was union) to have fringe benefits such as
those above. When I graduated from college, almost everyone got a job,
easily, and with benefits, and decent pay, and the jobs were called
_permanent_ after you did a standard six month probation. The place I
worked had many hundreds of employees and they only fired two guys in 20
years, and never had a layoff or furlough. It was an old company, still in
existence, too.
And, when I read the above news items, and about executive bonuses and
executive compensation packages, golden parachutes, outlandish severance
packages, always continually expanding well above inflation rates. It
ain't right.
Things were better before approximately 1970s, and from then on our
economy (including trade deficits, and other problems) just got worse, and
I'd like to think it might be possible, somehow, to go back to those days and
get rid of all this imported Chinese stuff, imported cheap labor, and
cheap currency from 3rd world countries that are sucking everything out of
the USA, as cash cow, and get back those better jobs with better benefits,
better pay, and better job security.
Yes, there are a lot of companies and even state governments with pension
plans that are underfunded, too. Medicare and medicaid are headed for a
train wreck in slow motion. All that needs to be fixed. And, the lobbyists
and lobbying needs be be brought under control (it just feeds off special
interest groups).
And, if you want to run your own life as a "temp" it will be because there
is something there that you want, not because you have no choice and
someone else is calling the shots.
My two cents.
Old Pif
>
> Things were better before approximately 1970s, and from then on our
> economy (including trade deficits, and other problems) just got worse, and
> I'd like to think it might be possible, somehow, to go back to those days and
> get rid of all this imported Chinese stuff, imported cheap labor, and
> cheap currency from 3rd world countries that are sucking everything out of
> the USA, as cash cow, and get back those better jobs with better benefits,
> better pay, and better job security.
>
I think the capital consolidation that is accumulation and
concentration in a small amount of hands is the primary reason. It is
phase transition point from the situation when corporations compete
for the employees and when they shape the labor market as they please
toward the absolute bottom line. It is the natural dynamic of this
type of economic system and because of that it can not be changed from
inside the system itself. If you recall Phil's postings, he believes
that it has to crash and start over. A lot of people point to the
similarity with the Roman Empire. One interesting thing is that at
that time many including those who belonged to the ruling class and
even some of the emperors understood the reasons for the decay and
still was not able to change the course of event. The system was so
big and inertial that insight of the few did not make any difference.
Jack Welch
says...
>Things were better before approximately 1970s, and from then on our
>economy (including trade deficits, and other problems) just got worse, and
>I'd like to think it might be possible, somehow, to go back to those days and
>get rid of all this imported Chinese stuff, imported cheap labor, and
>cheap currency from 3rd world countries that are sucking everything out of
>the USA, as cash cow, and get back those better jobs with better benefits,
>better pay, and better job security.
And better and smarter workers too.
The last two generations of Americans are pretty much useless.
They have slackened compared to their grand fathers. I travel
world wide and the drive I see in the young people of
China and India is much better than almost all americans.
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:30 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Things were better before approximately 1970s, and from then on our
>> economy (including trade deficits, and other problems) just got worse, and
>> I'd like to think it might be possible, somehow, to go back to those days and
>> get rid of all this imported Chinese stuff, imported cheap labor, and
>> cheap currency from 3rd world countries that are sucking everything out of
>> the USA, as cash cow, and get back those better jobs with better benefits,
>> better pay, and better job security.
>>
>
> I think the capital consolidation that is accumulation and
> concentration in a small amount of hands is the primary reason. It is
> phase transition point from the situation when corporations compete
> for the employees and when they shape the labor market as they please
> toward the absolute bottom line. It is the natural dynamic of this
> type of economic system and because of that it can not be changed from
> inside the system itself. If you recall Phil's postings, he believes
> that it has to crash and start over.
Well, "business cycles" are described in economic history books. Ups are
followed by downs and they are followed by ups, again. Never-ending cycle.
A lot of people point to the
> similarity with the Roman Empire. One interesting thing is that at
> that time many including those who belonged to the ruling class and
> even some of the emperors understood the reasons for the decay and
> still was not able to change the course of event. The system was so
> big and inertial that insight of the few did not make any difference.
It is looking like this today. Its the old story about the rich/powerful
who can organize society to their own liking and fuck everyone else. The
sense of community, nation, society is replaced by the greedy-selfish
motivation and the moneyharvesting process.
It seems to me that the majority of progress in western society in the
last 2-3 decades has been the tweaking of spreadsheet engineering, the
discovery of loopholes in laws, and the shift of risk (there is actually a
book on this, too) from the rich/powerful few to the many poor/weak many.
Managers' progress: how to get more work and sweat out of underlings, how
to give self bonuses, salary increase, promotions. All with less work out
of managers.
And, what becomes diminished? Quality. When I was a kid, we repaired many
things if they broke. Today, the stuff is made out of cheap plastic and
meant to be NOT repaired, but thrown away and buy a new one; means more
corporate profits. Even the pricing is geared to make you throw away the
old thing. I have cordless drills and the rechargeable batteries cost
almost as much as a whole new drill. Then, when you add on shipping and
handling, the price is the same.
And, part of the "innovation" is to make the MTBF (mean time before failure)
shorter, and make prior models obsolete before they fail, so you throw them
away even before they fail or become obsolete. Great for corporate profits,
bad for individual debt.
ind...@india.com
says...
>And, part of the "innovation" is to make the MTBF (mean time before failure=
>)
>shorter, and make prior models obsolete before they fail, so you throw them
>away even before they fail or become obsolete. Great for corporate profits,
>bad for individual debt.
hey idiot, this is normal part of innovation. Before power windows came
in cars, car riders use to manually close/open the window of a car. So
what do we do now? go back to closing windows manually. Next we can take
out automatic drive and go back to stick shift.
You seem to be a fucking old man dissing everything new and always
talking "things-were-better-in-my-days" crap. Never mind that most
of the technological marvel has been invented in the last 2/3 decades.
Your generation did nothing in comparison and thinks too much of itself.
Everyone marvels at google. So why do you object if google hires lot
of non americans too (one of the founder of it is not a born american).
So it is OK to drool at iphone but not give credit to people who made
it possible (and may include lot of non americans too)
Me, ...again!
I think you are really seeing the sellection effect of the hiring process.
I see a lot of lazy Americans, too, but I also see quite decent and hard
working ones as well.
I have traveled some of the world, too, and had a lot of foreigners
working in my lab, too. I was able to sellect the best anyway. I got one
guy, a foreigner, by accident and he was lazy and all he wanted was to
only worry about getting a car and not worry about work. Then, I heard he
got a car and what did he do? He got himself in a car accident. More
expense and he could not afford it. He didn't tell me, his co-worker from
the same country told me the story.
I interact with foreigners since they work in my neighborhood, and can
compare them with born in the US people, too. I don't see much difference.
So, I think you are blowing a lot of hot air when there is also a lot of
"managerial arrogance" to blame, too. Today's managers are also a piece of
shit compared to decades ago: They expect a worker to be Jesus Christ and
walk on water, and want to pay shit, or less, to the worker. I have heard
so many stories of HR departments abusing their candidate workers with
poor treatment, abusive questions, repeat interviews.
And, I'm reading this in the WSJ, too, in many articles by reporters who
are trying to also tell employers to shape up and be responsible. But, HR
departments like to play "cat and mouse" with candidate employees as some
new game of perversion from which they can entertain themselves and displace
their agression while justifying their own existence in the company.
Russell
I person I know with a PhD in engineering just got a contract
job and sounded thrilled to get it.
Cheers,
Russell
Jack Welch
says...
>I have traveled some of the world
In other words your personal experience is to be given
serious consideration, but that of others, specially
CEOs should be trashed and deemed worthless.
And I really hope other Americans do not have your attitude.
I can see why most CEOs won't want to touch people like
you even with a barge pole.
Do me a favor. Stop pontificating on how others should
run their business. No one stopped you from being a CEO
of a large company and hiring only americans.
Do you believe we CEOs come from Mars. We are also part
of same society where you live. Most of CEOs started as
ordinary workers and climbed the ladder to become CEOs.
Why do they favour H1B or outsourcing to Bangalore.
Russell
wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.1001121012290.40...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
> says...
>
> >I have traveled some of the world
>
> In other words your personal experience is to be given
> serious consideration, but that of others, specially
> CEOs should be trashed and deemed worthless.
>
> And I really hope other Americans do not have your attitude.
CEOs get the respect they earn, at least from me.
Unfortunately, many of them earn, and well-earn at
that, only scorn. It looks like a Magic 8 Ball could
make better business decsions than some of them
or do you claim that the decisions that drove, say,
GM into bankruptcy were shrewd business moves? :-)
> I can see why most CEOs won't want to touch people like
> you even with a barge pole.
>
> Do me a favor. Stop pontificating on how others should
> run their business.
> No one stopped you from being a CEO
> of a large company and hiring only americans.
>
> Do you believe we CEOs come from Mars. We are also part
> of same society where you live.
Then start acting like it.
By the way, if you're a CEO what are you doing wasting time
posting here? Don't you have a business to run? Or is it part
of your shrewd GM-like business strategy?
Cheers,
Russell
Jack Welch
Russell says...
>CEOs get the respect they earn, at least from me.
>Unfortunately, many of them earn, and well-earn at
>that, only scorn. It looks like a Magic 8 Ball could
>make better business decsions than some of them
Really !!! Then what stopped you from being a CEO.
>or do you claim that the decisions that drove, say,
>GM into bankruptcy were shrewd business moves? :-)
Poor quality of work. GM cars were made by workers
who were unionized and any effort to make them work
better was not greeted well. They started taking
everything as their birth right. Is it a coincidence that
Japanese auto plants in US are not unionized.
>By the way, if you're a CEO what are you doing wasting time
>posting here? Don't you have a business to run? Or is it part
>of your shrewd GM-like business strategy?
I am retired after making millions.
And I was with GE not GM. No wonder Chinese and Indians
are eating your lunch.
Russell
wrote:
> In article <c258c48e-d916-4bd3-9e6a-0e00cba2b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Russell says...
>
> >CEOs get the respect they earn, at least from me.
> >Unfortunately, many of them earn, and well-earn at
> >that, only scorn. It looks like a Magic 8 Ball could
> >make better business decsions than some of them
>
> Really !!! Then what stopped you from being a CEO.
I was, I had my own company.
>
> >or do you claim that the decisions that drove, say,
> >GM into bankruptcy were shrewd business moves? :-)
>
> Poor quality of work. GM cars were made by workers
> who were unionized and any effort to make them work
> better was not greeted well. They started taking
> everything as their birth right. Is it a coincidence that
> Japanese auto plants in US are not unionized.
>
Then management didn't do its job well, part of itsjob
being dealing with the work force in such a manner that
it contributes to the company's success rather than its
bankruptcy. What diploma mill website did you print
your MBA from?
> >By the way, if you're a CEO what are you doing wasting time
> >posting here? Don't you have a business to run? Or is it part
> >of your shrewd GM-like business strategy?
>
> I am retired after making millions.
>
LOL. Send me a $million then. ;-)
> And I was with GE not GM. No wonder Chinese and Indians
> are eating your lunch.
<sarcasm> And GE did such a great job owning NBC. </sarcasm>
Cheers,
Russell
Jack Welch
Russell says...
>> Really !!! Then what stopped you from being a CEO.
>
>I was, I had my own company.
How big was your company? And don't count your cat
as an employee. thanks.
Russell
wrote:
> In article <5712e26e-4116-43c6-9f2e-d6916ab35...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Russell says...
>
> >> Really !!! Then what stopped you from being a CEO.
>
> >I was, I had my own company.
>
> How big was your company? And don't count your cat
> as an employee. thanks.
It does't matter, small business is the driver of American
innovation and employment growth. We made profits,
bought goods and services, paid taxes. And my cat
wasn't an employee because it is impossible to get work
out of a cat.
Cheers,
Russell
Jack Welch
Russell says...
>It does't matter, small business is the driver of American
>innovation and employment growth. We made profits,
>bought goods and services, paid taxes. And my cat
>wasn't an employee because it is impossible to get work
>out of a cat.
Challanges of running big companies is different.
You can count your experience of running a small
company as being valid for large companies too.
Russell
wrote:
> In article <249ecd3d-b653-4c2f-bbcf-b276a0654...@i42g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Russell says...
>
> >It does't matter, small business is the driver of American
> >innovation and employment growth. We made profits,
> >bought goods and services, paid taxes. And my cat
> >wasn't an employee because it is impossible to get work
> >out of a cat.
>
> Challanges of running big companies is different.
I seriously doubt you're a retired CEO, in which case your
statement, though true, is somewhat vacuous. In any case,
the fundamental problems are the same, the scale and
techniques differ. Granted those are not inconsiderable.
> You can count your experience of running a small
> company as being valid for large companies too.
Thank you, that's what I thought.
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.10...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
> says...
>
>> I have traveled some of the world
>
> In other words your personal experience is to be given
> serious consideration, but that of others, specially
> CEOs should be trashed and deemed worthless.
CEOs are not disinterested parties. They all know that it is important to
do Public Relations (i.e. propaganda) to support their hidden agenda:
otherwise known as "get cheapest labor" and forget quality or any other
obligations to society. And, it is a fact that the ITAA also runs a
propaganda program to "sell" the idea of increasing visa caps, all for
cheap labor. CEOs have a conflict of interest, built into their mindsets.
> And I really hope other Americans do not have your attitude.
The latest polls show that increasing numbers of Americans are feeling
that globalization is not benefitting them.
> I can see why most CEOs won't want to touch people like
> you even with a barge pole.
Many if not most CEOs are greedy-selfish crooks whose bad attitude is:
"I'm going to get 'mine' and fuck everyone else." And, there are even tons
of articles in the WSJ about this going back at least two decades.
> Do me a favor.
Why? I'd rather do a favor to all the Americans who got laid off so their
job could be handed over, on a silver platter, to an Indian who comes
desperately from his country that can't even make enough jobs for its own
people.
Stop pontificating on how others should
> run their business.
Why? When guys like _you_ are telling all the laid off guys that they are
pieces of shit just like our greedy-selfish CEOs are telling the laid off
guys the same thing.
No one stopped you from being a CEO
> of a large company and hiring only americans.
First, its not that easy to become a CEO of a large company, but I really
was president of a small incorporated company for 13 years, and -- through
nepotism--hired my wife as vice president.
Second, let me put in a plug for "copper.net" (probably www.copper.net)
which, last time I checked, said that they hire only US people and don't
offshore any work, and I bought an account with them, and used their 800
number and was pleased to hear people without foreign accents and they
answered my questions brilliantly, and so I will help them with more
business.
> Do you believe we CEOs come from Mars.
No, they are all descendants of tape-worms, parasites, cockroaches, and
diseases. I even think warm-fuzzy mice are one level up from these
examples.
We are also part
> of same society where you live.
Oh, excuse me, are you a CEO? You sure don't sound like one.
Most of CEOs started as
> ordinary workers and climbed the ladder to become CEOs.
eg. Bill Gates, the monopolist.
eg. Keneth Lay, the Enron fraudist.
eg. Charles "trust me" Keating, the S&L crisis crook/theif
eg. Bernard Ebbers, the Worldcom accounting fraudist
eg..... shall I name another couple dozen?
> Why do they favour H1B or outsourcing to Bangalore.
Its legal theivery.
Me, ...again!
A very brilliant question.
If he is a CEO, then his company is a circular file, and he is CEO of the
circular file, and stands inside the circular file. Or, maybe its a
dumpster outside a real company?
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <c258c48e-d916-4bd3...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Russell says...
>
>> CEOs get the respect they earn, at least from me.
>> Unfortunately, many of them earn, and well-earn at
>> that, only scorn. It looks like a Magic 8 Ball could
>> make better business decsions than some of them
>
> Really !!! Then what stopped you from being a CEO.
>
>> or do you claim that the decisions that drove, say,
>> GM into bankruptcy were shrewd business moves? :-)
>
> Poor quality of work. GM cars were made by workers
> who were unionized and any effort to make them work
> better was not greeted well. They started taking
> everything as their birth right. Is it a coincidence that
> Japanese auto plants in US are not unionized.
Here is an excellent example of "Jack Welch's" defective thinking.
First of all, that poor quality of work was the responsibility of the GM
executives, not the line staff factory workers. I've read enough articles
that criticised GM management for lots of very dumb, bad business
decisions going back decades.
Second, Japanese auto plants in the US (yes, they are not unionized, but
they also have had a no-layoff policy until recently, too) hire at least
mostly Americans (I don't hear of any H1bs working for Toyota), and so
there is nothing lazy about those Americans. And, those same Americans
make the same high quality cars as made in Japan. And, I know how to look
at the serial number to tell which are made in Japan vs. USA, and I have
Toyotas, now, all made in the USA, and they are as good as made in Japan.
Economic analyses of GM budgets published in WSJ indicate that it is not
the union which cost GM so much as bad business decisions and bad business
very large investments in businesses having nothing to do with cars but
which bombed out years afterwards.
>
>> By the way, if you're a CEO what are you doing wasting time
>> posting here? Don't you have a business to run? Or is it part
>> of your shrewd GM-like business strategy?
>
> I am retired after making millions.
Ahhhhhhahahahaha..... a fake answer that fits in with your fake "Jack
Welch" stolen name, and fake brain which you try to show us is a quality
brain.
> And I was with GE not GM. No wonder Chinese and Indians
> are eating your lunch.
Oh, I think it is the Chinese who are eating our lunch, and pretty soon
they are going to eat Indian's lunch, too.
Me, ...again!
Hmmmmm.... may I suggest you get the cat to go after certain (without
mentioning any names) mice both in the house, and outside the house
trying to get into the house?
;-)
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <249ecd3d-b653-4c2f...@i42g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Russell says...
>
>> It does't matter, small business is the driver of American
>> innovation and employment growth. We made profits,
>> bought goods and services, paid taxes. And my cat
>> wasn't an employee because it is impossible to get work
>> out of a cat.
>
> Challanges of running big companies is different.
Actually, those challenges are fewer and less. The big corporation has
many large departments who know if they don't come up with "walking on
water" and "performing magic" then the CEO fires them.
The small company has to do more with less staff.
> You can count your experience of running a small
> company as being valid for large companies too.
Also, my company always made a net profit, too, and I didn't cheat on my
corporate tax returns, either, like 61% of big corporations do.
>
Russell
The cats' presence keeps the rodents outside, but they are
indoor cats. I suppose if sitting around emitting a cat odor is
work then the cats work, but they don't get Social Security :-)
Cheers,
Russell
Me, ...again!
Hmmmmm.... may I suggest the "academic appointment" business model (i.e.
faculty have two jobs now, instead of one: <i> do the academic work, and
<ii> do the fundraising to pay your own salary). In other words; you train
the cat to both guard inside and outside, AND get its own food (the mice),
and then you get the cat for free, and you smell less cat odor when the
cat is outside.
;-)
> Cheers,
> Russell
>
Old Pif
wrote:
>
> Poor quality of work. GM cars were made by workers
> who were unionized and any effort to make them work
> better was not greeted well. They started taking
> everything as their birth right. Is it a coincidence that
> Japanese auto plants in US are not unionized.
>
If a CEO is unable to fix the problems in his company, he must resign
and not beefing up his bonuses.
Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
you a hint who is responsible.
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
>produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
>you a hint who is responsible.
Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
not americans??
Pls read about UAW workers and how they refused to see the writing
on the wall.
Old Pif
wrote:
> In article <2668d84d-9430-4bef-bb17-4ff7f8ff4...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
> >Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
> >produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
> >you a hint who is responsible.
>
> Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
> not americans??
>
That is exactly my point. They are different managers recruited and
promoted under different philosophy. The whole process of getting to
the CEO level has been screwed for many companies. They guys are
getting up as a result of administrative games and back room activity.
That is why so many crooks have reached this level.
Incidentally, the fellow you borrowed your nickname was one of the
worst with his fascist methods notoriously known across the world.
>
> Pls read about UAW workers and how they refused to see the writing
> on the wall.
>
Who cares about walls?
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>
>On Jan 12, 5:42=A0pm, Jack Welch <i_love_spanking_art_sow...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <2668d84d-9430-4bef-bb17-4ff7f8ff4...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Old Pif says...
>>
>> >Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
>> >produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
>> >you a hint who is responsible.
>>
>> Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
>> not americans??
>>
>
>That is exactly my point. They are different managers recruited and
>promoted under different philosophy. The whole process of getting to
>the CEO level has been screwed for many companies. They guys are
>getting up as a result of administrative games and back room activity.
>That is why so many crooks have reached this level.
The same can be said about the workers too. Plant workers in
Honda and Toyota plants are not white elephants like the UAW
workers who want all the benefit even when the market share
of the company is tanking. Japanse auto plants use to pay
considerably less than their UAW counterpart. It is somewhat
better now as UAW workers have relented when they had no
choice.
I once read an auto exec complaining that if UAW workers
reduced their benefits, the cost saved can be used to build
more reliable cars. Do you disagree?
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <2668d84d-9430-4bef...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
>> Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
>> produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
>> you a hint who is responsible.
>
> Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
> not americans??
Does not matter as long as they show American factory workers under Toyota
management make better cars than American factory workers under Detroit
management. Therefore it is the proof that Detroit managers are bad.
> Pls read about UAW workers and how they refused to see the writing
> on the wall.
This is also a bogus complaint, too. Ford, for example, is also UAW, and
Ford is not having trouble, is coming back fast, did not ask for bailouts,
and many models are as good as Toyota, and Ford sells about as many cars
as Toyota. And, indications are that their managment is actually at least
a little better than Chrysler or GM, both of which have always been the
scum of Detroit.
So, again, it is YOU that is screwed-up.
John Galt
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <2668d84d-9430-4bef...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> Old Pif says...
>>
>>> Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
>>> produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
>>> you a hint who is responsible.
>>
>> Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
>> not americans??
>
> Does not matter as long as they show American factory workers under
> Toyota management make better cars than American factory workers under
> Detroit management. Therefore it is the proof that Detroit managers are
> bad.
>
>> Pls read about UAW workers and how they refused to see the writing
>> on the wall.
>
> This is also a bogus complaint, too. Ford, for example, is also UAW, and
> Ford is not having trouble, is coming back fast, did not ask for
> bailouts, and many models are as good as Toyota, and Ford sells about as
> many cars
> as Toyota.
It's way too early in the recovery to take a victory lap on behalf of
Ford, and come to any conclusions regarding unionization thereof. They
have done better than GM, obviously, but that's really not saying much.
GM would be out of business today without government intervention.
JG
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <2668d84d-9430-4bef...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Old Pif says...
>>>
>>>> Also, the same American workers at Toyota assembly plants in US
>>>> produce something different of quality than those in GM. Which gives
>>>> you a hint who is responsible.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that managers in Toyota and Honda plants in US are
>>> not americans??
>>
>> Does not matter as long as they show American factory workers under Toyota
>> management make better cars than American factory workers under Detroit
>> management. Therefore it is the proof that Detroit managers are bad.
>>
>>> Pls read about UAW workers and how they refused to see the writing
>>> on the wall.
>>
>> This is also a bogus complaint, too. Ford, for example, is also UAW, and
>> Ford is not having trouble, is coming back fast, did not ask for bailouts,
>> and many models are as good as Toyota, and Ford sells about as many cars
>> as Toyota.
>
> It's way too early in the recovery to take a victory lap on behalf of Ford,
On the contrary, WSJ reports of the increase in recent Ford sales were
substantially higher than GM or Chrysler. And, Ford has not, yet,
indicated, that it projects any future need for bailout money. If I were
buying a US brand, today, it would go to Ford over GM or Chrysler and I
wouldn't even consider GM or Chrysler.
> and come to any conclusions regarding unionization thereof.
What I've said about unionization (and the fact that Detroit companies
made very bad and very large business investments was summarized in an
Op-Ed piece a few months back by Kirkorian [IIRC] and as I was reading the
list of bad investments, I remembered reading, from the WSJ, over all
those decades, about those investments. It was very much a clear example
of the Peters & Waterhouse "In Search of Excellence" study that
corporations went to hell when they started fooling aroung investing in
businesses outside of their expertise. Of course, ISE was full of a lot of
crap, too. Detroit had plenty of opportunity to make up for UAW budget
drains and obligations and they fucked up.
They have done
> better than GM, obviously, but that's really not saying much. GM would be out
> of business today without government intervention.
I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance of
ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be Chinese
buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar. Both GM and Chrysler
did get bailouts, and Chrysler got bailouts decades ago when upper
manangement also made stupid mistakes. Chrysler did come back, and pay
back the govt way back then, too, and fat cat Lee Iacoca also got all of
his back pay, too, so it was like nothing ever happened for him.
John Galt
As would I. But you're looking at one year (2009) of post-bailout sales
figures. By 2012, with the looming increase in foreign competition
looking to capitalize on the domestic auto manufacturer's weakness, they
could well be in the same condition as GM. I certainly hope not, but it
is well too early to say that they have "survived the recession and the
onslaught of foreign competition."
>
>> and come to any conclusions regarding unionization thereof.
>
> What I've said about unionization (and the fact that Detroit companies
> made very bad and very large business investments was summarized in an
> Op-Ed piece a few months back by Kirkorian [IIRC] and as I was reading
> the list of bad investments, I remembered reading, from the WSJ, over
> all those decades, about those investments. It was very much a clear
> example of the Peters & Waterhouse "In Search of Excellence" study that
> corporations went to hell when they started fooling aroung investing in
> businesses outside of their expertise. Of course, ISE was full of a lot
> of crap, too. Detroit had plenty of opportunity to make up for UAW
> budget drains and obligations and they fucked up.
No question. However, to the extent that the UAW increases labor costs
over the true value of the worker (as defined by the nonunion domestic
plants) that increase has to come from someplace. It is not enough to
say "they could have handled the UAW "premium" had they been exceptional
in execution." No organization is exceptional in execution year after
year after year after year without fail. Even our best US marketing
engines (McDonalds, Coca-Cola, etc) hit rough patches where they are not
exceptional, and weaknesses in other parts of their operations take
their toll.
>
> They have done
>> better than GM, obviously, but that's really not saying much. GM would
>> be out of business today without government intervention.
>
> I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance of
> ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be Chinese
> buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
Fiat bought it. I don't see Fiat investing then selling.
> Both GM and Chrysler
> did get bailouts, and Chrysler got bailouts decades ago when upper
> manangement also made stupid mistakes. Chrysler did come back, and pay
> back the govt way back then, too, and fat cat Lee Iacoca also got all of
> his back pay, too, so it was like nothing ever happened for him.
Quite so. And the Body Politic patted themselves on the back for
decades, congratulating themselves on a successful intervention in the
free market, when what they were actually doing was sending Detroit a
message that they didn't need to be efficient because the government had
their back (Washington was very generous with protectionist legislation
during the early years of the Japanese auto introduction to the US, as
well.)
JG
Old Pif
wrote:
>
> I once read an auto exec complaining that if UAW workers
> reduced their benefits, the cost saved can be used to build
> more reliable cars. Do you disagree?
>
You know, several years ago I observed from a side a strike in one
part of the company I am now. The figures were astonishing. A bonus of
the President was higher than the total spending for health care for
the whole staff. So, if you would like to cut cost it is obvious place
to start.
Me, ...again!
Ford--I will give credit--for having an almost linear increase in market
share over many recent years. More years ago that market share was much
lower. If they can keep improving (as Toyota had until recently), then
they may have a good chance.
> By 2012, with the looming increase in foreign competition
The main "foreign competition" would be Toyota (most of the other
Japanese/Korean brands are down a fair bit from Toyota).
Tata would probably love to export Nanos to the US, but I think they would
have to pass NTSB trials, as would Great Wall and Chery, etc.
looking to
> capitalize on the domestic auto manufacturer's weakness, they could well be
> in the same condition as GM. I certainly hope not, but it is well too early
> to say that they have "survived the recession and the onslaught of foreign
> competition."
More and more indicators are turning around and headed back up, and for
most of the world.
Another possibility might be a backlash against foreign brands that could
materialize if public perception becomes nationalistic.
>>> and come to any conclusions regarding unionization thereof.
>>
>> What I've said about unionization (and the fact that Detroit companies made
>> very bad and very large business investments was summarized in an Op-Ed
>> piece a few months back by Kirkorian [IIRC] and as I was reading the list
>> of bad investments, I remembered reading, from the WSJ, over all those
>> decades, about those investments. It was very much a clear example of the
>> Peters & Waterhouse "In Search of Excellence" study that corporations went
>> to hell when they started fooling aroung investing in businesses outside of
>> their expertise. Of course, ISE was full of a lot of crap, too. Detroit had
>> plenty of opportunity to make up for UAW budget drains and obligations and
>> they fucked up.
>
> No question. However, to the extent that the UAW increases labor costs over
> the true value of the worker (as defined by the nonunion domestic plants)
> that increase has to come from someplace.
It seems to me that I recall some renegotiation has already taken place at
least among some brands. I don't keep notes on everything going on.
It is not enough to say "they could
> have handled the UAW "premium" had they been exceptional in execution." No
> organization is exceptional in execution year after year after year after
> year without fail. Even our best US marketing engines (McDonalds, Coca-Cola,
> etc) hit rough patches where they are not exceptional, and weaknesses in
> other parts of their operations take their toll.
Well, OK. But, they did have the resources and could have managed them
better. I just don't "buy" the notion that all of the world's problems are
due to only the unions. And, unions are a mixed bag. Sometimes they are
burdensom to management, sometimes they are the only mechanism to get
management to share the booty. Otherwise, we have "Walmart" robber barrons
(screwors) at the top, and screwee underlings at the bottom.
>>
>> They have done
>>> better than GM, obviously, but that's really not saying much. GM would be
>>> out of business today without government intervention.
>>
>> I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance of
>> ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be Chinese
>> buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
>
> Fiat bought it. I don't see Fiat investing then selling.
IIRC, that was a (an almost) forced merger. Forced by our govt.
>> Both GM and Chrysler did get bailouts, and Chrysler got bailouts decades
>> ago when upper manangement also made stupid mistakes. Chrysler did come
>> back, and pay back the govt way back then, too, and fat cat Lee Iacoca also
>> got all of his back pay, too, so it was like nothing ever happened for him.
>
> Quite so. And the Body Politic patted themselves on the back for decades,
> congratulating themselves on a successful intervention in the free market,
And, I would credit that bailout as doing more good than harm. You may
think otherwise.
> when what they were actually doing was sending Detroit a message that they
> didn't need to be efficient because the government had their back
"Efficient" is in the eyes of the beholder. Someday you may want to read
the book "On a clear day you can see General Motors" by an author I can't
remember now, but was about Edsel and his perception while he was an
executive there. Based on that book, Detroit was NOT efficient, and it was
that way without any help from the govt. I also recall reading somewhere
that Chrysler was employing, overall, one percent of all the black people
in the USA and it was said that this was a major factor in the govt
decision to bail out Chrysler back then.
(Washington
> was very generous with protectionist legislation during the early years of
> the Japanese auto introduction to the US, as well.)
The Japanese flooding of the US markets with Japanese cars is a mixed
story and if you think the only process going on was Washington
protectionism, then I'll suggest you also read (I read both books) "Agents
of Influence" by Pat Choate, and "Trading Places" by Clyde Prestowitz,
which shows that Washington just handed our electronics and car industries
(among others) to the Japanese on a silver platter, and the Japanese
industry/MITI were the ones that gave the silver platter to Washington so
washington could give all these gifts to the Japan for a song.
And, just to clear up an additional factor: Japan's markets were almost
always completely closed to imports from the USA, while most if not all of
all US markets were totally or almost totally open to Japanese exports to
the USA, and other economics analyses indicate that half of our trade
deficit with Japan was due to this trade imbalance. What did Washington
get out of this? "Oh, Japan is our ally, we need to be nice to them." That
was from Prestowitz's book, and he was in various trade offices all his
life and even worked in Japanese companie. One more impression he conveyed
was that Japanese society, as a whole, cooperates with itself a lot better
than here in the US; here, corporations spend a lot of time/effort suing
each other and litigating. He said most of that does not happen in Japan
and the executives work disputes out, quietly and mostly behind closed
doors.
Now, what do we have? China with its greatly devalued currency and I'm
reading more and more commentary in the financial media (I have my own
print subscriptions to WSJ, and Financial Times out of London) about this
problem.
Now, if you want to expand on any of that, then go ahead.
Me, ...again!
Not all that long ago Detroit also had very large executive staffs
compared to labor and all of the executives (not just the upper two
levels: prez & VPs) also got very large bonuses. Back then, Asian imports
were relatively small, and the fat cats drank up a lot of milk.
Another area that these guys don't look at is the millions of dollars
spent on lobbyist and PR efforts, advertising and marketing, dealer
incentives and rebates as buying stimulus efforts. A dealer incentive of
$1,000 multiplied by a million cars is a $ billion dollar line item.
It just amazes me that the anti-union mindset can't find other waste such
as why Detroit had large R&D budgets but never got the bright idea to look
at why more people were buying Toyotas (reliability, gas milage,
features, styling) and incorporate these into the US brands.
Another thing which was in the Detroit mindset was to hell with anything
like improving fleet milage and to lobby our govt for releases from
regulation or needs to innovate, instead of spend the same amount of money
actually improving the car. I have been following this for decades and all
those high paid executives just sat in their cushy chairs and did nothing
but take their paychecks to the bank. All the while, outfits like Toyota,
Honda, etc., did continually improve their products. Slowly, but surely,
this led to consumers abandoning most US brands and buying Toyotas,
Hondas, etc., in larger numbers.
Now, we have these Indians who are totally focused on basically anti-US
persons (the workers) and their "entitlements" and as if the executives
(and their "entitlements") don't count. And, that includes executive
bureacrasy, incompetance, greed, and stupidity.
I have dozens of books on specific examples of this new mindset among our
US executives who somehow think they can tinker with spreadsheets, make
money to go into their paychecks without making a product, and that
"managing" is the same as performing "magic" so they really don't need to
do any real work unless it is going to some management consultant seminars
where the consultants make the managers feel like gods and Roman emperors
who only need to sit around on mountaintops wearing suits, drinking wine,
and throwing a few thunderbolts around.
John Galt
We'll see. We'll know if there's a new trend in a couple of years.
>
>> By 2012, with the looming increase in foreign competition
>
> The main "foreign competition" would be Toyota (most of the other
> Japanese/Korean brands are down a fair bit from Toyota).
I would expect Tata, Skoda, and Mahindra to consider entering. But
Hyundai and Kia and other have increased US share during this period as
well.
>
> Tata would probably love to export Nanos to the US, but I think they
> would have to pass NTSB trials, as would Great Wall and Chery, etc.
I saw a Nano in the Forum Mall in Bangalore last year just prior to
release. Sweet machine, remarkably stylish for the price. What Tata
wants to do is license the manufacturing rights rather ship them over to
the US themselves. Some entrepeneur might, for example, buy a soon to be
idled line in, oh, Spring Hill Tennessee and retool for Nanos.
There's more that would have to be done to them than than just NTSB
stuff. For the US market, you'd need an automatic transmission and A/C,
if not power windows and doors. But the manufacturing innovation would
remain. I'd expect a US-tooled Nano to roll out around 6K.
>
> looking to
>> capitalize on the domestic auto manufacturer's weakness, they could
>> well be in the same condition as GM. I certainly hope not, but it is
>> well too early to say that they have "survived the recession and the
>> onslaught of foreign competition."
>
> More and more indicators are turning around and headed back up, and for
> most of the world.
The rest of the world, yes. We're lagging in recovery. Our best
performing companies right now are the ones that do half or more of
their business abroad. This is a consumer-led economy, and the
"recovery" in a consumer led economy doesn't occur until the consumer
says it does. That means *after* about 6-12 months of real job growth
and housing prices moving up across the board again.
>
> Another possibility might be a backlash against foreign brands that
> could materialize if public perception becomes nationalistic.
I don't see anyone except a few politicians and private sector union
workers (< 10% of workforce) thinking thataways.
>
>>>> and come to any conclusions regarding unionization thereof.
>>>
>>> What I've said about unionization (and the fact that Detroit
>>> companies made very bad and very large business investments was
>>> summarized in an Op-Ed piece a few months back by Kirkorian [IIRC]
>>> and as I was reading the list of bad investments, I remembered
>>> reading, from the WSJ, over all those decades, about those
>>> investments. It was very much a clear example of the Peters &
>>> Waterhouse "In Search of Excellence" study that corporations went to
>>> hell when they started fooling aroung investing in businesses outside
>>> of their expertise. Of course, ISE was full of a lot of crap, too.
>>> Detroit had plenty of opportunity to make up for UAW budget drains
>>> and obligations and they fucked up.
>>
>> No question. However, to the extent that the UAW increases labor costs
>> over the true value of the worker (as defined by the nonunion domestic
>> plants) that increase has to come from someplace.
>
> It seems to me that I recall some renegotiation has already taken place
> at least among some brands. I don't keep notes on everything going on.
They have indeed done some renegotiation. Like the auto sales numbers
above, it will take time to see if it is "enough" or not. We need to
see, for example, average hourly wage between US and Toyota workers for
2009. Those numbers won't be out until 2Q.
>
> It is not enough to say "they could
>> have handled the UAW "premium" had they been exceptional in
>> execution." No organization is exceptional in execution year after
>> year after year after year without fail. Even our best US marketing
>> engines (McDonalds, Coca-Cola, etc) hit rough patches where they are
>> not exceptional, and weaknesses in other parts of their operations
>> take their toll.
>
> Well, OK. But, they did have the resources and could have managed them
> better. I just don't "buy" the notion that all of the world's problems
> are due to only the unions.
I agree. But, conversely, saying that wage collectivism is always good
for the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
And, unions are a mixed bag. Sometimes they
> are burdensom to management, sometimes they are the only mechanism to
> get management to share the booty. Otherwise, we have "Walmart" robber
> barrons (screwors) at the top, and screwee underlings at the bottom.
Well, management never "shares the booty." If the unions are successful
in getting "more", then the company obtains that "more" from other
places --- and often from the same workers who negotiated the agreements.
>
>>>
>>> They have done
>>>> better than GM, obviously, but that's really not saying much. GM
>>>> would be out of business today without government intervention.
>>>
>>> I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance
>>> of ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be
>>> Chinese buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
>>
>> Fiat bought it. I don't see Fiat investing then selling.
>
> IIRC, that was a (an almost) forced merger. Forced by our govt.
Fiat was interested first. Chrysler remains an enormous manufacturing
company and picking it up on the cheap, as Fiat did, could well turn out
to be a coup. Fiat has a bad reputation here (I owned one of the last
ones in the early 80's) but a good reputation worldwide.
>
>>> Both GM and Chrysler did get bailouts, and Chrysler got bailouts
>>> decades ago when upper manangement also made stupid mistakes.
>>> Chrysler did come back, and pay back the govt way back then, too, and
>>> fat cat Lee Iacoca also got all of his back pay, too, so it was like
>>> nothing ever happened for him.
>>
>> Quite so. And the Body Politic patted themselves on the back for
>> decades, congratulating themselves on a successful intervention in the
>> free market,
>
> And, I would credit that bailout as doing more good than harm. You may
> think otherwise.
Short term, all good. Teaching private business that they can fuck up
without consequence, never good.
Also, Japan has what could be termed a "consumer-driven protectionist"
streak. Put two products next to each other, and unless the price
differential is HUGE, the Japanese will buy the Japanese one, even if
it's more expensive. Day in and day out, that matters. We, OTOH, look
for lowest price.
>
> Now, what do we have? China with its greatly devalued currency and I'm
> reading more and more commentary in the financial media (I have my own
> print subscriptions to WSJ, and Financial Times out of London) about
> this problem.
>
> Now, if you want to expand on any of that, then go ahead.
Just that China has only 80M (out of 1.3B) people who we would call
"middle class or above). 600B live on less than $2 a day, another 350B
make less than 20K (US equivalent value) a year.
How that plays out is anybody's guess, but it doesn't sound like a
situation that ends well. Jim Chanos, the very successful short-sell
hedge fund manager, has shorts in on China. He's betting the farm that
he made by shorting the banks in 2008 that China will short circuit.
JG
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>
>On Jan 12, 6:07=A0pm, Jack Welch <i_love_spanking_art_sow...@gmail.com>
Why has this topic diverted!! Because the truth is too uncomfortable??
Fact is, with lower benefits and wages, Toyota and Honda Plants in USA
could make better cars for Americans. So how on earth can UAW justify
wages for the erstwhile big 3 auto makers of Detroit. Birthright is
the only excuse one can see. Toyota and Honda cars were priced about
the same (in fact slightly cheaper) and were more reliable. That was
possible because the savings they made in lower wages and benefits
translated into improving production process -> more reliable cars.
Detroit could have done that too, but not with the wages/benfits
UAW was demanding. The other option was to make their car more
pricier along with more reliability. But then how many americans
would like to pay more to get same-reliable car like Civic or
Corolla. Even pigs like Art Sowers preferred Japanese cars.
Nothing is to be taken as birthright. If an american Java programmer
was making 100K before Indians on H1B started working at 65K and
depressed his wages - well too bad. Corporate USA does not feel that
100K is justified to John Smith over 65K to Sanjay Sharma.
Will John Smith himself prefer buying $20K car over $17K corolla for
about the same quality. Why blame others?
All americans have to share the blame for perpetuating a culture where
money saved is the biggest criteria. I mean how many americans complain
about globalization when they gift $199 Netbook to their high school
daughter. So they should also not complain about loss of jobs.
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ford,
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, WSJ reports of the increase in recent Ford sales were
>>>> substantially higher than GM or Chrysler. And, Ford has not, yet,
>>>> indicated, that it projects any future need for bailout money. If I were
>>>> buying a US brand, today, it would go to Ford over GM or Chrysler and I
>>>> wouldn't even consider GM or Chrysler.
>>>
>>> As would I. But you're looking at one year (2009) of post-bailout sales
>>> figures.
>>
>> Ford--I will give credit--for having an almost linear increase in market
>> share over many recent years. More years ago that market share was much
>> lower. If they can keep improving (as Toyota had until recently), then they
>> may have a good chance.
>
> We'll see. We'll know if there's a new trend in a couple of years.
Well, its in the Consumer Reports annual buyer guide. The frequency of
repair data go back at least five years. Many Ford models are very good.
That didn't happey by accident.
>>> By 2012, with the looming increase in foreign competition
>>
>> The main "foreign competition" would be Toyota (most of the other
>> Japanese/Korean brands are down a fair bit from Toyota).
>
> I would expect Tata, Skoda, and Mahindra to consider entering. But Hyundai
> and Kia and other have increased US share during this period as well.
Probably, again, because they are appealing to young people, and the
losers are not getting their shit together.
>> Tata would probably love to export Nanos to the US, but I think they would
>> have to pass NTSB trials, as would Great Wall and Chery, etc.
>
> I saw a Nano in the Forum Mall in Bangalore last year just prior to release.
> Sweet machine, remarkably stylish for the price. What Tata wants to do is
> license the manufacturing rights rather ship them over to the US themselves.
> Some entrepeneur might, for example, buy a soon to be idled line in, oh,
> Spring Hill Tennessee and retool for Nanos.
Sounds more complicated than just exporting Nanos.
> There's more that would have to be done to them than than just NTSB stuff.
> For the US market, you'd need an automatic transmission and A/C, if not power
> windows and doors. But the manufacturing innovation would remain. I'd expect
> a US-tooled Nano to roll out around 6K.
Neither my wife nor I will ride in any lightweight car. Maybe the poor
would buy some of these. I still see lots of big, hulking SUVs in parking
lots. They are not going away soon.
>>> be in the same condition as GM. I certainly hope not, but it is well too
>>> early to say that they have "survived the recession and the onslaught of
>>> foreign competition."
>>
>> More and more indicators are turning around and headed back up, and for
>> most of the world.
>
> The rest of the world, yes. We're lagging in recovery.
In some sectors, yes. But, all the curves I'm seeing in WSJ, The
Economist, Financial Times.... are headed back up for everyone, now.
Our best performing
> companies right now are the ones that do half or more of their business
> abroad. This is a consumer-led economy, and the "recovery" in a consumer led
> economy doesn't occur until the consumer says it does. That means *after*
> about 6-12 months of real job growth and housing prices moving up across the
> board again.
Its already happening.
>>
>> Another possibility might be a backlash against foreign brands that could
>> materialize if public perception becomes nationalistic.
>
> I don't see anyone except a few politicians and private sector union workers
> (< 10% of workforce) thinking thataways.
The problem is when is unemployment going to go down.
>>>> corporations went to hell when they started fooling aroung investing in
>>>> businesses outside of their expertise. Of course, ISE was full of a lot
>>>> of crap, too. Detroit had plenty of opportunity to make up for UAW budget
>>>> drains and obligations and they fucked up.
>>>
>>> No question. However, to the extent that the UAW increases labor costs
>>> over the true value of the worker (as defined by the nonunion domestic
>>> plants) that increase has to come from someplace.
>>
>> It seems to me that I recall some renegotiation has already taken place at
>> least among some brands. I don't keep notes on everything going on.
>
> They have indeed done some renegotiation. Like the auto sales numbers above,
> it will take time to see if it is "enough" or not. We need to see, for
> example, average hourly wage between US and Toyota workers for 2009. Those
> numbers won't be out until 2Q.
Not long to wait for that.
>>> year without fail. Even our best US marketing engines (McDonalds,
>>> Coca-Cola, etc) hit rough patches where they are not exceptional, and
>>> weaknesses in other parts of their operations take their toll.
>>
>> Well, OK. But, they did have the resources and could have managed them
>> better. I just don't "buy" the notion that all of the world's problems are
>> due to only the unions.
>
> I agree. But, conversely, saying that wage collectivism is always good for
> the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
Sorry, I do not agree with that. You put money into the pockets of workers
and they will spend that money, and that spent money increases
consumption. That is an economic fact of all expanding economies! And,
another economic fact is that when cutbacks in wages take place, they are
followed by more cutbacks in spending, and that all feeds into the vicious
cycle of recessions!
> And, unions are a mixed bag. Sometimes they
>> are burdensom to management, sometimes they are the only mechanism to get
>> management to share the booty. Otherwise, we have "Walmart" robber barrons
>> (screwors) at the top, and screwee underlings at the bottom.
>
> Well, management never "shares the booty." If the unions are successful in
> getting "more", then the company obtains that "more" from other places ---
> and often from the same workers who negotiated the agreements.
I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the last 2-3
decades been totally out of line compared with labor pay/inflation.
>>>>
>>>> I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance of
>>>> ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be Chinese
>>>> buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
>>>
>>> Fiat bought it. I don't see Fiat investing then selling.
>>
>> IIRC, that was a (an almost) forced merger. Forced by our govt.
>
> Fiat was interested first. Chrysler remains an enormous manufacturing company
> and picking it up on the cheap, as Fiat did, could well turn out to be a
> coup. Fiat has a bad reputation here (I owned one of the last ones in the
> early 80's) but a good reputation worldwide.
My impression is that Fiats are a PoC.
>>>> back, and pay back the govt way back then, too, and fat cat Lee Iacoca
>>>> also got all of his back pay, too, so it was like nothing ever happened
>>>> for him.
>>>
>>> Quite so. And the Body Politic patted themselves on the back for decades,
>>> congratulating themselves on a successful intervention in the free market,
>>
>> And, I would credit that bailout as doing more good than harm. You may
>> think otherwise.
>
> Short term, all good. Teaching private business that they can fuck up without
> consequence, never good.
Well, your two sentences above are somewhat contradictory.
That is part of what I'm saying. We also have a lot of people in the US
who would not buy a Japanese car, and favor Detroit even if Detroit makes
crap.
>>
>> Now, what do we have? China with its greatly devalued currency and I'm
>> reading more and more commentary in the financial media (I have my own
>> print subscriptions to WSJ, and Financial Times out of London) about this
>> problem.
>>
>> Now, if you want to expand on any of that, then go ahead.
>
> Just that China has only 80M (out of 1.3B) people who we would call "middle
> class or above). 600B live on less than $2 a day, another 350B make less than
> 20K (US equivalent value) a year.
I think we would do better to concentrate on why China is killing the US
industrial base.
> How that plays out is anybody's guess, but it doesn't sound like a situation
> that ends well. Jim Chanos, the very successful short-sell hedge fund
> manager, has shorts in on China. He's betting the farm that he made by
> shorting the banks in 2008 that China will short circuit.
I won't make any bets, but anytime you have a big economy on such a big
roll, then sooner or later they are going to make a big mistake.
At least, I can't see how that economy can keep increasing exports much
longer. The US markets already seem saturated.
John Galt
That will be some time, unfortunately.
Granted. However, companies have to sell something to obtain the money
to put into the worker's pockets. If Ford/UAW were tomorrow negotiate a
contract where the average hourly wage increases from $48ish to $200,
and the sticker price of all Ford vehicles rose 50% to compensate, they
wouldn't sell any vehicles, and ultimately the company would go out of
business and the workers hourly wage would drop from $200 to $0.
Obviously, a union cannot force wage increases without any concern.
Ultimately, it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
That is an economic fact of all expanding economies! And,
> another economic fact is that when cutbacks in wages take place, they
> are followed by more cutbacks in spending, and that all feeds into the
> vicious cycle of recessions!
>
>> And, unions are a mixed bag. Sometimes they
>>> are burdensom to management, sometimes they are the only mechanism to
>>> get management to share the booty. Otherwise, we have "Walmart"
>>> robber barrons (screwors) at the top, and screwee underlings at the
>>> bottom.
>>
>> Well, management never "shares the booty." If the unions are
>> successful in getting "more", then the company obtains that "more"
>> from other places --- and often from the same workers who negotiated
>> the agreements.
>
> I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the last
> 2-3 decades been totally out of line compared with labor pay/inflation.
I'd like to see it too, but you could take the CxO pay to $0 and, if the
difference spread amongst the workers, their wage would only increase
pennies (single digits) per hour. CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the
arithmetic does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would
result in an increase in rank and file wage.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll make a wager that Chrysler is the one that has the best chance
>>>>> of ending up on the block and the best chance of outcome would be
>>>>> Chinese buying it for no more than 10 cents on the dollar.
>>>>
>>>> Fiat bought it. I don't see Fiat investing then selling.
>>>
>>> IIRC, that was a (an almost) forced merger. Forced by our govt.
>>
>> Fiat was interested first. Chrysler remains an enormous manufacturing
>> company and picking it up on the cheap, as Fiat did, could well turn
>> out to be a coup. Fiat has a bad reputation here (I owned one of the
>> last ones in the early 80's) but a good reputation worldwide.
>
> My impression is that Fiats are a PoC.
Mine too. My Strada had the unfortunate habit of
just....stopping.....inu the middle of nowhere. However, that was 25
years ago, and although nobody is going to confuse them with Lexus
dependability, they are more or less average in reliability on a
worldwide scale. They are all over Europe, and if I'm not mistaken, have
a strong Chinese presence as well.
>
>>>>> back, and pay back the govt way back then, too, and fat cat Lee
>>>>> Iacoca also got all of his back pay, too, so it was like nothing
>>>>> ever happened for him.
>>>>
>>>> Quite so. And the Body Politic patted themselves on the back for
>>>> decades, congratulating themselves on a successful intervention in
>>>> the free market,
>>>
>>> And, I would credit that bailout as doing more good than harm. You
>>> may think otherwise.
>>
>> Short term, all good. Teaching private business that they can fuck up
>> without consequence, never good.
>
> Well, your two sentences above are somewhat contradictory.
Not at all. One is the unintended consequence of the other.
We do have some, and to Detroit's credit, they no longer make "crap." I
have a Tahoe that we love, which was preceded by a Suburban, which was
preceded by another Tahoe. I won't buy from them as long as the
government has a controlling stake, but would be glad to replace it with
a Ford when the time comes. They are simply best-in-class vehicles for
the price.
However, without question, my habit is to choose a class of vehicle I
wish to purchase, and then determine the vehicle which is most
desireable in that class without regard to its origin.
>
>>>
>>> Now, what do we have? China with its greatly devalued currency and
>>> I'm reading more and more commentary in the financial media (I have
>>> my own print subscriptions to WSJ, and Financial Times out of London)
>>> about this problem.
>>>
>>> Now, if you want to expand on any of that, then go ahead.
>>
>> Just that China has only 80M (out of 1.3B) people who we would call
>> "middle class or above). 600B live on less than $2 a day, another 350B
>> make less than 20K (US equivalent value) a year.
>
> I think we would do better to concentrate on why China is killing the US
> industrial base.
Kind of a short story. They can build stuff cheaper than anybody and
anywhere else (for the moment).
>
>> How that plays out is anybody's guess, but it doesn't sound like a
>> situation that ends well. Jim Chanos, the very successful short-sell
>> hedge fund manager, has shorts in on China. He's betting the farm that
>> he made by shorting the banks in 2008 that China will short circuit.
>
> I won't make any bets, but anytime you have a big economy on such a big
> roll, then sooner or later they are going to make a big mistake.
I agree.
JG
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another possibility might be a backlash against foreign brands that could
>>>> materialize if public perception becomes nationalistic.
>>>
>>> I don't see anyone except a few politicians and private sector union
>>> workers (< 10% of workforce) thinking thataways.
>>
>> The problem is when is unemployment going to go down.
>
> That will be some time, unfortunately.
I think we will get an indication in the next 2-3 months depending on how
the curve looks; if it is a slow shallow slope, then bad news. If it is
concave up, then better news. Bad news for those whose jobs got exported.
More bad news if more industries get exported. Still more bad news if time
and payrate cutbacks (among 20% of the population) don't get restored to
full time and full payrates.
>>>> Well, OK. But, they did have the resources and could have managed them
>>>> better. I just don't "buy" the notion that all of the world's problems
>>>> are due to only the unions.
>>>
>>> I agree. But, conversely, saying that wage collectivism is always good for
>>> the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
>>
>> Sorry, I do not agree with that. You put money into the pockets of workers
>> and they will spend that money, and that spent money increases consumption.
>
> Granted. However, companies have to sell something to obtain the money to put
> into the worker's pockets.
You're talking about the chicken-vs-egg question. Someone has to start the
increase first.
If Ford/UAW were tomorrow negotiate a contract
> where the average hourly wage increases from $48ish to $200,
That is too much, too fast, too soon.
and the sticker
> price of all Ford vehicles rose 50% to compensate, they wouldn't sell any
> vehicles,
On the other hand, the "cash-for-clunkers" worked pretty fast (within
month or two of effective date, people did go out and _buy_).
and ultimately the company would go out of business and the workers
> hourly wage would drop from $200 to $0.
It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is valid; but,
in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
Decades of wage increase in most of 1900s did lead to spending, as all
business "up cycles" were fed by spending increases, debt increases (all
kinds, personal, corporate, and govt).
> Obviously, a union cannot force wage increases without any concern.
> Ultimately, it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Like I said, unions cut both ways. If we did not have unions, the CEOs
would be making even more, and the workers less.
And, it is proven by companies I know which have both first class union
employees with all benefits and second class non-union temporary employees
making much less, little or no benefits, no job security.
>>>
>>> Well, management never "shares the booty." If the unions are successful in
>>> getting "more", then the company obtains that "more" from other places ---
>>> and often from the same workers who negotiated the agreements.
>>
>> I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the last 2-3
>> decades been totally out of line compared with labor pay/inflation.
>
> I'd like to see it too, but you could take the CxO pay to $0 and, if the
> difference spread amongst the workers, their wage would only increase pennies
> (single digits) per hour.
I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list from WSJ
annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more than ave line
staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the end of the
year. I'm sorry but I'd rather see even $100 bucks extra into staff as
better than going into CEO compensation, and you spread out excess pay and
ask employees how they feel about it and I'll bet they vote to get that
$100 bucks. And, I'll bet a lot of them would get much more than $100
extra per year.
CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in an
> increase in rank and file wage.
No, I don't buy that at all.
And, you have to add in the benefit package these guys get, including that
a lot of the big corporations are also paying the CEOs taxes, too.
And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
nothing.
>>> Fiat was interested first. Chrysler remains an enormous manufacturing
>>> company and picking it up on the cheap, as Fiat did, could well turn out
>>> to be a coup. Fiat has a bad reputation here (I owned one of the last ones
>>> in the early 80's) but a good reputation worldwide.
>>
>> My impression is that Fiats are a PoC.
>
> Mine too. My Strada had the unfortunate habit of just....stopping.....inu the
> middle of nowhere. However, that was 25 years ago, and although nobody is
> going to confuse them with Lexus dependability, they are more or less average
> in reliability on a worldwide scale. They are all over Europe, and if I'm not
> mistaken, have a strong Chinese presence as well.
Fine, I hope the Fiats and all the Fiat-owners are happy with each other.
>>>> And, I would credit that bailout as doing more good than harm. You may
>>>> think otherwise.
>>>
>>> Short term, all good. Teaching private business that they can fuck up
>>> without consequence, never good.
>>
>> Well, your two sentences above are somewhat contradictory.
>
> Not at all. One is the unintended consequence of the other.
OK, then next time around, let them fail. And, I'd also break up the
"too-big-to-fail". In Europe there is some talk about making too big
companies sell off parts. I think its a good idea.
Fine, you do whatever you want.
> However, without question, my habit is to choose a class of vehicle I wish to
> purchase, and then determine the vehicle which is most desireable in that
> class without regard to its origin.
I look at overall cost to own & run, reliability. Almost nothing else.
>>> "middle class or above). 600B live on less than $2 a day, another 350B
>>> make less than 20K (US equivalent value) a year.
>>
>> I think we would do better to concentrate on why China is killing the US
>> industrial base.
>
> Kind of a short story. They can build stuff cheaper than anybody and anywhere
> else (for the moment).
All because of the devalued pegged renminbi.
Michael Coburn
>
> Nothing is to be taken as birthright. If an american Java programmer was
> making 100K before Indians on H1B started working at 65K and depressed
> his wages - well too bad. Corporate USA does not feel that 100K is
> justified to John Smith over 65K to Sanjay Sharma. Will John Smith
> himself prefer buying $20K car over $17K corolla for about the same
> quality. Why blame others?
>
> All americans have to share the blame for perpetuating a culture where
> money saved is the biggest criteria. I mean how many americans complain
> about globalization when they gift $199 Netbook to their high school
> daughter. So they should also not complain about loss of jobs.
Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
And it is this population problem that Americans cannot possibly control
in India. Indian wages are driven down by Indian culture. Malthus
explains this quite well for those who are reasonably intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
the means of production in America.
We Americans are entitled to OUR sovereign lands and the Indians are
entitled to theirs. And this is so because sovereignties are cultural
enclaves in which morality informs righteousness. And morality and
culture trump economics at all time. Sovereignties _EXIST_ to enclose
these moral groups so they may pursue their own conception of
righteousness. We Americans cannot stop Indians from having too many
babies. The Indians need to solve their own problems and not by
squirting their self induced population problems into _MY_ sovereignty.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
John Galt
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Another possibility might be a backlash against foreign brands that
>>>>> could materialize if public perception becomes nationalistic.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anyone except a few politicians and private sector union
>>>> workers (< 10% of workforce) thinking thataways.
>>>
>>> The problem is when is unemployment going to go down.
>>
>> That will be some time, unfortunately.
>
> I think we will get an indication in the next 2-3 months depending on
> how the curve looks; if it is a slow shallow slope, then bad news. If it
> is concave up, then better news. Bad news for those whose jobs got
> exported. More bad news if more industries get exported. Still more bad
> news if time and payrate cutbacks (among 20% of the population) don't
> get restored to full time and full payrates.
The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part time
to full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and
disenfranchised before the 10% starts to move.
Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots of
people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is
+200K per month.
>
>>>>> Well, OK. But, they did have the resources and could have managed
>>>>> them better. I just don't "buy" the notion that all of the world's
>>>>> problems are due to only the unions.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. But, conversely, saying that wage collectivism is always
>>>> good for the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I do not agree with that. You put money into the pockets of
>>> workers and they will spend that money, and that spent money
>>> increases consumption.
>>
>> Granted. However, companies have to sell something to obtain the money
>> to put into the worker's pockets.
>
> You're talking about the chicken-vs-egg question. Someone has to start
> the increase first.
It's not a chicken and egg issue. It's a kill the goose that lays the
golden egg question.
>
> If Ford/UAW were tomorrow negotiate a contract
>> where the average hourly wage increases from $48ish to $200,
>
> That is too much, too fast, too soon.
>
> and the sticker
>> price of all Ford vehicles rose 50% to compensate, they wouldn't sell
>> any vehicles,
>
> On the other hand, the "cash-for-clunkers" worked pretty fast (within
> month or two of effective date, people did go out and _buy_).
>
> and ultimately the company would go out of business and the workers
>> hourly wage would drop from $200 to $0.
>
> It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is valid;
> but, in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
Obviously. The point is that a union that blindly moves ahead on wage
without concern to the business is counterproductive to the long-term
interests of the worker.
>
> Decades of wage increase in most of 1900s did lead to spending, as all
> business "up cycles" were fed by spending increases, debt increases (all
> kinds, personal, corporate, and govt).
>
>> Obviously, a union cannot force wage increases without any concern.
>> Ultimately, it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
>
> Like I said, unions cut both ways. If we did not have unions, the CEOs
> would be making even more, and the workers less.
>
> And, it is proven by companies I know which have both first class union
> employees with all benefits and second class non-union temporary
> employees making much less, little or no benefits, no job security.
>
>>>>
>>>> Well, management never "shares the booty." If the unions are
>>>> successful in getting "more", then the company obtains that "more"
>>>> from other places --- and often from the same workers who negotiated
>>>> the agreements.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the last
>>> 2-3 decades been totally out of line compared with labor pay/inflation.
>>
>> I'd like to see it too, but you could take the CxO pay to $0 and, if
>> the difference spread amongst the workers, their wage would only
>> increase pennies (single digits) per hour.
>
> I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list from
> WSJ annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more than ave
> line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the end of
> the year.
I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M pay
year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers would have
gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was the most
beneficial example to the worker I've yet to work out.
I'm sorry but I'd rather see even $100 bucks extra into staff
> as better than going into CEO compensation, and you spread out excess
> pay and ask employees how they feel about it and I'll bet they vote to
> get that $100 bucks. And, I'll bet a lot of them would get much more
> than $100 extra per year.
>
> CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
>> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in an
>> increase in rank and file wage.
>
> No, I don't buy that at all.
Do the math yourself. Morningstar lists the top five pay packages per
exec. In general, you *should* back out the stock compensation, because
that's not real dollars that the corporation would otherwise have if
they didn't give it to the CEO; it comes from a pool of stock set aside
for compensation.
Anyway, all you have to do is add up the cash comp and divide through by
the number of employees.
>
> And, you have to add in the benefit package these guys get, including
> that a lot of the big corporations are also paying the CEOs taxes, too.
All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>
> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
> nothing.
Doesn't matter. It's funny money. If they didn't grant stock to the CxO,
they wouldn't grant it to anyone, because if they did, the shareholders
would scream bloody murder. They're willing to put up with a dilution to
pay the execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the
rank and file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
Partially. They'd be the low cost producer, if for no other reason is
that they're paying much less for raw materials.
JG
Jack Welch
>Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
>overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
Art Sowers claim the same about Americans where in he says CEOs are
enslaving the rest. So in what way an underpopulated USA is better.
>H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
>the means of production in America.
How about this: H1B is an attempt to teach arrogant lazy mediocre
americans a lesson in supply vs demand theory.
>We Americans are entitled to OUR sovereign lands and the Indians are
>entitled to theirs.
sorry there is no such provision legally. H1B is a legal immigration
for those whose skills are highly valued.
>The Indians need to solve their own problems and not by
>squirting their self induced population problems into _MY_ sovereignty.
Are you implying Indians invaded US like US invaded Iraq.
Indians have been invited to work in US legally and in the
process teach arrogant lazy mediocre americans a lesson.
and it seems they have done a great job.
Old Pif
<i_love_pissing_on_art_sow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why has this topic diverted!! Because the truth is too uncomfortable??
>
No, that is because it is the favorite trick of Hind propagandists to
divert the topics ...
>
> Nothing is to be taken as birthright.
... and use the corporate lingo to spread bullshit around.
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>... and use the corporate lingo to spread bullshit around.
Translation: Old Pif has no answer to the points raised in the post.
Old Pif
<i_love_pissing_on_art_sow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <80bba088-b60f-4321-9cbe-628b938a2...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
> >... and use the corporate lingo to spread bullshit around.
>
> Translation: Old Pif has no answer to the points raised in the post.
>
Of course not. Nor points have been risen. Nothing to answer. All it
is cheap, boring propaganda. Which does not deserve an electronic bite
to waste on.
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>Of course not. Nor points have been risen. Nothing to answer. All it
>is cheap, boring propaganda. Which does not deserve an electronic bite
>to waste on.
Propaganda from which side? Or is it both sides?
Michael Coburn
> In article <hilgg...@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
>>Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
>>overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
>
> Art Sowers claim the same about Americans where in he says CEOs are
> enslaving the rest. So in what way an underpopulated USA is better.
I have no idea who or what "Art Sowers" might be or what his claims about
CEOS are. But nice try on the subject change and the strawman.
>>H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
>>the means of production in America.
>
> How about this: H1B is an attempt to teach arrogant lazy mediocre
> americans a lesson in supply vs demand theory.
Supply and demand are simple enough, you lying sack of shit. The supply
of natural resources in the USA is much more per capita than that in
India. Americans do not need to work as hard as Indians because we have
not totally fouled out nest with too many people. Stay in your own
fouled environment and get it fixed. Meanwhile, we will take care of
OURS.
>>We Americans are entitled to OUR sovereign lands and the Indians are
>>entitled to theirs.
>
> sorry there is no such provision legally. H1B is a legal immigration
> for those whose skills are highly valued.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
H1B is a rip off of the American middle class by the owner class.
>>The Indians need to solve their own problems and not by squirting their
>>self induced population problems into _MY_ sovereignty.
>
> Are you implying Indians invaded US like US invaded Iraq. Indians have
> been invited to work in US legally and in the process teach arrogant
> lazy mediocre americans a lesson. and it seems they have done a great
> job.
Indians are hereby _UNINVITED_
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That will be some time, unfortunately.
>>
>> I think we will get an indication in the next 2-3 months depending on how
>> the curve looks; if it is a slow shallow slope, then bad news. If it is
>> concave up, then better news. Bad news for those whose jobs got exported.
>> More bad news if more industries get exported. Still more bad news if time
>> and payrate cutbacks (among 20% of the population) don't get restored to
>> full time and full payrates.
>
> The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
> disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part time to
> full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and disenfranchised
> before the 10% starts to move.
Is that YOUR prediction or can you cite some good study on that?
I think the UE will go down when manufacturing jobs start filling up again
when people start buying consumer products AND consumers start buying up
service products. The problem is going to be the jobs eliminated by: i)
more offshoring of anything, and ii) improvements in efficienty based on
replacing people with more gadgets (like menu-robots at 800 numbers).
> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots of people
> seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the unemployment rate
> stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is +200K per month.
Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than 300K.
>>>>> for the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I do not agree with that. You put money into the pockets of
>>>> workers and they will spend that money, and that spent money increases
>>>> consumption.
>>>
>>> Granted. However, companies have to sell something to obtain the money to
>>> put into the worker's pockets.
>>
>> You're talking about the chicken-vs-egg question. Someone has to start the
>> increase first.
>
> It's not a chicken and egg issue. It's a kill the goose that lays the golden
> egg question.
No, because then you don't get any more eggs. Better keep the goose alive.
And, especially if you want another goose. Not all eggs get fertilized,
not all hatch, not all hatchlings mature.
>>
>> and ultimately the company would go out of business and the workers
>>> hourly wage would drop from $200 to $0.
>>
>> It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is valid; but,
>> in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
>
> Obviously. The point is that a union that blindly moves ahead on wage without
> concern to the business is counterproductive to the long-term interests of
> the worker.
Not necessarily. When net profits are up, it is wrong to give more money
to only the executives and let the underlings live on old wages that don't
keep up with inflations. And, I also think when a company net profits go
down, you also cut wages for the executives, too.
>>>>> places --- and often from the same workers who negotiated the
>>>>> agreements.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the last 2-3
>>>> decades been totally out of line compared with labor pay/inflation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see it too, but you could take the CxO pay to $0 and, if the
>>> difference spread amongst the workers, their wage would only increase
>>> pennies (single digits) per hour.
>>
>> I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list from WSJ
>> annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more than ave line
>> staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the end of the year.
>
> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M pay year
> back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers would have gotten an
> extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was the most beneficial example to
> the worker I've yet to work out.
I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the 16 cents
an hour and give it to the underlings.
And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it added
up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
Tell me again why Dick Grasso should get a $180 million retirement package
from NYSE? If he lives 20 years, he can still spend $9 million per year to
live on. How many condos, yachts, maseratis, etc., does he need? Expensive
meals at the Ritz every night?
> I'm sorry but I'd rather see even $100 bucks extra into staff
>> as better than going into CEO compensation, and you spread out excess pay
>> and ask employees how they feel about it and I'll bet they vote to get that
>> $100 bucks. And, I'll bet a lot of them would get much more than $100 extra
>> per year.
>>
>> CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
>>> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in an
>>> increase in rank and file wage.
>>
>> No, I don't buy that at all.
>
> Do the math yourself. Morningstar lists the top five pay packages per exec.
> In general, you *should* back out the stock compensation, because that's not
> real dollars that the corporation would otherwise have if they didn't give it
> to the CEO; it comes from a pool of stock set aside for compensation.
No, those options mean money. Real money. Compensation for all, not just
bigwigs. The bigwigs don't do the sweatwork. They would have nothing if
they did n't have the underlings playing cannon fodder.
Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400 times
ave staff pay. Its over the top.
> Anyway, all you have to do is add up the cash comp and divide through by the
> number of employees.
No, I'm adding up _all_ of the perks. Don't tell me its OK to give a big
free lunch to the executives.
>> And, you have to add in the benefit package these guys get, including that
>> a lot of the big corporations are also paying the CEOs taxes, too.
>
> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto a
pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>> nothing.
>
> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing out
by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
If they didn't grant stock to the CxO, they
> wouldn't grant it to anyone, because if they did, the shareholders would
> scream bloody murder.
There are plenty of WSJ articles showing significant unhappiness from
shareholders on this.
They're willing to put up with a dilution to pay the
> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank and file;
> and, let's not forget, they own the place.
You'd better read the WSJ on this.
>>>> industrial base.
>>>
>>> Kind of a short story. They can build stuff cheaper than anybody and
>>> anywhere else (for the moment).
>>
>> All because of the devalued pegged renminbi.
>
> Partially.
Mostly.
> They'd be the low cost producer, if for no other reason is that
> they're paying much less for raw materials.
And, we help them by having the so-called "strong dollar". And, that hurts
us against cheap imports.
> JG
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <hilgg...@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
>> Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
>> overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
>
> Art Sowers claim the same about Americans where in he says CEOs are
> enslaving the rest. So in what way an underpopulated USA is better.
>
>> H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
>> the means of production in America.
>
> How about this: H1B is an attempt to teach arrogant lazy mediocre
> americans a lesson in supply vs demand theory.
H1B is a gift from the lawmakers to the corporations, which, themselves
lobbied hard with the lawmakers for special favors to the corporations.
>> We Americans are entitled to OUR sovereign lands and the Indians are
>> entitled to theirs.
>
> sorry there is no such provision legally. H1B is a legal immigration
> for those whose skills are highly valued.
I'd like to see the H1B eliminated AND India make jobs for its own people.
>> The Indians need to solve their own problems and not by
>> squirting their self induced population problems into _MY_ sovereignty.
>
> Are you implying Indians invaded US like US invaded Iraq.
Well, if Wipro, Infosys, etc., comes to the US and buys/rents office
space, then imports H1Bs cheap to undercut local US tallent, then the
answer is YES.
> Indians have been invited to work in US legally and in the
> process teach arrogant lazy mediocre americans a lesson.
Don't need teaching Americans. Arrogant, lazy, mediocre Indians just get
cheap wages because it looks good on company reports showing
greedy-selfish investors how the company is cutting costs, and that is
because quality is hard to measure.
> and it seems they have done a great job.
Mostly in destroying US society, and helping Indians get out of craphole
India.
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:46 am, Jack Welch
> <i_love_pissing_on_art_sow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why has this topic diverted!! Because the truth is too uncomfortable??
>>
>
> No, that is because it is the favorite trick of Hind propagandists to
> divert the topics ...
>
>>
>> Nothing is to be taken as birthright.
Probably the majority of Indians still follow caste priviledge birthright.
Me, ...again!
You left out the part about birthright: such as that Indians are
"entitled" to tell Americans that they are not "entitled" to anything.
But that comes from your birthright of caste priviledge-promised society
going back 3,000 years.
Me, ...again!
He also is assuming he is "entitled" to steal the name of "Jack Welch,"
too.
Typical for a guy from a society full of bribery, corruption, theiving,
and stealing.
Not to mention many other things like Sati, untouchables, 3,000 years of
caste discrimination, wars, etc.
Don't forget the kitchen fires....
=====================================
Quote:
"Moreover, ancient Indian custom and religious violence has resurfaced of
late, even in the heart of modern India's capital. Hundreds of 'accidental
deaths' of young Indian brides from burns by 'kitchen fires' are now
reported annually in the Delhi region alone. In fact, these dowry deaths
are known to be maliciously inflicted murders, often planned or
perpetuated by the dissatisfied husband and his parents, who feel that the
former bride's family failed to pay the prearranged 'price' promised
during dowry negotiations. Recently in Rajasthan, open revival and
glorification of _Sati_ widow-burning ceremonies has led to a number of
arrests and vigorous official action in charging the cultprits with
'murder.' Thus, even though Sati-immolations were outlawed by the British
in 1829, and the offer or acceptance of a dowry of any size is against
modern current Indian law, ancient practice continues. The past clings to
Indian's silken saried civilization and its flames continue to consume the
sacrificial bodies of young brides and widows, as they did for thousands
of years, while the sacred mantras of Brahmans filled the air as Agni's
flames 'liberated' the immortal souls from fast-burning fles."
from pages 434-435 of "A New History of India" (3rd edition) by Stanley
Wolpert (c 1989)
Me, ...again!
All the news and comments from Indians on these NGs has been propaganda:
anti-US, anti-white, and anti-American.
Me, ...again!
See below....
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Jack Welch wrote:
> In article <hilgg...@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
>> Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
>> overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
>
> Art Sowers claim the same about Americans where in he says CEOs are
> enslaving the rest. So in what way an underpopulated USA is better.
>
>> H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
>> the means of production in America.
>
> How about this: H1B is an attempt to teach arrogant lazy mediocre
> americans a lesson in supply vs demand theory.
Here is what H1B is about....
------------------------
On H1-B visa abuse:
From Business Week, October 27, 2008, page 65
title: How Companies Abuse Work Visas"
by Moira Herbst
Some quotes
"For years critics have charged that the U.S. visa program for highly
skilled workers is susceptible to abuse. Now the federal agency that issues
the visas has confirmed some of those concerns."
"...in a recent study, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) found
that 13 % of the requests for H-1B visas were fraudulent and 7 % contained
technical violations."
"In one case, when a company requested a visa for a 'business development
analyst,' USCIS found the person would be working in a laundromat, doing
laundry and maintaining washing machines."
"They charge that companies use the visas so they can hire cheap workers
from abroad instead of hiring Americans, pushing down pay and benefits in
the US."
"Some H1-B workers didn't have the academic credentials or experience
detailed on the applications. Others never worked at the location specified
on their forms. Still other H-1B employees were paid less than the
prevailing wage for their position and geographic location, another
violation of the rules."
John Galt
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That will be some time, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> I think we will get an indication in the next 2-3 months depending on
>>> how the curve looks; if it is a slow shallow slope, then bad news. If
>>> it is concave up, then better news. Bad news for those whose jobs got
>>> exported. More bad news if more industries get exported. Still more
>>> bad news if time and payrate cutbacks (among 20% of the population)
>>> don't get restored to full time and full payrates.
>>
>> The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
>> disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part
>> time to full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and
>> disenfranchised before the 10% starts to move.
>
> Is that YOUR prediction or can you cite some good study on that?
It's certainly the idea of many economists, not mine, but it's also
intuitive. As job prospects improve, those who have given up looking
begin to re-engage. Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up
in the 17.4%. As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are
replaced (in even greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why
Goldman Sachs is predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>
> I think the UE will go down when manufacturing jobs start filling up
> again when people start buying consumer products AND consumers start
> buying up service products. The problem is going to be the jobs
> eliminated by: i) more offshoring of anything, and ii) improvements in
> efficienty based on replacing people with more gadgets (like menu-robots
> at 800 numbers).
We're not disagreeing on anything other than the PACE. According to the
OECD, under normal conditions, the way the US counts unemployment
compared to the Eurozone understates the real unemployment level by
.75%. Today, it's understated by 74%. That "bubble" needs to be burned
off prior to the real unemploymen rate coming down.
>
>> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots of
>> people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
>> unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is
>> +200K per month.
>
> Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than 300K.
That may be indeed correct, and if it is, that's very ominous for the
unemployment stat.
>
>>>>>> for the economy, as many union apologists do, is also a fallacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I do not agree with that. You put money into the pockets of
>>>>> workers and they will spend that money, and that spent money
>>>>> increases consumption.
>>>>
>>>> Granted. However, companies have to sell something to obtain the
>>>> money to put into the worker's pockets.
>>>
>>> You're talking about the chicken-vs-egg question. Someone has to
>>> start the increase first.
>>
>> It's not a chicken and egg issue. It's a kill the goose that lays the
>> golden egg question.
>
> No, because then you don't get any more eggs. Better keep the goose alive.
Then we agree. The unions considered this in the case of GM, but forgot
it in the case of Bethlehem Steel.
>
> And, especially if you want another goose. Not all eggs get fertilized,
> not all hatch, not all hatchlings mature.
>
>>>
>>> and ultimately the company would go out of business and the workers
>>>> hourly wage would drop from $200 to $0.
>>>
>>> It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is valid;
>>> but, in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
>>
>> Obviously. The point is that a union that blindly moves ahead on wage
>> without concern to the business is counterproductive to the long-term
>> interests of the worker.
>
> Not necessarily. When net profits are up, it is wrong to give more money
> to only the executives and let the underlings live on old wages that
> don't keep up with inflations. And, I also think when a company net
> profits go down, you also cut wages for the executives, too.
Disagree. Net profits are volatile. They can be up one year, down the
next. If a union is up for contract on an up year, they may grind their
heels down and demand a lot. Two years later, the company may be losing
money, budgets get constrained, management raises get cut (don't tell me
it doesn't happen; I've lived it way too many times) but the union still
has their deal, negotiated under best of times.
A GREAT management/union deal would tie the comp of both to net profits.
However, BOTH sides fight that idea tooth and nail.
>
>>>>>> places --- and often from the same workers who negotiated the
>>>>>> agreements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see some cutback in executive pay, which has for the
>>>>> last 2-3 decades been totally out of line compared with labor
>>>>> pay/inflation.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see it too, but you could take the CxO pay to $0 and, if
>>>> the difference spread amongst the workers, their wage would only
>>>> increase pennies (single digits) per hour.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list
>>> from WSJ annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more
>>> than ave line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at
>>> the end of the year.
>>
>> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M
>> pay year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers would
>> have gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was the most
>> beneficial example to the worker I've yet to work out.
>
> I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the 16
> cents an hour and give it to the underlings.
Of course he doesn't need it. The POINT is that 16c per hour doesn't
change the standard of living of the underlings.
>
> And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it
> added up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
Then cite it, please. I've been looking at this issue for 12 years and
have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per
hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>
> Tell me again why Dick Grasso should get a $180 million retirement
> package from NYSE?
He shouldn't. It was a stupid deal by the NYSE. However, it's THEIR
deal, approved by their owners, and if they want to spend THEIR money
that way, that's THEIR business.
If he lives 20 years, he can still spend $9 million
> per year to live on. How many condos, yachts, maseratis, etc., does he
> need? Expensive meals at the Ritz every night?
Transference of estate wealth to his descendants, one would suppose.
>
>> I'm sorry but I'd rather see even $100 bucks extra into staff
>>> as better than going into CEO compensation, and you spread out excess
>>> pay and ask employees how they feel about it and I'll bet they vote
>>> to get that $100 bucks. And, I'll bet a lot of them would get much
>>> more than $100 extra per year.
>>>
>>> CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
>>>> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in
>>>> an increase in rank and file wage.
>>>
>>> No, I don't buy that at all.
>>
>> Do the math yourself. Morningstar lists the top five pay packages per
>> exec. In general, you *should* back out the stock compensation,
>> because that's not real dollars that the corporation would otherwise
>> have if they didn't give it to the CEO; it comes from a pool of stock
>> set aside for compensation.
>
> No, those options mean money. Real money. Compensation for all, not just
> bigwigs. The bigwigs don't do the sweatwork. They would have nothing if
> they did n't have the underlings playing cannon fodder.
Sorry, I'm not buying into the "CxO's are useless and anybody can do
their job" narrative. I know better. We agree that in some cases, they
are overpaid. We don't agree that Joe Sixpack can run GM.
>
> Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400 times
> ave staff pay. Its over the top.
We agreed on that. We disagreed that it matters.
>
>> Anyway, all you have to do is add up the cash comp and divide through
>> by the number of employees.
>
> No, I'm adding up _all_ of the perks. Don't tell me its OK to give a big
> free lunch to the executives.
The perks are only earned when paid.
>
>>> And, you have to add in the benefit package these guys get, including
>>> that a lot of the big corporations are also paying the CEOs taxes, too.
>>
>> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>
> I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto a
> pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
Incorrect.
>
>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>>> nothing.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>
> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing
> out by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>
> If they didn't grant stock to the CxO, they
>> wouldn't grant it to anyone, because if they did, the shareholders
>> would scream bloody murder.
>
> There are plenty of WSJ articles showing significant unhappiness from
> shareholders on this.
You're conflating two different issues.
>
> They're willing to put up with a dilution to pay the
>> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank and
>> file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
>
> You'd better read the WSJ on this.
I do all the time. Never heard any shareholder majority suggesting a
dilution for blue collar stock options.
JG
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> restored to full time and full payrates.
>>>
>>> The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
>>> disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part time
>>> to full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and
>>> disenfranchised before the 10% starts to move.
>>
>> Is that YOUR prediction or can you cite some good study on that?
>
> It's certainly the idea of many economists, not mine, but it's also
> intuitive. As job prospects improve, those who have given up looking begin to
> re-engage.
That is not what I'm reading in several WSJ articles that I remember
reading. IIRC, the situation is getting worse, and they have a similar
problrm in Japan.
Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced (in even
> greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why Goldman Sachs is
> predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees with
more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
>> I think the UE will go down when manufacturing jobs start filling up again
>> when people start buying consumer products AND consumers start buying up
>> service products. The problem is going to be the jobs eliminated by: i)
>> more offshoring of anything, and ii) improvements in efficienty based on
>> replacing people with more gadgets (like menu-robots at 800 numbers).
>
> We're not disagreeing on anything other than the PACE. According to the OECD,
> under normal conditions, the way the US counts unemployment compared to the
> Eurozone understates the real unemployment level by .75%. Today, it's
> understated by 74%. That "bubble" needs to be burned off prior to the real
> unemploymen rate coming down.
Well, I'm not going to disagree much with that.
>>> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots of
>>> people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
>>> unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is +200K
>>> per month.
>>
>> Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than 300K.
>
> That may be indeed correct, and if it is, that's very ominous for the
> unemployment stat.
And, heavily connected with the new business model which says venture
capitalists won't fund ANYthing unless it includes offshoring every job
that can be offshored. Might be good for net short term profits, but
long term detrimental to society.
>>>
>>> It's not a chicken and egg issue. It's a kill the goose that lays the
>>> golden egg question.
>>
>> No, because then you don't get any more eggs. Better keep the goose alive.
>
> Then we agree. The unions considered this in the case of GM, but forgot it in
> the case of Bethlehem Steel.
Unions don't offshore their jobs, management does.
>>>> It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is valid; but,
>>>> in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
>>>
>>> Obviously. The point is that a union that blindly moves ahead on wage
>>> without concern to the business is counterproductive to the long-term
>>> interests of the worker.
>>
>> Not necessarily. When net profits are up, it is wrong to give more money to
>> only the executives and let the underlings live on old wages that don't
>> keep up with inflations. And, I also think when a company net profits go
>> down, you also cut wages for the executives, too.
>
> Disagree.
We're going to stay at _disagreement_ on this.
Net profits are volatile. They can be up one year, down the next.
> If a union is up for contract on an up year, they may grind their heels down
> and demand a lot. Two years later, the company may be losing money, budgets
> get constrained, management raises get cut (don't tell me it doesn't happen;
> I've lived it way too many times) but the union still has their deal,
> negotiated under best of times.
The fact, again as reported in _MANY_ articles: executives even get pay
increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
> A GREAT management/union deal would tie the comp of both to net profits.
> However, BOTH sides fight that idea tooth and nail.
Not always. I recall many examples where THAT is not the case, and both
sides did do givebacks. Also, from WSJ articles I remember reading.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list from
>>>> WSJ annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more than ave
>>>> line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the end of
>>>> the year.
>>>
>>> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M pay
>>> year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers would have
>>> gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was the most
>>> beneficial example to the worker I've yet to work out.
>>
>> I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the 16 cents
>> an hour and give it to the underlings.
>
> Of course he doesn't need it. The POINT is that 16c per hour doesn't change
> the standard of living of the underlings.
At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large number
of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
>> And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it added
>> up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
>
> Then cite it, please. I've been looking at this issue for 12 years and have
> never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per hour
> translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you think
they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
I'm glad YOU did the arithmetic, which also means that there are quite a
lot of companies where the underlings would surely vote to have that extra
few hundred bucks, and the CEO (you didn't include bloated
pay/compensation for the other executives), so I think we're surely up to
something more like $500 extra in the pay of the troops in the trenches.
And, I think we could cut back on the caviar for the BOD and let them have
hot dogs, too.
>> Tell me again why Dick Grasso should get a $180 million retirement package
>> from NYSE?
>
> He shouldn't. It was a stupid deal by the NYSE. However, it's THEIR deal,
> approved by their owners, and if they want to spend THEIR money that way,
> that's THEIR business.
Funny think how that whole mindset is so common among executives
throughout the high end industry. I'm just telling you from WSJ articles
I've been reading for 30 years now that executive pay is a hot button for
everyone but the executives.
> If he lives 20 years, he can still spend $9 million
>> per year to live on. How many condos, yachts, maseratis, etc., does he
>> need? Expensive meals at the Ritz every night?
>
> Transference of estate wealth to his descendants, one would suppose.
Pure greed, as a conclusion based on obsereved behavior.
And, when they get close to the end of their lives, (many, not all) they
do some "philanthropy" which also ends up showing their real motives as
being more interested in rubbing elbows with their similar asset class brethern.
>>>> CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
>>>>> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in an
>>>>> increase in rank and file wage.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't buy that at all.
>>>
>>> Do the math yourself. Morningstar lists the top five pay packages per
>>> exec. In general, you *should* back out the stock compensation, because
>>> that's not real dollars that the corporation would otherwise have if they
>>> didn't give it to the CEO; it comes from a pool of stock set aside for
>>> compensation.
>>
>> No, those options mean money. Real money. Compensation for all, not just
>> bigwigs. The bigwigs don't do the sweatwork. They would have nothing if
>> they did n't have the underlings playing cannon fodder.
>
> Sorry, I'm not buying into the "CxO's are useless and anybody can do their
> job" narrative. I know better. We agree that in some cases, they are
> overpaid. We don't agree that Joe Sixpack can run GM.
Since about 1/3 of the richest people (per Forbes) don't even have college
degrees, I hardly think executives (with staffs of other experts,
consultants, PR staffs, underlings with specialized degrees) need to do
much more than ask their staffs for a raft of ideas and the execs patch
together the best, and the CEOs just sellect which ones he likes best and
they go with that.
I've been reading so-called "management science" for decades, and there
has been no improvement in failure rates (Dun and Bradstreet data), no
improvement in preventing crises or bad business decisions. Executives do
NOT perform magic (unless you want to count Apple's "iPhone" as an example
of "magic" and I had an iPhone for six months and didn't like it).
>> Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400 times ave
>> staff pay. Its over the top.
>
> We agreed on that. We disagreed that it matters.
It is also a fact (WSJ, etc) that executives around the rest of the world
don't make anywhere near what US top executives make.
>>> Anyway, all you have to do is add up the cash comp and divide through by
>>> the number of employees.
>>
>> No, I'm adding up _all_ of the perks. Don't tell me its OK to give a big
>> free lunch to the executives.
>
> The perks are only earned when paid.
Example: Jack Welch, now retired, still gets perks such as free use of
GE's jet aircraft (or so it was revealed when he went through his
divorce).
Current Detroit problems: CEOs were flying to Wash DC in their company
jets holding out their hands for bailouts.
>>>
>>> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>>
>> I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto a
>> pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
>
> Incorrect.
Disagree
>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>>>> nothing.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>
>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing out
>> by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>
> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
>> If they didn't grant stock to the CxO, they
>>> wouldn't grant it to anyone, because if they did, the shareholders would
>>> scream bloody murder.
>>
>> There are plenty of WSJ articles showing significant unhappiness from
>> shareholders on this.
>
> You're conflating two different issues.
I appreciate that shareholder feelings on bloated executive pay are
similar to my feelings.
>> They're willing to put up with a dilution to pay the
>>> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank and
>>> file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
>>
>> You'd better read the WSJ on this.
>
> I do all the time. Never heard any shareholder majority suggesting a dilution
> for blue collar stock options.
Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if they
are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option grant (and
backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even got one book
which tells who got all this crap started.
John Galt
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> restored to full time and full payrates.
>>>>
>>>> The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
>>>> disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part
>>>> time to full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and
>>>> disenfranchised before the 10% starts to move.
>>>
>>> Is that YOUR prediction or can you cite some good study on that?
>>
>> It's certainly the idea of many economists, not mine, but it's also
>> intuitive. As job prospects improve, those who have given up looking
>> begin to re-engage.
>
> That is not what I'm reading in several WSJ articles that I remember
> reading. IIRC, the situation is getting worse, and they have a similar
> problrm in Japan.
>
> Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
>> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced (in
>> even greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why Goldman Sachs
>> is predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>
> The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees with
> more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
Yes, I know this well. :-( I suspect the current increases in
productivity are inversely correlated with measurements of employee
morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than permanent.
>
>>> I think the UE will go down when manufacturing jobs start filling up
>>> again when people start buying consumer products AND consumers start
>>> buying up service products. The problem is going to be the jobs
>>> eliminated by: i) more offshoring of anything, and ii) improvements
>>> in efficienty based on replacing people with more gadgets (like
>>> menu-robots at 800 numbers).
>>
>> We're not disagreeing on anything other than the PACE. According to
>> the OECD, under normal conditions, the way the US counts unemployment
>> compared to the Eurozone understates the real unemployment level by
>> .75%. Today, it's understated by 74%. That "bubble" needs to be burned
>> off prior to the real unemploymen rate coming down.
>
> Well, I'm not going to disagree much with that.
>
>>>> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots
>>>> of people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
>>>> unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is
>>>> +200K per month.
>>>
>>> Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than
>>> 300K.
>>
>> That may be indeed correct, and if it is, that's very ominous for the
>> unemployment stat.
>
> And, heavily connected with the new business model which says venture
> capitalists won't fund ANYthing unless it includes offshoring every job
> that can be offshored. Might be good for net short term profits, but
> long term detrimental to society.
Sure. An underreported (in this context) but countervailing trend is the
aging of America, however. The work force was destined to shrink as the
boomers retire. This *should* have led to employee shortages; however,
the contraction will balance this trend out, it appears.
But, whatever happens, the point is made -- you can't have a stable
society with double-digit unemployment.
>
>>>>
>>>> It's not a chicken and egg issue. It's a kill the goose that lays
>>>> the golden egg question.
>>>
>>> No, because then you don't get any more eggs. Better keep the goose
>>> alive.
>>
>> Then we agree. The unions considered this in the case of GM, but
>> forgot it in the case of Bethlehem Steel.
>
> Unions don't offshore their jobs, management does.
Granted. Point?
>
>>>>> It's an artificially simplistic rationale and for that, it is
>>>>> valid; but, in terms of broader reality, it is not valid.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously. The point is that a union that blindly moves ahead on
>>>> wage without concern to the business is counterproductive to the
>>>> long-term interests of the worker.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. When net profits are up, it is wrong to give more
>>> money to only the executives and let the underlings live on old wages
>>> that don't keep up with inflations. And, I also think when a company
>>> net profits go down, you also cut wages for the executives, too.
>>
>> Disagree.
>
> We're going to stay at _disagreement_ on this.
>
> Net profits are volatile. They can be up one year, down the next.
>> If a union is up for contract on an up year, they may grind their
>> heels down and demand a lot. Two years later, the company may be
>> losing money, budgets get constrained, management raises get cut
>> (don't tell me it doesn't happen; I've lived it way too many times)
>> but the union still has their deal, negotiated under best of times.
>
> The fact, again as reported in _MANY_ articles: executives even get pay
> increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
Also distressing, but does not create long term imbalances as the labor
contract might.
>
>> A GREAT management/union deal would tie the comp of both to net
>> profits. However, BOTH sides fight that idea tooth and nail.
>
> Not always. I recall many examples where THAT is not the case, and both
> sides did do givebacks. Also, from WSJ articles I remember reading.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry but that is simplistic. I have last year's CEO pay list
>>>>> from WSJ annual publication. There are many CEOs making 400 X more
>>>>> than ave line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up
>>>>> at the end of the year.
>>>>
>>>> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M
>>>> pay year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers
>>>> would have gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was
>>>> the most beneficial example to the worker I've yet to work out.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the 16
>>> cents an hour and give it to the underlings.
>>
>> Of course he doesn't need it. The POINT is that 16c per hour doesn't
>> change the standard of living of the underlings.
>
> At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
$300 per year, roughly. But, that's an extreme example. The vast
majority of the cases come to 2-5c per hour, perhaps $70 per year.
>
> It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large
> number of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
Hyperbole. You're judging an entire class based on the actions of a few.
>
>>> And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it
>>> added up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
>>
>> Then cite it, please. I've been looking at this issue for 12 years and
>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per
>> hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>
> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you
> think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
I'm sure they would, but that's not the point. The POINT is that even if
the extreme example of Eisner back in the 90's, CEO compensation, if
distributed to the workers, does not make a significant difference in
the wages paid to those workers.
Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On
average you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>
> I'm glad YOU did the arithmetic, which also means that there are quite a
> lot of companies where the underlings would surely vote to have that
> extra few hundred bucks, and the CEO (you didn't include bloated
> pay/compensation for the other executives), so I think we're surely up
> to something more like $500 extra in the pay of the troops in the trenches.
As stated previously, typical is 50-70 per year, and I've never seen on
that even approaches the extreme case of Eisner in the 90's.
>
> And, I think we could cut back on the caviar for the BOD and let them
> have hot dogs, too.
>
>>> Tell me again why Dick Grasso should get a $180 million retirement
>>> package from NYSE?
>>
>> He shouldn't. It was a stupid deal by the NYSE. However, it's THEIR
>> deal, approved by their owners, and if they want to spend THEIR money
>> that way, that's THEIR business.
>
> Funny think how that whole mindset is so common among executives
> throughout the high end industry. I'm just telling you from WSJ articles
> I've been reading for 30 years now that executive pay is a hot button
> for everyone but the executives.
The problem is shareholder's rights. For many reasons, our corporations
incorporate in Delaware, where the laws allow executive management to
run roughshod over the owners of the company. There will be no change to
this situation, for all the rattling from the government on this issue,
until Delaware changes its laws.
>
>> If he lives 20 years, he can still spend $9 million
>>> per year to live on. How many condos, yachts, maseratis, etc., does
>>> he need? Expensive meals at the Ritz every night?
>>
>> Transference of estate wealth to his descendants, one would suppose.
>
> Pure greed, as a conclusion based on obsereved behavior.
here's how you fix it:
Back in the 1800's and early 1900's you didn't invest based on p/e
ratios; you invested based on dividend yield. Companies that were in
riskier businesses, or were in risky financial condition, or newer
companies, paid higher dividends than older, staid companies with strong
cash flow and financial conditions. You built the equity side of your
portfolio by mixing the higher with the lower yields based on your risk
tolerance.
Investors thirsted for those dividends. It's why they invested in the
company. ***ANY*** egregious, indefensible use of company cash (such as
high CxO wage) would have been met with a vicious response by the
shareholders. Thus, the desire for these dividends acted to control
profligate spending in many ways, not the least of which was CxO comp.
Enter the government. In the 30's, the government decided to start
taxing dividends. This made the dividend less attractive than obtaining
capital gains, which the investor "controls" the taxes on because they
are not paid until the investment is sold. Over time (and this is a
complex matter, certainly not a perfect correlation) dividend yields
decreased until they hit new lows in the last decade (< 2% on average).
With no pressure from investors to save cash for dividends, corporate
cash balances increased beyond what was needed to invest in the
business. Cash was laying around, and yes, the upper executives, sans
governance to the contrary, decided to help themselves to it.
So, you could put tremendous downward pressure on CxO pay by ending the
rather reprehensible practice of taxing dividends. With more cash
around, there would also be an inclination to incrrease employment as well.
>
> And, when they get close to the end of their lives, (many, not all) they
> do some "philanthropy" which also ends up showing their real motives as
> being more interested in rubbing elbows with their similar asset class
> brethern.
I quite agree.
>
>>>>> CxO pay is an emotive issue, but the arithmetic
>>>>>> does not support the position that cutting CxO pay would result in
>>>>>> an increase in rank and file wage.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't buy that at all.
>>>>
>>>> Do the math yourself. Morningstar lists the top five pay packages
>>>> per exec. In general, you *should* back out the stock compensation,
>>>> because that's not real dollars that the corporation would otherwise
>>>> have if they didn't give it to the CEO; it comes from a pool of
>>>> stock set aside for compensation.
>>>
>>> No, those options mean money. Real money. Compensation for all, not
>>> just bigwigs. The bigwigs don't do the sweatwork. They would have
>>> nothing if they did n't have the underlings playing cannon fodder.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not buying into the "CxO's are useless and anybody can do
>> their job" narrative. I know better. We agree that in some cases, they
>> are overpaid. We don't agree that Joe Sixpack can run GM.
>
> Since about 1/3 of the richest people (per Forbes) don't even have
> college degrees, I hardly think executives (with staffs of other
> experts, consultants, PR staffs, underlings with specialized degrees)
> need to do much more than ask their staffs for a raft of ideas and the
> execs patch together the best, and the CEOs just sellect which ones he
> likes best and they go with that.
I would not be inclined to invest in a company with that management
model. I've been around those guys. Their skillset and personal
characteristics are not a commodity. (That statemetn is not all
complimentary, btw).
>
> I've been reading so-called "management science" for decades, and there
> has been no improvement in failure rates (Dun and Bradstreet data), no
> improvement in preventing crises or bad business decisions. Executives
> do NOT perform magic (unless you want to count Apple's "iPhone" as an
> example of "magic" and I had an iPhone for six months and didn't like it).
Point? Is it your contention that high pay guarantees perfect results?
(I can tell you straight up that THAT'S not true, be it at the CxO
level, middle management, or rank and file.)
>
>>> Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400
>>> times ave staff pay. Its over the top.
>>
>> We agreed on that. We disagreed that it matters.
>
> It is also a fact (WSJ, etc) that executives around the rest of the
> world don't make anywhere near what US top executives make.
Quite. See above. (You're starting to argue as if I'm defending high CxO
wage. I'll remind you that I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that
changing the situation does not lead to a rank-and-file windfall.)
>
>>>> Anyway, all you have to do is add up the cash comp and divide
>>>> through by the number of employees.
>>>
>>> No, I'm adding up _all_ of the perks. Don't tell me its OK to give a
>>> big free lunch to the executives.
>>
>> The perks are only earned when paid.
>
> Example: Jack Welch, now retired, still gets perks such as free use of
> GE's jet aircraft (or so it was revealed when he went through his divorce).
>
> Current Detroit problems: CEOs were flying to Wash DC in their company
> jets holding out their hands for bailouts.
>
>>>>
>>>> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>>>
>>> I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto a
>>> pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Disagree.
Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my plain
statement, that I agree with you that these guys are egregiously
overpaid, as "disagreement."
>
>>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>>
>>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing
>>> out by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>>
>> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>
> It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
Of course, because it's paid. BEFORE it's paid, it's funny money.
>
>>> If they didn't grant stock to the CxO, they
>>>> wouldn't grant it to anyone, because if they did, the shareholders
>>>> would scream bloody murder.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of WSJ articles showing significant unhappiness from
>>> shareholders on this.
>>
>> You're conflating two different issues.
>
> I appreciate that shareholder feelings on bloated executive pay are
> similar to my feelings.
>
>>> They're willing to put up with a dilution to pay the
>>>> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank
>>>> and file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
>>>
>>> You'd better read the WSJ on this.
>>
>> I do all the time. Never heard any shareholder majority suggesting a
>> dilution for blue collar stock options.
>
> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if they
> are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option grant (and
> backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even got one book
> which tells who got all this crap started.
Unless the former can be shown, the latter doesn't matter. Chicken egg.
JG
Michael Coburn
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> restored to full time and full payrates.
>>>>
>>>> The "official" number will be static for a very long time as the
>>>> disenfranchised re-enter the job search, and start moving from part
>>>> time to full time work. You've got to burn 7.4% of underemployed and
>>>> disenfranchised before the 10% starts to move.
The solution to this problem lies in the system of taxation and social
insurance; not in the direct intervention and control of wages. At the
heart of the solution is a steeply progressive income tax that
confiscates a large share of _EXTREME_ ordinary incomes from wages and
bonuses while leaving _REAL_ _DOMESTIC_ capital gains and dividends taxed
less heavily. These funds are then used to finance a system of health
care (insurance is fine), and SMALL pensions. This system is augmented
with across the board import duties that fund a rebate system in the form
of quarterly stimulus account deposits into the bank accounts of the
masses. The result is a less combative and arrogant America with a much
better quality of life.
Elegance is beautiful.
And it will be noted that since we do not have, and probably cannot
create such a system then we are obviously living in a command economy
where the dictates arise from the financiers and the rich working through
the party system. We do not have true "republican form of government".
The destruction of Health Care Reform at the hands of the bought and paid
for senate is a testimonial to this affliction. The bill is still worth
saving because it can be adjusted by reconciliation emanating from our
House of Representatives to be much more middle class friendly. But the
disease that is the current Senate of the United States is in need of
some antibiotics. Simply replacing Harry Reid and Joe the Ho LIEberman
will not fix this broken system. And electing more obstructionist
Republicans will not fix anything at all.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> intuitive. As job prospects improve, those who have given up looking begin
>>> to re-engage.
>>
>> That is not what I'm reading in several WSJ articles that I remember
>> reading. IIRC, the situation is getting worse, and they have a similar
>> problrm in Japan.
>>
>> Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
>>> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced (in even
>>> greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why Goldman Sachs is
>>> predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>>
>> The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees with
>> more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
>
> Yes, I know this well. :-( I suspect the current increases in productivity
> are inversely correlated with measurements of employee morale, meaning that
> the increases are "borrowed" rather than permanent.
Which also means: jobless recovery.
>>>>> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots of
>>>>> people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
>>>>> unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number is
>>>>> +200K per month.
>>>>
>>>> Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than 300K.
>>>
>>> That may be indeed correct, and if it is, that's very ominous for the
>>> unemployment stat.
>>
>> And, heavily connected with the new business model which says venture
>> capitalists won't fund ANYthing unless it includes offshoring every job
>> that can be offshored. Might be good for net short term profits, but long
>> term detrimental to society.
>
> Sure. An underreported (in this context) but countervailing trend is the
> aging of America,
Same thing is happening in Japan (aging Japanese don't want more
kids, and birth control is over there, too)....and in case you're not
aware, also in China (because of the one-child policy)
however. The work force was destined to shrink as the
> boomers retire. This *should* have led to employee shortages; however, the
> contraction will balance this trend out, it appears.
Then there is the line of thinking that we need to let in tons of young
immigrants to keep the age distribution "proper".
> But, whatever happens, the point is made -- you can't have a stable society
> with double-digit unemployment.
Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and almost
that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
>>>> alive.
>>>
>>> Then we agree. The unions considered this in the case of GM, but forgot it
>>> in the case of Bethlehem Steel.
>>
>> Unions don't offshore their jobs, management does.
>
> Granted. Point?
OK, then what was YOUR point after you said "Then we agree"? That GM
unions are good, and Bethlehem unions bad? IIRC, B got "borged" long ago.
>> Net profits are volatile. They can be up one year, down the next.
>>> If a union is up for contract on an up year, they may grind their heels
>>> down and demand a lot. Two years later, the company may be losing money,
>>> budgets get constrained, management raises get cut (don't tell me it
>>> doesn't happen; I've lived it way too many times) but the union still has
>>> their deal, negotiated under best of times.
>>
>> The fact, again as reported in _MANY_ articles: executives even get pay
>> increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
>
> Also distressing, but does not create long term imbalances as the labor
> contract might.
All depends on whose side you're on.
>>>>>> line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the end of
>>>>>> the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner 92M pay
>>>>> year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the workers would have
>>>>> gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour. That was the most
>>>>> beneficial example to the worker I've yet to work out.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the 16
>>>> cents an hour and give it to the underlings.
>>>
>>> Of course he doesn't need it. The POINT is that 16c per hour doesn't
>>> change the standard of living of the underlings.
>>
>> At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
>
> $300 per year, roughly. But, that's an extreme example. The vast majority of
> the cases come to 2-5c per hour, perhaps $70 per year.
I still think that you can use the line of thinking that it is OK to
"weasel" down underling pay and then economy-of-scale the sum of all
"weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling to say
that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a vote among the
underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
>> It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large number
>> of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
>
> Hyperbole. You're judging an entire class based on the actions of a few.
How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
And, I'll refer you to the vast majority of sentiments as published in WSJ
over decades and WSJ is not a left-wing-commie-pinko media channel.
There are even many published papers showing excess executive pay is
inversely related to corp profits.
>>>> And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it added
>>>> up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
>>>
>>> Then cite it, please. I've been looking at this issue for 12 years and
>>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per hour
>>> translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>
>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you think
>> they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>
> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to vote
for your point.
The POINT is that even if the
> extreme example of Eisner back in the 90's, CEO compensation, if distributed
> to the workers, does not make a significant difference in the wages paid to
> those workers.
Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On average
> you're looking at 50-70 per year.
Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small numbers
they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole trough for himself.
>> I'm glad YOU did the arithmetic, which also means that there are quite a
>> lot of companies where the underlings would surely vote to have that extra
>> few hundred bucks, and the CEO (you didn't include bloated pay/compensation
>> for the other executives), so I think we're surely up to something more
>> like $500 extra in the pay of the troops in the trenches.
>
> As stated previously, typical is 50-70 per year, and I've never seen on that
> even approaches the extreme case of Eisner in the 90's.
I'll even take the $50 per year and be happier that the CEO was not
simply enriching himself based on rank and his ability to "help himself"
to more booty.
>> And, I think we could cut back on the caviar for the BOD and let them have
>> hot dogs, too.
>>
>>>> Tell me again why Dick Grasso should get a $180 million retirement
>>>> package from NYSE?
>>>
>>> He shouldn't. It was a stupid deal by the NYSE. However, it's THEIR deal,
>>> approved by their owners, and if they want to spend THEIR money that way,
>>> that's THEIR business.
>>
>> Funny think how that whole mindset is so common among executives throughout
>> the high end industry. I'm just telling you from WSJ articles I've been
>> reading for 30 years now that executive pay is a hot button for everyone
>> but the executives.
>
> The problem is shareholder's rights.
How about labor's rights? Anyone out there want to sign in for the cannon
fodder?
For many reasons, our corporations
> incorporate in Delaware, where the laws allow executive management to run
> roughshod over the owners of the company. There will be no change to this
> situation, for all the rattling from the government on this issue, until
> Delaware changes its laws.
First, many corporations are NOT incorporated in Delaware, too. Second,
you'd better look at the whole spectrum of CEO behavior, including pay for
what performance.
I read the book on Sunbeam and Al "chainsaw" Dunlap. Plus some of the
prior history of Sunbeam, and the post Dunlap history of Dunlap. The BoD
sellected something like 4-5 CEOs in a row and they were all VERY lousey,
Carley Fioria--not a favorite of mine, but not the worst, either--had her
turn in her book to explain a "dysfunctional" BoD, and I think that
hypothesis has to be seriously entertained as a more widespread symptom of
executive pathological behavior.
Then there was the Macy's management-led LBO back a while. Totally
pathological, and somewhere I have a file of an essay written by a
finance-whip that these ML-LBOs are really bad news. And, I have yet
another book talking about KKR, and their pathology.
So, there is a lot of opinion besides mine that there are serious problems
with this part of capitalism: corporation upper managments that are out of
control and self-serving.
I'll give you my reading list if you ask for it. And, the authors are not
left-wing-commie-pinkos, either.
>>>> per year to live on. How many condos, yachts, maseratis, etc., does he
>>>> need? Expensive meals at the Ritz every night?
>>>
>>> Transference of estate wealth to his descendants, one would suppose.
>>
>> Pure greed, as a conclusion based on obsereved behavior.
>
> here's how you fix it:
>
> Back in the 1800's and early 1900's you didn't invest based on p/e ratios;
> you invested based on dividend yield. Companies that were in riskier
> businesses, or were in risky financial condition, or newer companies, paid
> higher dividends than older, staid companies with strong cash flow and
> financial conditions. You built the equity side of your portfolio by mixing
> the higher with the lower yields based on your risk tolerance.
>
> Investors thirsted for those dividends. It's why they invested in the
> company. ***ANY*** egregious, indefensible use of company cash (such as high
> CxO wage) would have been met with a vicious response by the shareholders.
> Thus, the desire for these dividends acted to control profligate spending in
> many ways, not the least of which was CxO comp.
I really don't have time to construct a counter-argument to this, so I
will defer on that.
> Enter the government. In the 30's, the government decided to start taxing
> dividends. This made the dividend less attractive than obtaining capital
> gains, which the investor "controls" the taxes on because they are not paid
> until the investment is sold. Over time (and this is a complex matter,
> certainly not a perfect correlation) dividend yields decreased until they hit
> new lows in the last decade (< 2% on average).
The part I will agree with is the "complex matter" and I will abstain on
the rest.
> With no pressure from investors to save cash for dividends, corporate cash
> balances increased beyond what was needed to invest in the business. Cash was
> laying around, and yes, the upper executives, sans governance to the
> contrary, decided to help themselves to it.
See below...
> So, you could put tremendous downward pressure on CxO pay by ending the
> rather reprehensible practice of taxing dividends. With more cash around,
> there would also be an inclination to incrrease employment as well.
The only way I see, now, to deal with this is to have an open, democratic
vote by (if you want) the shareholders and it be a binding vote on what
pay to give who. And, if the shareholders screw up, then the employees
vote with their feet if they want.
But, I'd have a percentage of the vote come from the underlings, too.
If the underlings vote bad, then the company fails (like it should), if it
makes mistakes.
>> And, when they get close to the end of their lives, (many, not all) they do
>> some "philanthropy" which also ends up showing their real motives as being
>> more interested in rubbing elbows with their similar asset class brethern.
>
> I quite agree.
Thank you.
>>>>> they didn't give it to the CEO; it comes from a pool of stock set aside
>>>>> for compensation.
>>>>
>>>> No, those options mean money. Real money. Compensation for all, not just
>>>> bigwigs. The bigwigs don't do the sweatwork. They would have nothing if
>>>> they did n't have the underlings playing cannon fodder.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not buying into the "CxO's are useless and anybody can do their
>>> job" narrative. I know better. We agree that in some cases, they are
>>> overpaid. We don't agree that Joe Sixpack can run GM.
>>
>> Since about 1/3 of the richest people (per Forbes) don't even have college
>> degrees, I hardly think executives (with staffs of other
>> experts, consultants, PR staffs, underlings with specialized degrees) need
>> to do much more than ask their staffs for a raft of ideas and the execs
>> patch together the best, and the CEOs just sellect which ones he likes best
>> and they go with that.
>
> I would not be inclined to invest in a company with that management model.
> I've been around those guys. Their skillset and personal characteristics are
> not a commodity. (That statemetn is not all complimentary, btw).
Fine. I have been in one "company" that had quite a few of those
characteristics, but the WSJ tells stories where a major effort goes into
not the product and its quality but advertising, PR, legal staff, shills,
marketing, and CFO-based "banking" (basically playing the spreadsheet like
it is speculating in the stock/financial markets [yes, they have a legit
reason to be playing derivatives to protect against exchange rate
changes, but that is all])
>> I've been reading so-called "management science" for decades, and there has
>> been no improvement in failure rates (Dun and Bradstreet data), no
>> improvement in preventing crises or bad business decisions. Executives do
>> NOT perform magic (unless you want to count Apple's "iPhone" as an example
>> of "magic" and I had an iPhone for six months and didn't like it).
>
> Point? Is it your contention that high pay guarantees perfect results? (I can
> tell you straight up that THAT'S not true, be it at the CxO level, middle
> management, or rank and file.)
Point? I thought I was clear when I wrote: "...there has been no
improvement in failure rates..." (but executive pay has been for recent
decades going up substantially above inflation rates)
>>
>>>> Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400 times
>>>> ave staff pay. Its over the top.
>>>
>>> We agreed on that. We disagreed that it matters.
>>
>> It is also a fact (WSJ, etc) that executives around the rest of the world
>> don't make anywhere near what US top executives make.
>
> Quite. See above. (You're starting to argue as if I'm defending high CxO
> wage. I'll remind you that I'm not.
OK, thank you. Good.
I'm simply pointing out that changing the
> situation does not lead to a rank-and-file windfall.)
I'm still asking what is wrong with profit sharing? Both on the upswing
and downswing.
>>>>> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>>>>
>>>> I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto a
>>>> pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Disagree.
>
> Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my plain
> statement,
Because you were saying the underlings won't miss the $50-330 per year so
the CEO can get overpaid.
that I agree with you that these guys are egregiously overpaid, as
> "disagreement."
Fine. I'll remember that.
>>>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>>>
>>>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing out
>>>> by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>>>
>>> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>>
>> It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
>
> Of course, because it's paid. BEFORE it's paid, it's funny money.
Well, first you said it doesn't count because it's "funny mone" and I'm
saying if it isn't worth anything, why does everyone make a big deal about
it?
>>>>> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank and
>>>>> file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
>>>>
>>>> You'd better read the WSJ on this.
>>>
>>> I do all the time. Never heard any shareholder majority suggesting a
>>> dilution for blue collar stock options.
>>
>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if they are,
>> for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option grant (and
>> backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even got one book
>> which tells who got all this crap started.
>
> Unless the former can be shown,
I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings, ever....
> the latter doesn't matter. Chicken egg.
...whereas it is a common practice to _grant_ (that means for free) stock
options to executives and even some BoD members (per WSJ articles) as part
of their compensation package.
And, a lot of them are getting "back dating" priviledges (or at least they
used to get them) to goose their value. Seems like I remember reading one
article where a lot of executives and BoD are still getting these stock
option grants and still getting back dating priviledges, too.
> JG
>
John Galt
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>> intuitive. As job prospects improve, those who have given up looking
>>>> begin to re-engage.
>>>
>>> That is not what I'm reading in several WSJ articles that I remember
>>> reading. IIRC, the situation is getting worse, and they have a
>>> similar problrm in Japan.
>>>
>>> Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
>>>> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced (in
>>>> even greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why Goldman
>>>> Sachs is predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>>>
>>> The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees
>>> with more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
>>
>> Yes, I know this well. :-( I suspect the current increases in
>> productivity are inversely correlated with measurements of employee
>> morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than permanent.
>
> Which also means: jobless recovery.
Not sure I'd call that a "recovery" at all, but the idea is roughly the
same.
>
>>>>>> Further, we need to create 200K per month to hold the number. Lots
>>>>>> of people seem to think that losing zero jobs per month means the
>>>>>> unemployment rate stays the same; in fact, the "stability" number
>>>>>> is +200K per month.
>>>>>
>>>>> Couple years ago I was reading that that number had to be more than
>>>>> 300K.
>>>>
>>>> That may be indeed correct, and if it is, that's very ominous for
>>>> the unemployment stat.
>>>
>>> And, heavily connected with the new business model which says venture
>>> capitalists won't fund ANYthing unless it includes offshoring every
>>> job that can be offshored. Might be good for net short term profits,
>>> but long term detrimental to society.
>>
>> Sure. An underreported (in this context) but countervailing trend is
>> the aging of America,
>
> Same thing is happening in Japan (aging Japanese don't want more kids,
> and birth control is over there, too)....and in case you're not aware,
> also in China (because of the one-child policy).
Yep.
>
> however. The work force was destined to shrink as the
>> boomers retire. This *should* have led to employee shortages; however,
>> the contraction will balance this trend out, it appears.
>
> Then there is the line of thinking that we need to let in tons of young
> immigrants to keep the age distribution "proper".
>
>> But, whatever happens, the point is made -- you can't have a stable
>> society with double-digit unemployment.
>
> Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and almost
> that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
More like 7-8% typical, but there's a subtlety afoot: the natives' rate
is usually about 2%, and the immigrant rate 20% or more. It's not stable
long term.
>
>>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> Then we agree. The unions considered this in the case of GM, but
>>>> forgot it in the case of Bethlehem Steel.
>>>
>>> Unions don't offshore their jobs, management does.
>>
>> Granted. Point?
>
> OK, then what was YOUR point after you said "Then we agree"? That GM
> unions are good, and Bethlehem unions bad? IIRC, B got "borged" long ago.
The GM union lead gets it. He was absolutely savaged by the National
Socialists because he "gets it", and compromised wage and the job bank
in order to help keep GM's doors open. The Bethlehem union never got it.
They held the line until the end. And the end came.
>
>>> Net profits are volatile. They can be up one year, down the next.
>>>> If a union is up for contract on an up year, they may grind their
>>>> heels down and demand a lot. Two years later, the company may be
>>>> losing money, budgets get constrained, management raises get cut
>>>> (don't tell me it doesn't happen; I've lived it way too many times)
>>>> but the union still has their deal, negotiated under best of times.
>>>
>>> The fact, again as reported in _MANY_ articles: executives even get
>>> pay increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
>>
>> Also distressing, but does not create long term imbalances as the
>> labor contract might.
>
> All depends on whose side you're on.
Uh, no. A long term financial imbalance is a long term financial
imbalance. Nobody gains if the finances of the company are unstable.
>
>>>>>>> line staff, and even at pennies per hour, it all adds up at the
>>>>>>> end of the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've run the numbers many times, all the way back to the Eisner
>>>>>> 92M pay year back in the 90's. In that case, the rest of the
>>>>>> workers would have gotten an extra sixteen cents of wage per hour.
>>>>>> That was the most beneficial example to the worker I've yet to
>>>>>> work out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, the CEO does not need 92M pay, and I'll still take the
>>>>> 16 cents an hour and give it to the underlings.
>>>>
>>>> Of course he doesn't need it. The POINT is that 16c per hour doesn't
>>>> change the standard of living of the underlings.
>>>
>>> At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
>>
>> $300 per year, roughly. But, that's an extreme example. The vast
>> majority of the cases come to 2-5c per hour, perhaps $70 per year.
>
> I still think that you can use the line of thinking that it is OK to
> "weasel" down underling pay and then economy-of-scale the sum of all
> "weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling to say
> that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a vote among the
> underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
I;m sure they dislike it. I would. Hell, I remember when minimum wage
was $1.85, and I was thrilled to death to find a summer job that paid $2.00.
However, AGAIN, the POINT is that nobody's suddenly going to become rich
if the CEOs turn over their pay to the rank and file.
>
>>> It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large
>>> number of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
>>
>> Hyperbole. You're judging an entire class based on the actions of a few.
>
> How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
How about them? If you break a law, you should go to jail. Business
people manage their businesses to the letter of the law. If what they do
is legal, even if you dislike their behavior, they are none of those
things you state above.
If you think that they should have to manage to a different standard,
your problem is with the law, not them.
>
> And, I'll refer you to the vast majority of sentiments as published in
> WSJ over decades and WSJ is not a left-wing-commie-pinko media channel.
>
> There are even many published papers showing excess executive pay is
> inversely related to corp profits.
I wouldn't have expected a high (-.5 or lower) correlation, but a modest
correlation (-.25) or so wouldn't surprise me. If a CxO is using the
company for their piggy bank, they're not thinking about what's in the
best interests of the company.
>
>>>>> And, I ran the numbers on one of the executive/company scams and it
>>>>> added up to an extra $2,000 a year for the stated number of employees.
>>>>
>>>> Then cite it, please. I've been looking at this issue for 12 years
>>>> and have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what
>>>> .16 per hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>>
>>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you
>>> think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>>
>> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
>
> Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to vote
> for your point.
Feel free. It's just arithmetic.
>
> The POINT is that even if the
>> extreme example of Eisner back in the 90's, CEO compensation, if
>> distributed to the workers, does not make a significant difference in
>> the wages paid to those workers.
>
> Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
Obviously. But your standard of living would not be greatly affected,
even in this outlying case.
>
>> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On
>> average you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>
> Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small numbers
> they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole trough for himself.
It's not cheating. It's legal. Unfortunate, but legal. We don't have the
right to arbitrarily decide that things are illegal that are not.
Legislate it. Nobody's stopping anybody from passing anything, and the
current Administration would be very amenable to pro-worker legislation,
wouldn't you think?
>
> For many reasons, our corporations
>> incorporate in Delaware, where the laws allow executive management to
>> run roughshod over the owners of the company. There will be no change
>> to this situation, for all the rattling from the government on this
>> issue, until Delaware changes its laws.
>
> First, many corporations are NOT incorporated in Delaware, too. Second,
> you'd better look at the whole spectrum of CEO behavior, including pay
> for what performance.
Such as?
>
> I read the book on Sunbeam and Al "chainsaw" Dunlap. Plus some of the
> prior history of Sunbeam, and the post Dunlap history of Dunlap. The BoD
> sellected something like 4-5 CEOs in a row and they were all VERY lousey,
>
> Carley Fioria--not a favorite of mine, but not the worst, either--had
> her turn in her book to explain a "dysfunctional" BoD, and I think that
> hypothesis has to be seriously entertained as a more widespread symptom
> of executive pathological behavior.
>
> Then there was the Macy's management-led LBO back a while. Totally
> pathological, and somewhere I have a file of an essay written by a
> finance-whip that these ML-LBOs are really bad news. And, I have yet
> another book talking about KKR, and their pathology.
I'd add Jill Barad at Mattel to your list.
>
> So, there is a lot of opinion besides mine that there are serious
> problems with this part of capitalism: corporation upper managments that
> are out of control and self-serving.
>
> I'll give you my reading list if you ask for it. And, the authors are
> not left-wing-commie-pinkos, either.
No need, because I quite agree that a corporate culture which first
indulges the executives is bad for the company and bad for business.
That's closer to reality. You read Carl Icahn's blog?
>
> But, I'd have a percentage of the vote come from the underlings, too.
That would require the law be changed in every state in the US.
Wage moves with competitive conditions, and is not totally connected to
results.
>
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, no buy on that line of thinking. No executive deserves 400
>>>>> times ave staff pay. Its over the top.
>>>>
>>>> We agreed on that. We disagreed that it matters.
>>>
>>> It is also a fact (WSJ, etc) that executives around the rest of the
>>> world don't make anywhere near what US top executives make.
>>
>> Quite. See above. (You're starting to argue as if I'm defending high
>> CxO wage. I'll remind you that I'm not.
>
> OK, thank you. Good.
>
> I'm simply pointing out that changing the
>> situation does not lead to a rank-and-file windfall.)
>
> I'm still asking what is wrong with profit sharing? Both on the upswing
> and downswing.
Nothing. Profit sharing plans are smart business, IMO. However, they
don't suit all businesses.
>
>>>>>> All that's in the Morningstar numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm staying with my opinion. You are just elevating executives onto
>>>>> a pedestal of excess priviledges and protections.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Disagree.
>>
>> Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my plain
>> statement,
>
> Because you were saying the underlings won't miss the $50-330 per year
> so the CEO can get overpaid.
No. I said that lowering CxO to its historical (pre 1980) levels and
spreading the money around does not make a substantial difference in
anyone's wage.
>
> that I agree with you that these guys are egregiously overpaid, as
>> "disagreement."
>
> Fine. I'll remember that.
>
>>>>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money
>>>>>>> for nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant
>>>>> cashing out by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>>>>
>>>> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>>>
>>> It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
>>
>> Of course, because it's paid. BEFORE it's paid, it's funny money.
>
> Well, first you said it doesn't count because it's "funny mone" and I'm
> saying if it isn't worth anything, why does everyone make a big deal
> about it?
My take is that either (1) they don't understand it, and/or (2) it
provides grist for the mill that wishes to make the Cx0's out to be bad
guys, and the people using the argument know that most people don't
understand it.
>
>>>>>> execs; they're NOT willing to put up with a dilution for the rank
>>>>>> and file; and, let's not forget, they own the place.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd better read the WSJ on this.
>>>>
>>>> I do all the time. Never heard any shareholder majority suggesting a
>>>> dilution for blue collar stock options.
>>>
>>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if
>>> they are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option
>>> grant (and backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even
>>> got one book which tells who got all this crap started.
>>
>> Unless the former can be shown,
>
> I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings, ever....
>
>> the latter doesn't matter. Chicken egg.
>
> ...whereas it is a common practice to _grant_ (that means for free)
> stock options to executives and even some BoD members (per WSJ articles)
> as part of their compensation package.
Sure. It doesn't cost the company anything. You *do* have to put it on
the books, now, but it was free to give them.
>
> And, a lot of them are getting "back dating" priviledges (or at least
> they used to get them) to goose their value. Seems like I remember
> reading one article where a lot of executives and BoD are still getting
> these stock option grants and still getting back dating priviledges, too.
Yea, we need a few high-profile perp walks to get rid of this once and
for all.
JG
>
>> JG
>>
kamal
<i_love_pissing_on_art_sow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <hilggh31...@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
> >Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
i went to the link on malthus, and saw this:-
"Malthus argued that as wages increase within an economy, the birth-
rate increases while the death-rate decreases. He reasoned that high
incomes allowed people to have sufficient means to raise their
children, thus resulting in greater desire to have more children,
which increases the population. In addition, high incomes also allowed
people to afford proper medication to fight off potentially harmful
diseases, thus decreasing the death-rate. As a result, wage-increases
caused population to grow as the birth-rate increases and the death-
rate decreases."
We have never had the luxury of high incomes and most of India's
population is growing in poorer regions and stabilizing in regions
where education and family planning is more widespread. Americans have
higher wages and yet fewer kids because of better birth-control
methods. Higher income urban indian women seem to be spending less
time having kids and more time pursuing their careers. I don't know
why this idiot actually believes that malthus represents the final
word on this planet.
> >overpopulation enslaves the masses under the thumb of an Indian elite.
>
there is no Indian elite here. Services -oriented companies provide
services by the hour to american companies. The elite is noticeable
white-skinned.
> Art Sowers claim the same about Americans where in he says CEOs are
> enslaving the rest. So in what way an underpopulated USA is better.
>
because they have more options.
> >H1B is an attempt to import Indian poverty for the sake of the owners of
> >the means of production in America.
>
> How about this: H1B is an attempt to teach arrogant lazy mediocre
> americans a lesson in supply vs demand theory.
>
or look at it from my perspective -the cost advantage is sufficient to
shift an entire industry out of the US. Hard-working h1bs provide more
value to the workforce by contributing more than their fare share and
compensating for the lack of productivity of parasites -who are
convinced that the employer owes them jobs.
> >We Americans are entitled to OUR sovereign lands and the Indians are
> >entitled to theirs.
>
> sorry there is no such provision legally. H1B is a legal immigration
> for those whose skills are highly valued.
>
they always have the option of fixing legislation or closing the
consulate by telling theri elected respresentatives -so that if the
person is really not required, it can be done without resorting to
vandalism/loss of property/race-riots.
> >The Indians need to solve their own problems and not by
> >squirting their self induced population problems into _MY_ sovereignty.
>
> Are you implying Indians invaded US like US invaded Iraq.
no -Indians invaded the US the way whites invaded the US and displaced
the native americans. Whites invaded without proper documents -unlike
most Indians do.
> Indians have been invited to work in US legally and in the
> process teach arrogant lazy mediocre americans a lesson.
> and it seems they have done a great job.
you mean -they aren't shifting jobs to India? I saw a report that
hiring in IT in Blore is looking great for 2010 (after a lot of cost-
cutting in 2009).
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
>>>>> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced (in
>>>>> even greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why Goldman Sachs
>>>>> is predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>>>>
>>>> The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees with
>>>> more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know this well. :-( I suspect the current increases in
>>> productivity are inversely correlated with measurements of employee
>>> morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than permanent.
>>
>> Which also means: jobless recovery.
>
> Not sure I'd call that a "recovery" at all, but the idea is roughly the same.
Well, that is the phrase being used. The 'recovery' is for those higher up
on the socio-economic scale, and for those farther down the story is SOL.
>>>> term detrimental to society.
>>>
>>> Sure. An underreported (in this context) but countervailing trend is the
>>> aging of America,
>>
>> Same thing is happening in Japan (aging Japanese don't want more kids, and
>> birth control is over there, too)....and in case you're not aware, also in
>> China (because of the one-child policy).
>
> Yep.
And their "brilliant" economists don't have any better ideas what to do
about this, either.
>>> But, whatever happens, the point is made -- you can't have a stable
>>> society with double-digit unemployment.
>>
>> Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and almost
>> that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
>
> More like 7-8% typical, but there's a subtlety afoot: the natives' rate is
> usually about 2%, and the immigrant rate 20% or more.
Yeah, but you can say the same thing here in US: blacks, hispanics, etc.,
also have higher UE, sometimes much higher.
It's not stable long
> term.
Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250 years then
die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written records.
>>>
>>> Granted. Point?
>>
>> OK, then what was YOUR point after you said "Then we agree"? That GM
>> unions are good, and Bethlehem unions bad? IIRC, B got "borged" long ago.
>
> The GM union lead gets it. He was absolutely savaged by the National
> Socialists because he "gets it", and compromised wage and the job bank in
> order to help keep GM's doors open. The Bethlehem union never got it. They
> held the line until the end. And the end came.
Maybe you have more information on the B situation. I only recall bits and
pieces. Yes, a union can destroy a company. I hope you don't think CEOs
and executives can't do the same.
>>>> increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
>>>
>>> Also distressing, but does not create long term imbalances as the labor
>>> contract might.
>>
>> All depends on whose side you're on.
>
> Uh, no. A long term financial imbalance is a long term financial imbalance.
> Nobody gains if the finances of the company are unstable.
On the contrary: I have been blaming specifically the executives for a
couple of decades now for executive-induced fuckups AND greedy-selfish
maneuvers such as manangement-led LBOs which result in big pay raises and
bonuses given BY the executives TO the executives and the company takes on
big debt loads to do this.
Not to mention pay raises and bonuses even when the company does bad, or
even gets disolved/merged/etc.
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
>>>
>>> $300 per year, roughly. But, that's an extreme example. The vast majority
>>> of the cases come to 2-5c per hour, perhaps $70 per year.
>>
>> I still think that you can use the line of thinking that it is OK to
>> "weasel" down underling pay and then economy-of-scale the sum of all
>> "weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling to say
>> that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a vote among the
>> underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
>
> I;m sure they dislike it. I would. Hell, I remember when minimum wage was
> $1.85, and I was thrilled to death to find a summer job that paid $2.00.
I must be much older than you. When I first got into "work" I was getting
a buck an hour (mid 1950s, earlier).
> However, AGAIN, the POINT is that nobody's suddenly going to become rich if
> the CEOs turn over their pay to the rank and file.
That's NOT my point. My point is: executives are being OVERPAID by
weaseling from the underlings,
>>>> It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large
>>>> number of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
>>>
>>> Hyperbole. You're judging an entire class based on the actions of a few.
>>
>> How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
>
> How about them? If you break a law, you should go to jail. Business people
> manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a section
on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks which do have a
section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]). And, you can easily get
data from the IRS that show that the majority of tax cheating is by the
rich. And corporations? Big fraction don't pay any taxes, either. IRS
audits, continuously, 50% of corporations making at least $250 mil/year.
If what they do is legal,
> even if you dislike their behavior, they are none of those things you state
> above.
I stand by my accusation that a wide range of questionable (but may be
legal) behavior originates from exectives and too much of that behavior is
the greedy-selfish crap that they should restrain themselves over.
It pilfers from the underlings, it pilfers from society, it pilfers from
the customers. This is all socially unredeming and I don't like it.
> If you think that they should have to manage to a different standard, your
> problem is with the law, not them.
No, the problem is with loopholes in the law, especially if the
corporations paid lobbyists to push the lawmakers into watering down laws,
incorporating loopholes, or doing other favors for the corporations.
>> And, I'll refer you to the vast majority of sentiments as published in WSJ
>> over decades and WSJ is not a left-wing-commie-pinko media channel.
>>
>> There are even many published papers showing excess executive pay is
>> inversely related to corp profits.
>
> I wouldn't have expected a high (-.5 or lower) correlation, but a modest
> correlation (-.25) or so wouldn't surprise me. If a CxO is using the company
> for their piggy bank, they're not thinking about what's in the best interests
> of the company.
Fine.
>>>>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per
>>>>> hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>>>
>>>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you
>>>> think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>>>
>>> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
>>
>> Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to vote for
>> your point.
>
> Feel free. It's just arithmetic.
Its stealing food, etc., off the plates of the underlings.
>> The POINT is that even if the
>>> extreme example of Eisner back in the 90's, CEO compensation, if
>>> distributed to the workers, does not make a significant difference in the
>>> wages paid to those workers.
>>
>> Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
>
> Obviously. But your standard of living would not be greatly affected, even in
> this outlying case.
I'm sorry, but you should let the ones who are suffering the shortfall
give their opinion, and not say "Oh, you're not going to be hurt if we rip
you off for $332." Let me ask any CEO if he would mind paying an extra
$332 for a car since that sum of money is up to 400 times smaller than HIS
compensation package is worth, and see what he thinks about that.
My gosh, he would have to buy a Timex watch instead of a Rolex!!!
>>> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On average
>>> you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>>
>> Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small numbers
>> they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole trough for himself.
>
> It's not cheating. It's legal.
See, you are rationalizing that if its legal, then its OK.
Its like a lie. Kenneth Lay (Enron) says "We're doing great" at the same
time he's selling off his stock.
> Unfortunate, but legal.
Cheating is cheating, whether it is legal or not.
We don't have the
> right to arbitrarily decide that things are illegal that are not.
CEOs are arbitrarily deciding all the time to "game" the system for
anything they can get their hands on to shove in their own pocket.
>>>> Funny think how that whole mindset is so common among executives
>>>> throughout the high end industry. I'm just telling you from WSJ articles
>>>> I've been reading for 30 years now that executive pay is a hot button for
>>>> everyone but the executives.
>>>
>>> The problem is shareholder's rights.
>>
>> How about labor's rights? Anyone out there want to sign in for the cannon
>> fodder?
>
> Legislate it. Nobody's stopping anybody from passing anything,
Larry Summers recently stated on TV that the whole banking-fiance industry
was spending $300 millon to lobby against any regulation or re-regulation
of that industry. And, there has been backpedalling by the govt as a
result of this.
and the
> current Administration would be very amenable to pro-worker legislation,
> wouldn't you think?
Pure speculation, not to mention that I remember very little "pro-worker"
legislation being discussed anywhere.
Even the Obamacare is probably going to end up being a bigger windfall
for the medical industry than for the health of the uninsured.
>>> Delaware changes its laws.
>>
>> First, many corporations are NOT incorporated in Delaware, too. Second,
>> you'd better look at the whole spectrum of CEO behavior, including pay for
>> what performance.
>
> Such as?
Pay is going up, performance not.
>> I read the book on Sunbeam and Al "chainsaw" Dunlap. Plus some of the prior
>> history of Sunbeam, and the post Dunlap history of Dunlap. The BoD
>> sellected something like 4-5 CEOs in a row and they were all VERY lousey,
>>
>> Carley Fioria--not a favorite of mine, but not the worst, either--had her
>> turn in her book to explain a "dysfunctional" BoD, and I think that
>> hypothesis has to be seriously entertained as a more widespread symptom of
>> executive pathological behavior.
>>
>> Then there was the Macy's management-led LBO back a while. Totally
>> pathological, and somewhere I have a file of an essay written by a
>> finance-whip that these ML-LBOs are really bad news. And, I have yet
>> another book talking about KKR, and their pathology.
>
> I'd add Jill Barad at Mattel to your list.
She made one mistake and fell on her face. BFD.
I could add more names, myself.
>> So, there is a lot of opinion besides mine that there are serious problems
>> with this part of capitalism: corporation upper managments that are out of
>> control and self-serving.
>>
>> I'll give you my reading list if you ask for it. And, the authors are not
>> left-wing-commie-pinkos, either.
>
> No need, because I quite agree that a corporate culture which first indulges
> the executives is bad for the company and bad for business.
Good.
Nah, I've got too many books to read. I get more out of books than blogs
full of mostly little bird squatdrops. Better to study the whole bird than
just the squatdrops.
>> But, I'd have a percentage of the vote come from the underlings, too.
>
> That would require the law be changed in every state in the US.
Yeah, I think they should do that. But the rich/CEOs wouldn't like to give
up any power/influence. So, it ain't gonna happen.
>>>> has been no improvement in failure rates (Dun and Bradstreet data), no
>>>> improvement in preventing crises or bad business decisions. Executives do
>>>> NOT perform magic (unless you want to count Apple's "iPhone" as an
>>>> example of "magic" and I had an iPhone for six months and didn't like
>>>> it).
>>>
>>> Point? Is it your contention that high pay guarantees perfect results? (I
>>> can tell you straight up that THAT'S not true, be it at the CxO level,
>>> middle management, or rank and file.)
>>
>> Point? I thought I was clear when I wrote: "...there has been no
>> improvement in failure rates..." (but executive pay has been for recent
>> decades going up substantially above inflation rates)
>
> Wage moves with competitive conditions, and is not totally connected to
> results.
Oh really? I've been reading (and hearing from persons I talk to) about
givebacks during down periods, and then when the up period starts, there
ain't no return of the givebacks.
Airline deregulation led to very big paycuts, more for those farther down
the foodchain.
>> I'm simply pointing out that changing the
>>> situation does not lead to a rank-and-file windfall.)
>>
>> I'm still asking what is wrong with profit sharing? Both on the upswing and
>> downswing.
>
> Nothing. Profit sharing plans are smart business, IMO. However, they don't
> suit all businesses.
Maybe.
>>>>
>>>> Disagree.
>>>
>>> Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my plain
>>> statement,
>>
>> Because you were saying the underlings won't miss the $50-330 per year so
>> the CEO can get overpaid.
>
> No. I said that lowering CxO to its historical (pre 1980) levels and
> spreading the money around does not make a substantial difference in anyone's
> wage.
It makes a big difference if the executives can pad up their pay by
weaseling all the underlings.
Your own number: $332 is not insignificant.
>> that I agree with you that these guys are egregiously overpaid, as
>>> "disagreement."
>>
>> Fine. I'll remember that.
>>
>>>>>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money for
>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant cashing
>>>>>> out by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>>>>
>>>> It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
>>>
>>> Of course, because it's paid. BEFORE it's paid, it's funny money.
>>
>> Well, first you said it doesn't count because it's "funny mone" and I'm
>> saying if it isn't worth anything, why does everyone make a big deal about
>> it?
>
> My take is that either (1) they don't understand it, and/or (2) it provides
> grist for the mill that wishes to make the Cx0's out to be bad guys,
Yeah, like Kenneth Lay, Dennis Kozlowski,.....and there is another list
for the recent recession. But, I have not memorized those names, either.
and the
> people using the argument know that most people don't understand it.
And, you're using the argument, basically, that since its nothing, nobody
should care, but I don't see any executives turning down that "nothing".
>>>>
>>>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if they
>>>> are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option grant (and
>>>> backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even got one book
>>>> which tells who got all this crap started.
>>>
>>> Unless the former can be shown,
>>
>> I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings, ever....
>>
I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
>>> the latter doesn't matter. Chicken egg.
>>
>> ...whereas it is a common practice to _grant_ (that means for free) stock
>> options to executives and even some BoD members (per WSJ articles) as part
>> of their compensation package.
>
> Sure. It doesn't cost the company anything.
Stock is just like printed dollar bills only the dollar value is left out.
It is a resource and it has value and people will pay some amount of money
for it.
I would NOT say it doesn't cost the company anything.
You *do* have to put it on the
> books, now, but it was free to give them.
It was booty, sitting around nearby, and the sticky fingers got to it just
like the kid who grabbed two cookies out of the cookie jar when his mom
said he could have one.
>> And, a lot of them are getting "back dating" priviledges (or at least they
>> used to get them) to goose their value. Seems like I remember reading one
>> article where a lot of executives and BoD are still getting these stock
>> option grants and still getting back dating priviledges, too.
>
> Yea, we need a few high-profile perp walks to get rid of this once and for
> all.
We need enforced laws: its stealing from your company even if it is legal.
> JG
>
>>
>>> JG
>>>
>
Old Pif
> On Jan 14, 3:36 am, Jack Welch
>
> <i_love_pissing_on_art_sow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <hilggh31...@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
> > >Yet you shy away from the Indians "perpetuating a culture" where
>
> i went to the link on malthus, and saw this:-
> "Malthus argued that as wages increase within an economy, the birth-
> rate increases while the death-rate decreases. He reasoned that high
> incomes allowed people to have sufficient means to raise their
> children, thus resulting in greater desire to have more children,
> which increases the population. In addition, high incomes also allowed
> people to afford proper medication to fight off potentially harmful
> diseases, thus decreasing the death-rate. As a result, wage-increases
> caused population to grow as the birth-rate increases and the death-
> rate decreases."
>
> We have never had the luxury of high incomes and most of India's
> population is growing in poorer regions and stabilizing in regions
> where education and family planning is more widespread. Americans have
> higher wages and yet fewer kids because of better birth-control
> methods. Higher income urban indian women seem to be spending less
> time having kids and more time pursuing their careers. I don't know
> why this idiot actually believes that malthus represents the final
> word on this planet.
>
Maltus has been criticized from many angles. Not only this. That
statement was made out of believes rather experimental facts. But
significance of his work is in that he was may be the first who
systematically thought about consequences of the planet
overpopulation.
John Galt
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>> Today, they don't show up in the 10%, but DO show up in the 17.4%.
>>>>>> As people move out of the 10% into employment, they are replaced
>>>>>> (in even greater numbers) by those in the 17.4%. This is why
>>>>>> Goldman Sachs is predicting 10-11% unemployment into 2011.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other trend that is increasing is to load up existing employees
>>>>> with more work, and in some cases not increase their pay.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know this well. :-( I suspect the current increases in
>>>> productivity are inversely correlated with measurements of employee
>>>> morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than
>>>> permanent.
>>>
>>> Which also means: jobless recovery.
>>
>> Not sure I'd call that a "recovery" at all, but the idea is roughly
>> the same.
>
> Well, that is the phrase being used. The 'recovery' is for those higher
> up on the socio-economic scale, and for those farther down the story is
> SOL.
Always. The lower on the scale starve, while the higher simply switch to
cheaper wines with their dinners.
>
>>>>> term detrimental to society.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. An underreported (in this context) but countervailing trend is
>>>> the aging of America,
>>>
>>> Same thing is happening in Japan (aging Japanese don't want more
>>> kids, and birth control is over there, too)....and in case you're not
>>> aware, also in China (because of the one-child policy).
>>
>> Yep.
>
> And their "brilliant" economists don't have any better ideas what to do
> about this, either.
>
>>>> But, whatever happens, the point is made -- you can't have a stable
>>>> society with double-digit unemployment.
>>>
>>> Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and
>>> almost that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
>>
>> More like 7-8% typical, but there's a subtlety afoot: the natives'
>> rate is usually about 2%, and the immigrant rate 20% or more.
>
> Yeah, but you can say the same thing here in US: blacks, hispanics,
> etc., also have higher UE, sometimes much higher.
The ethos is different here. We're an immigrant nation. They're not.
>
> It's not stable long
>> term.
>
> Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250 years
> then die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written records.
It's not stable through the generation, without reform.
>
>>>>
>>>> Granted. Point?
>>>
>>> OK, then what was YOUR point after you said "Then we agree"? That GM
>>> unions are good, and Bethlehem unions bad? IIRC, B got "borged" long
>>> ago.
>>
>> The GM union lead gets it. He was absolutely savaged by the National
>> Socialists because he "gets it", and compromised wage and the job bank
>> in order to help keep GM's doors open. The Bethlehem union never got
>> it. They held the line until the end. And the end came.
>
> Maybe you have more information on the B situation. I only recall bits
> and pieces. Yes, a union can destroy a company. I hope you don't think
> CEOs and executives can't do the same.
Both are quite capable of doing so.
>
>>>>> increases even when company does poorly. Most of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Also distressing, but does not create long term imbalances as the
>>>> labor contract might.
>>>
>>> All depends on whose side you're on.
>>
>> Uh, no. A long term financial imbalance is a long term financial
>> imbalance. Nobody gains if the finances of the company are unstable.
>
> On the contrary: I have been blaming specifically the executives for a
> couple of decades now for executive-induced fuckups AND greedy-selfish
> maneuvers such as manangement-led LBOs which result in big pay raises
> and bonuses given BY the executives TO the executives and the company
> takes on big debt loads to do this.
>
> Not to mention pay raises and bonuses even when the company does bad, or
> even gets disolved/merged/etc.
Same point. In the *vast* majority of cases, exec comp and perks do not
lead to systemic fiscal imbalances within the company. To use your prior
example, you may dislike that Jack Welsh gets to fly in a GE private jet
whenever he likes, but the cost of doing that for him is a rounding
error of corporate profits.
The chances that a corporation actually fails (or even teeters) is much
more likely from bad union contracts than it is from exec comp. (Of
course, both factors pale in comparison to stupid business deals.)
>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end of the year, it adds up to more than pennies.
>>>>
>>>> $300 per year, roughly. But, that's an extreme example. The vast
>>>> majority of the cases come to 2-5c per hour, perhaps $70 per year.
>>>
>>> I still think that you can use the line of thinking that it is OK to
>>> "weasel" down underling pay and then economy-of-scale the sum of all
>>> "weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling to
>>> say that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a vote
>>> among the underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
>>
>> I;m sure they dislike it. I would. Hell, I remember when minimum wage
>> was $1.85, and I was thrilled to death to find a summer job that paid
>> $2.00.
>
> I must be much older than you. When I first got into "work" I was
> getting a buck an hour (mid 1950s, earlier).
I'm 55. Above was minimum whem I was 16 and had my first summer job.
>
>> However, AGAIN, the POINT is that nobody's suddenly going to become
>> rich if the CEOs turn over their pay to the rank and file.
>
> That's NOT my point. My point is: executives are being OVERPAID by
> weaseling from the underlings,
>
>>>>> It does not justify a big parasite getting big by chintzing a large
>>>>> number of hosts to become a bloated parasite.
>>>>
>>>> Hyperbole. You're judging an entire class based on the actions of a
>>>> few.
>>>
>>> How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
>>
>> How about them? If you break a law, you should go to jail. Business
>> people manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
>
> You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a
> section on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks which do
> have a section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]). And, you can
> easily get data from the IRS that show that the majority of tax cheating
> is by the rich. And corporations? Big fraction don't pay any taxes,
> either. IRS audits, continuously, 50% of corporations making at least
> $250 mil/year.
Any of that illegal?
>
> If what they do is legal,
>> even if you dislike their behavior, they are none of those things you
>> state above.
>
> I stand by my accusation that a wide range of questionable (but may be
> legal) behavior originates from exectives and too much of that behavior
> is the greedy-selfish crap that they should restrain themselves over.
Agreed. However, that's different from accusing somebody of criminal
behavior. Trying to fix these issues isn't helped by exaggerating them.
>
> It pilfers from the underlings, it pilfers from society, it pilfers from
> the customers. This is all socially unredeming and I don't like it.
>
>> If you think that they should have to manage to a different standard,
>> your problem is with the law, not them.
>
> No, the problem is with loopholes in the law, especially if the
> corporations paid lobbyists to push the lawmakers into watering down
> laws, incorporating loopholes, or doing other favors for the corporations.
Lobbyists are legal. It's not their fault, or the fault of their
clients, if the polticians who make the law that are compromised. I
expect every person (rich, poor) or business (dba, partnership, small
corporation, multinational) do use every legal remedy available to them
to keep their pennies in their pockets as opposed to somebody else's. I
am not living my life so somebody else (other than my family) can
benefit (although I certainly take my charities seriously), and
corporations are not altruistic organizations.
>
>>> And, I'll refer you to the vast majority of sentiments as published
>>> in WSJ over decades and WSJ is not a left-wing-commie-pinko media
>>> channel.
>>>
>>> There are even many published papers showing excess executive pay is
>>> inversely related to corp profits.
>>
>> I wouldn't have expected a high (-.5 or lower) correlation, but a
>> modest correlation (-.25) or so wouldn't surprise me. If a CxO is
>> using the company for their piggy bank, they're not thinking about
>> what's in the best interests of the company.
>
> Fine.
>
>>>>>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16
>>>>>> per hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings,
>>>>> you think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
>>>
>>> Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to
>>> vote for your point.
>>
>> Feel free. It's just arithmetic.
>
> Its stealing food, etc., off the plates of the underlings.
It's not stealing. It's just immoral.
>
>>> The POINT is that even if the
>>>> extreme example of Eisner back in the 90's, CEO compensation, if
>>>> distributed to the workers, does not make a significant difference
>>>> in the wages paid to those workers.
>>>
>>> Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
>>
>> Obviously. But your standard of living would not be greatly affected,
>> even in this outlying case.
>
> I'm sorry, but you should let the ones who are suffering the shortfall
> give their opinion, and not say "Oh, you're not going to be hurt if we
> rip you off for $332."
Didn't say that. I said that executive compensation, if lowered to more
typical historical levels and spread amongst the employees, will not
result in a noticeable change in anyone's standard of living.
Let me ask any CEO if he would mind paying an
> extra $332 for a car since that sum of money is up to 400 times smaller
> than HIS compensation package is worth, and see what he thinks about that.
>
> My gosh, he would have to buy a Timex watch instead of a Rolex!!!
>
>>>> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On
>>>> average you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>>>
>>> Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small
>>> numbers they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole trough
>>> for himself.
>>
>> It's not cheating. It's legal.
>
> See, you are rationalizing that if its legal, then its OK.
Nope. Things can very well be legal but immoral. I'm simply
distinguishing between the two.
>
> Its like a lie. Kenneth Lay (Enron) says "We're doing great" at the same
> time he's selling off his stock.
>
>> Unfortunate, but legal.
>
> Cheating is cheating, whether it is legal or not.
>
> We don't have the
>> right to arbitrarily decide that things are illegal that are not.
>
> CEOs are arbitrarily deciding all the time to "game" the system for
> anything they can get their hands on to shove in their own pocket.
Within the limits of the law, probably so.
>
>>>>> Funny think how that whole mindset is so common among executives
>>>>> throughout the high end industry. I'm just telling you from WSJ
>>>>> articles I've been reading for 30 years now that executive pay is a
>>>>> hot button for everyone but the executives.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is shareholder's rights.
>>>
>>> How about labor's rights? Anyone out there want to sign in for the
>>> cannon fodder?
>>
>> Legislate it. Nobody's stopping anybody from passing anything,
>
> Larry Summers recently stated on TV that the whole banking-fiance
> industry was spending $300 millon to lobby against any regulation or
> re-regulation of that industry. And, there has been backpedalling by the
> govt as a result of this.
And for that I blame the government. They're weak and failing to govern
on this matter.
>
> and the
>> current Administration would be very amenable to pro-worker
>> legislation, wouldn't you think?
>
> Pure speculation, not to mention that I remember very little
> "pro-worker" legislation being discussed anywhere.
>
> Even the Obamacare is probably going to end up being a bigger windfall
> for the medical industry than for the health of the uninsured.
Quite so.
>
>>>> Delaware changes its laws.
>>>
>>> First, many corporations are NOT incorporated in Delaware, too.
>>> Second, you'd better look at the whole spectrum of CEO behavior,
>>> including pay for what performance.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Pay is going up, performance not.
Over the last year, no worker would want their pay tied to performance
alone. :-)
>
>>> I read the book on Sunbeam and Al "chainsaw" Dunlap. Plus some of the
>>> prior history of Sunbeam, and the post Dunlap history of Dunlap. The
>>> BoD sellected something like 4-5 CEOs in a row and they were all VERY
>>> lousey,
>>>
>>> Carley Fioria--not a favorite of mine, but not the worst, either--had
>>> her turn in her book to explain a "dysfunctional" BoD, and I think
>>> that hypothesis has to be seriously entertained as a more widespread
>>> symptom of executive pathological behavior.
>>>
>>> Then there was the Macy's management-led LBO back a while. Totally
>>> pathological, and somewhere I have a file of an essay written by a
>>> finance-whip that these ML-LBOs are really bad news. And, I have yet
>>> another book talking about KKR, and their pathology.
>>
>> I'd add Jill Barad at Mattel to your list.
>
> She made one mistake and fell on her face. BFD.
Barad's 1st generation Lebanese. At the time of her demise, her entire
executive management team, with one exception, was also Lebanese. :-)
I've been trying to find out for years if the software company she bet
the farm on was owned by Lebanese as well.
Exactly my point.
>
> Airline deregulation led to very big paycuts, more for those farther
> down the foodchain.
>
>>> I'm simply pointing out that changing the
>>>> situation does not lead to a rank-and-file windfall.)
>>>
>>> I'm still asking what is wrong with profit sharing? Both on the
>>> upswing and downswing.
>>
>> Nothing. Profit sharing plans are smart business, IMO. However, they
>> don't suit all businesses.
>
> Maybe.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my
>>>> plain statement,
>>>
>>> Because you were saying the underlings won't miss the $50-330 per
>>> year so the CEO can get overpaid.
>>
>> No. I said that lowering CxO to its historical (pre 1980) levels and
>> spreading the money around does not make a substantial difference in
>> anyone's wage.
>
> It makes a big difference if the executives can pad up their pay by
> weaseling all the underlings.
>
> Your own number: $332 is not insignificant.
It's an outlier. $50-70 per year is the high end of typical.
>
>>> that I agree with you that these guys are egregiously overpaid, as
>>>> "disagreement."
>>>
>>> Fine. I'll remember that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, what about the stock option grants? That is a ton of money
>>>>>>>>> for nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. It's funny money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, many WSJ articles in the last few yearss show significant
>>>>>>> cashing out by executives of that "funny money" into real money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it's cashed, it's real. If it's never given, it's never cashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is always counted in net worth calculations. Check Forbes.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, because it's paid. BEFORE it's paid, it's funny money.
>>>
>>> Well, first you said it doesn't count because it's "funny mone" and
>>> I'm saying if it isn't worth anything, why does everyone make a big
>>> deal about it?
>>
>> My take is that either (1) they don't understand it, and/or (2) it
>> provides grist for the mill that wishes to make the Cx0's out to be
>> bad guys,
>
> Yeah, like Kenneth Lay, Dennis Kozlowski,.....and there is another list
> for the recent recession. But, I have not memorized those names, either.
The fact that there are some bad guys doesn't negate the point.
>
> and the
>> people using the argument know that most people don't understand it.
>
> And, you're using the argument, basically, that since its nothing,
> nobody should care, but I don't see any executives turning down that
> "nothing".
Of course. If you see a nickel on the street, you may or may not bother
to pick it up. The execs have the ability to sweep all the nickels
together and pass them out to a small group.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if
>>>>> they are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option
>>>>> grant (and backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've
>>>>> even got one book which tells who got all this crap started.
>>>>
>>>> Unless the former can be shown,
>>>
>>> I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings,
>>> ever....
>>>
>
> I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
Me too. Stock options were typical for regular folks back in the dot-com
days. The government put an end to that practice, more or less, by
forcing them to be expensed. So, they are now unusual for publically
held companies, outside of highly comped execs.
>
>>>> the latter doesn't matter. Chicken egg.
>>>
>>> ...whereas it is a common practice to _grant_ (that means for free)
>>> stock options to executives and even some BoD members (per WSJ
>>> articles) as part of their compensation package.
>>
>> Sure. It doesn't cost the company anything.
>
> Stock is just like printed dollar bills only the dollar value is left out.
It's basically free to print.
>
> It is a resource and it has value and people will pay some amount of
> money for it.
>
> I would NOT say it doesn't cost the company anything.
It's a slight exaggeration. The Board of Directors authorizes a block of
stock to be put into a compensation pool. At some point, that stock
appeared because the company decided to dilute the shareholders and
print it up. So, it did in fact cost SOMETHING, but the cost of it was
borne by the shareholders, to the extent that the stock drops in price
prior to dilution. That's usually not too much money, for large companies.
So, the company decides to give the CF0 100,000 shares of stock vesting
in three years. That immediately appears in the CFO's compensation, but
it cost the company nothing other than the fact that they have to
expense the option. So, IF they pay taxes, they pay some small
percentage of the strike price of the options in taxes.
>
> You *do* have to put it on the
>> books, now, but it was free to give them.
>
> It was booty, sitting around nearby, and the sticky fingers got to it
> just like the kid who grabbed two cookies out of the cookie jar when his
> mom said he could have one.
Oh, come on.
JG
kamal
Fine. The final nail on his theory's coffin is probably that birth-
control and family planning was not available when he postulated those
laws and that turned out to be a game changer. People who have higher
wages can afford to go for family plannng in addition to having the
ability to support more kids. FYI -the H1bs coming to USA are from
middle class and their parents usually don't have more than 2-3 kids
on account of theirrelatively better economic status. So, don't get
malthus into the picture on that.
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>> morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than permanent.
>>>>
>>>> Which also means: jobless recovery.
>>>
>>> Not sure I'd call that a "recovery" at all, but the idea is roughly the
>>> same.
>>
>> Well, that is the phrase being used. The 'recovery' is for those higher up
>> on the socio-economic scale, and for those farther down the story is SOL.
>
> Always. The lower on the scale starve, while the higher simply switch to
> cheaper wines with their dinners.
I know it happens, but it ain't right.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and almost
>>>> that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
>>>
>>> More like 7-8% typical, but there's a subtlety afoot: the natives' rate is
>>> usually about 2%, and the immigrant rate 20% or more.
>>
>> Yeah, but you can say the same thing here in US: blacks, hispanics, etc.,
>> also have higher UE, sometimes much higher.
>
> The ethos is different here. We're an immigrant nation. They're not.
What you meant to say was that the whole American continent (north,
central, south) is an immigrant continent. Then, that doesn't matter
either because all places on the planet received immigrants from Africa
(if you go back a little more).
And, from history: all immigrants were either discriminated
against...OR...they just took over (at least temporarily).
>> It's not stable long
>>> term.
>>
>> Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250 years then
>> die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written records.
>
> It's not stable through the generation, without reform.
I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
>>>
>>> The GM union lead gets it. He was absolutely savaged by the National
>>> Socialists because he "gets it", and compromised wage and the job bank in
>>> order to help keep GM's doors open. The Bethlehem union never got it. They
>>> held the line until the end. And the end came.
>>
>> Maybe you have more information on the B situation. I only recall bits and
>> pieces. Yes, a union can destroy a company. I hope you don't think CEOs and
>> executives can't do the same.
>
> Both are quite capable of doing so.
Fine.
>>>> All depends on whose side you're on.
>>>
>>> Uh, no. A long term financial imbalance is a long term financial
>>> imbalance. Nobody gains if the finances of the company are unstable.
>>
>> On the contrary: I have been blaming specifically the executives for a
>> couple of decades now for executive-induced fuckups AND greedy-selfish
>> maneuvers such as manangement-led LBOs which result in big pay raises and
>> bonuses given BY the executives TO the executives and the company takes on
>> big debt loads to do this.
>>
>> Not to mention pay raises and bonuses even when the company does bad, or
>> even gets disolved/merged/etc.
>
> Same point. In the *vast* majority of cases, exec comp and perks do not lead
> to systemic fiscal imbalances within the company.
On the contrary: when the compensation packages (based on WSJ articles)
are geting up to 30-50% of net profits, or more, it really does lead to
problems. Remember -- just one example -- Drexel-Burnam-Lambert?
You're leaving out a big fraction of lootings & criminal behavior (eg.
Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky), and its not a "vast" majority.
Some day you will read the criminology books: big fractions of all
corporations are repeat criminals. You really need to open your eyes on
that.
To use your prior example,
> you may dislike that Jack Welsh gets to fly in a GE private jet whenever he
> likes, but the cost of doing that for him is a rounding error of corporate
> profits.
I hate to bring you up to speed when corporate jets cost $50 million, and
Chrysler at one point had 6-7 Boeing 707s. It ain't chickenfeed.
> The chances that a corporation actually fails (or even teeters) is much more
> likely from bad union contracts than it is from exec comp. (Of course, both
> factors pale in comparison to stupid business deals.)
I guess I'll have to find that Kirkorian Op-Ed piece where he listed (and
I remembered them) all the really bad investments that Detroit made and
most of them were bad. I'm talking very big bucks investments, and not
even in the car business.
>>>> "weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling to say
>>>> that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a vote among the
>>>> underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
>>>
>>> I;m sure they dislike it. I would. Hell, I remember when minimum wage was
>>> $1.85, and I was thrilled to death to find a summer job that paid $2.00.
>>
>> I must be much older than you. When I first got into "work" I was getting a
>> buck an hour (mid 1950s, earlier).
>
> I'm 55. Above was minimum whem I was 16 and had my first summer job.
I'm 66.
>>>> How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
>>>
>>> How about them? If you break a law, you should go to jail. Business people
>>> manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
>>
>> You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a section
>> on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks which do have a
>> section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]). And, you can easily get
>> data from the IRS that show that the majority of tax cheating is by the
>> rich. And corporations? Big fraction don't pay any taxes, either. IRS
>> audits, continuously, 50% of corporations making at least $250 mil/year.
>
> Any of that illegal?
Well, that is why 50% of those corporations are being continuall audited.
Then, you've heard about the "rich" sobs who hid their billions over in
UBS (the big Swiss bank), and now the IRS is setting up for "payback"?
I'd love to see some guys end up in the slammer for that.
So, its OK for them to cheat the govt, but they are all out there with
their hands held out when govt contracts are being handed out? Now, the
shoe is on the other foot.
>> If what they do is legal,
>>> even if you dislike their behavior, they are none of those things you
>>> state above.
>>
>> I stand by my accusation that a wide range of questionable (but may be
>> legal) behavior originates from exectives and too much of that behavior is
>> the greedy-selfish crap that they should restrain themselves over.
>
> Agreed. However, that's different from accusing somebody of criminal
> behavior. Trying to fix these issues isn't helped by exaggerating them.
Here is the real problem: searching for loopholes and gray areas, and
these crooks -- instead of just spending time making money, spend more
time trying to cheat anyone they can -- and then hiring CPAs (all the
cheating accounting firms) to do more cheating, and Arthur Andersen (etc)
followed Enron.... connect the dots, please.
>> It pilfers from the underlings, it pilfers from society, it pilfers from
>> the customers. This is all socially unredeming and I don't like it.
>>
>>> If you think that they should have to manage to a different standard, your
>>> problem is with the law, not them.
>>
>> No, the problem is with loopholes in the law, especially if the
>> corporations paid lobbyists to push the lawmakers into watering down laws,
>> incorporating loopholes, or doing other favors for the corporations.
>
> Lobbyists are legal.
I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out.
> It's not their fault,
Co-conspirators.
> or the fault of their clients,
Who have their minds set on cheating.
if
> the polticians who make the law that are compromised.
They are also to blame.
I expect every person
> (rich, poor) or business (dba, partnership, small corporation, multinational)
> do use every legal remedy available to them to keep their pennies in their
> pockets as opposed to somebody else's.
It may be impossible to write tax laws and procedures so cheats can't be
done, but there are also abusive cheats and the IRS has been getting
around to dealing with them.
I am not living my life so somebody
> else (other than my family) can benefit (although I certainly take my
> charities seriously), and corporations are not altruistic organizations.
I agree, but I think corporations are responsible to society for more than
just the bottom line AND "the big grab" by the executives.
>>>>>>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what .16 per
>>>>>>> hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings, you
>>>>>> think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
>>>>
>>>> Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to vote
>>>> for your point.
>>>
>>> Feel free. It's just arithmetic.
>>
>> Its stealing food, etc., off the plates of the underlings.
>
> It's not stealing. It's just immoral.
Sleeping with someone else's wife is not stealing, either.
But there is a lot of that going on, too.
>>>>> the wages paid to those workers.
>>>>
>>>> Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
>>>
>>> Obviously. But your standard of living would not be greatly affected, even
>>> in this outlying case.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you should let the ones who are suffering the shortfall give
>> their opinion, and not say "Oh, you're not going to be hurt if we rip you
>> off for $332."
>
> Didn't say that. I said that executive compensation, if lowered to more
> typical historical levels and spread amongst the employees, will not result
> in a noticeable change in anyone's standard of living.
You are still playing "judge" here, and I'm still going to suggest to let
the underlings vote on it, and I'm going to suggest that they will want
"share" for the many rather than "grab" for the few.
>>>>> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On
>>>>> average you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>>>>
>>>> Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small numbers
>>>> they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole trough for himself.
>>>
>>> It's not cheating. It's legal.
>>
>> See, you are rationalizing that if its legal, then its OK.
>
> Nope. Things can very well be legal but immoral. I'm simply distinguishing
> between the two.
And, lots of what is legal ain't right.
>>
>> Cheating is cheating, whether it is legal or not.
>>
>> We don't have the
>>> right to arbitrarily decide that things are illegal that are not.
>>
>> CEOs are arbitrarily deciding all the time to "game" the system for
>> anything they can get their hands on to shove in their own pocket.
>
> Within the limits of the law, probably so.
And, quite a few of them got their butts fired over the options
backdating, too, even though I've read that the trick was legal.
>>>>>> button for everyone but the executives.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is shareholder's rights.
>>>>
>>>> How about labor's rights? Anyone out there want to sign in for the cannon
>>>> fodder?
>>>
>>> Legislate it. Nobody's stopping anybody from passing anything,
>>
>> Larry Summers recently stated on TV that the whole banking-fiance industry
>> was spending $300 millon to lobby against any regulation or re-regulation
>> of that industry. And, there has been backpedalling by the govt as a result
>> of this.
>
> And for that I blame the government.
That's fine. You blame the govt because the police are asleep at the
switch, and I blame those people who decide to become crooks.
They're weak and failing to govern on
> this matter.
A large part of their "governance" is weakened by those lobbying efforts,
too. So, I put more blame back on the real crooks.
>> and the
>>> current Administration would be very amenable to pro-worker legislation,
>>> wouldn't you think?
>>
>> Pure speculation, not to mention that I remember very little "pro-worker"
>> legislation being discussed anywhere.
>>
>> Even the Obamacare is probably going to end up being a bigger windfall for
>> the medical industry than for the health of the uninsured.
>
> Quite so.
Yes.
>>>>> Delaware changes its laws.
>>>>
>>>> First, many corporations are NOT incorporated in Delaware, too. Second,
>>>> you'd better look at the whole spectrum of CEO behavior, including pay
>>>> for what performance.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>> Pay is going up, performance not.
>
> Over the last year, no worker would want their pay tied to performance alone.
> :-)
Hah!
>>>> I read the book on Sunbeam and Al "chainsaw" Dunlap. Plus some of the
>>>> prior history of Sunbeam, and the post Dunlap history of Dunlap. The BoD
>>>> sellected something like 4-5 CEOs in a row and they were all VERY lousey,
>>>>
>>>> Carley Fioria--not a favorite of mine, but not the worst, either--had her
>>>> turn in her book to explain a "dysfunctional" BoD, and I think that
>>>> hypothesis has to be seriously entertained as a more widespread symptom
>>>> of executive pathological behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Then there was the Macy's management-led LBO back a while. Totally
>>>> pathological, and somewhere I have a file of an essay written by a
>>>> finance-whip that these ML-LBOs are really bad news. And, I have yet
>>>> another book talking about KKR, and their pathology.
>>>
>>> I'd add Jill Barad at Mattel to your list.
>>
>> She made one mistake and fell on her face. BFD.
>
> Barad's 1st generation Lebanese. At the time of her demise, her entire
> executive management team, with one exception, was also Lebanese. :-)
Oh, really? I didn't know that.
> I've been trying to find out for years if the software company she bet the
> farm on was owned by Lebanese as well.
I haven't seen her name, IIRC, anymore. Maybe she's on a south sea island,
running a motel? ;-)
>>>> The only way I see, now, to deal with this is to have an open, democratic
>>>> vote by (if you want) the shareholders and it be a binding vote on what
>>>> pay to give who. And, if the shareholders screw up, then the employees
>>>> vote with their feet if they want.
>>>
>>> That's closer to reality. You read Carl Icahn's blog?
>>>
>>> http://www.icahnreport.com/
>>
>> Nah, I've got too many books to read. I get more out of books than blogs
>> full of mostly little bird squatdrops. Better to study the whole bird than
>> just the squatdrops.
>>
>>>> But, I'd have a percentage of the vote come from the underlings, too.
>>>
>>> That would require the law be changed in every state in the US.
>>
>> Yeah, I think they should do that. But the rich/CEOs wouldn't like to give
>> up any power/influence. So, it ain't gonna happen.
>>
>>>>> Point? Is it your contention that high pay guarantees perfect results?
>>>>> (I can tell you straight up that THAT'S not true, be it at the CxO
>>>>> level, middle management, or rank and file.)
>>>>
>>>> Point? I thought I was clear when I wrote: "...there has been no
>>>> improvement in failure rates..." (but executive pay has been for recent
>>>> decades going up substantially above inflation rates)
>>>
>>> Wage moves with competitive conditions, and is not totally connected to
>>> results.
>>
>> Oh really? I've been reading (and hearing from persons I talk to) about
>> givebacks during down periods, and then when the up period starts, there
>> ain't no return of the givebacks.
>
> Exactly my point.
It ain't right.
>>>>>> Disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your call. I'm having trouble figuring out how you interpret my plain
>>>>> statement,
>>>>
>>>> Because you were saying the underlings won't miss the $50-330 per year so
>>>> the CEO can get overpaid.
>>>
>>> No. I said that lowering CxO to its historical (pre 1980) levels and
>>> spreading the money around does not make a substantial difference in
>>> anyone's wage.
>>
>> It makes a big difference if the executives can pad up their pay by
>> weaseling all the underlings.
>>
>> Your own number: $332 is not insignificant.
>
> It's an outlier. $50-70 per year is the high end of typical.
I still want MY $50 per year. Show me any underling that will turn down
his $50. Maybe the sweatbox illegal immigrants in NYC sweatbox textile
(etc) employers give extra time for free to their jobs (because they are
scared shitless of getting deported).
>>>
>>> My take is that either (1) they don't understand it, and/or (2) it
>>> provides grist for the mill that wishes to make the Cx0's out to be bad
>>> guys,
>>
>> Yeah, like Kenneth Lay, Dennis Kozlowski,.....and there is another list for
>> the recent recession. But, I have not memorized those names, either.
>
> The fact that there are some bad guys doesn't negate the point.
I'd just like you to acknowledge that there's a pretty big fraction out
there that are crooks.
>> and the
>>> people using the argument know that most people don't understand it.
>>
>> And, you're using the argument, basically, that since its nothing, nobody
>> should care, but I don't see any executives turning down that "nothing".
>
> Of course. If you see a nickel on the street, you may or may not bother to
> pick it up. The execs have the ability to sweep all the nickels together and
> pass them out to a small group.
Yeah. I remember a movie I saw as a kid: two pirates dig up the treasure
chest: first guy divides up the booty: "OK, one for you, two for me" and
the other guy says: "Hey, I did half the work" and the otehr guy says
"Yeah, but it was my map that showed us where this was."
Clear situation. There was no prior discussion and agreement on the
quantitation of the division process.
>>>>>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if they
>>>>>> are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option grant (and
>>>>>> backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've even got one book
>>>>>> which tells who got all this crap started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless the former can be shown,
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings,
>>>> ever....
>>>>
>>
>> I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
>
> Me too. Stock options were typical for regular folks back in the dot-com
> days.
I think it was rare (but not non-existent) for companies to pay underlings
in stock.
I did work for a company and they offered me stock options, but I had to
pay for them (I didn't want any, I wanted the USD).
The government put an end to that practice, more or less, by forcing
> them to be expensed. So, they are now unusual for publically held companies,
> outside of highly comped execs.
Fine.
>>>> part of their compensation package.
>>>
>>> Sure. It doesn't cost the company anything.
>>
>> Stock is just like printed dollar bills only the dollar value is left out.
>
> It's basically free to print.
Same with corporate bonds.
>> It is a resource and it has value and people will pay some amount of money
>> for it.
>>
>> I would NOT say it doesn't cost the company anything.
>
> It's a slight exaggeration. The Board of Directors authorizes a block of
> stock to be put into a compensation pool. At some point, that stock appeared
> because the company decided to dilute the shareholders and print it up. So,
> it did in fact cost SOMETHING, but the cost of it was borne by the
> shareholders, to the extent that the stock drops in price prior to dilution.
> That's usually not too much money, for large companies.
Fine, I'll let the propeller-heads argue that one. All I'll leave it at is
that it is an area where the focus is blurry, but there is an image of a
real thing and it has value.
> So, the company decides to give the CF0 100,000 shares of stock vesting in
> three years. That immediately appears in the CFO's compensation, but it cost
> the company nothing other than the fact that they have to expense the option.
> So, IF they pay taxes, they pay some small percentage of the strike price of
> the options in taxes.
You're basically writing your middle sentence like banks just tell you
after you make a deposit of real money that you can get it back anytime
you want but your money is loaned out the next day. Think about it for ten
seconds and its a trick. I'm not against banks like gold bugs are, but it
is a significant trick detail.
>> You *do* have to put it on the
>>> books, now, but it was free to give them.
>>
>> It was booty, sitting around nearby, and the sticky fingers got to it just
>> like the kid who grabbed two cookies out of the cookie jar when his mom
>> said he could have one.
>
> Oh, come on.
Oh, come on, yourself. You never see these guys getting their sticky
fingers on bricks, blocks, windows, and asphalt off the parking lots.
> JG
>
morris croy
> I agree, but I think corporations are responsible to society for more than
> just the bottom line AND "the big grab" by the executives.
Easy solutions to that problem:
- Impose an automatic death penalty on any and all white collar
"crimes", without trial.
- Take all power away from lawyers and politicians.
- Remove from the law the corporate limited liability structure, and
nationalize everything with everybody being paid the same wage
regardless of how much or how little work they do.
Then everyone all lived happily ever after. :P
Day Brown
> Fine. The final nail on his theory's coffin is probably that birth-
> control and family planning was not available when he postulated those
> laws and that turned out to be a game changer.
is that archeology and computer search strings of ancient documents
reveal a large set of highly effective birth control herbs. Witches
provided what we now call 'family planning', for which the Bishops began
burning them in the 5th century.
They would also burn the witch houses to the ground. But the alkaline
ash that remained, on sites which were considered evil, and not
therefore built on, preserved organic matter which modern forensic tools
have sometimes identified.
It turns out there's a reason why "bachelor button" is so named, why
'blessed thistle' was blessed, how 'motherwort' warded off motherhood,
and why Queen Anne loved her lace.
History shows Emperor Augustus trying to promote what we now call
"family values" because the birth rate of women was so low. Now, we see
there's a reason. The herbs were so abundant in European ecosystems that
even slave women could find and use them, and since they didnt want to
give birth to kids who'd just grow up to be slaves, the Legions became
slave raiders trying to keep the population up.
The history is really obscure because so much of it was written by men
who knew nothing of all this. But the work of archeologist Gimbutas
shows us Chalcolithic tels where SE European communities had stable
populations for 4000 years or more.
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, morris croy wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> I agree, but I think corporations are responsible to society for more than
>> just the bottom line AND "the big grab" by the executives.
>
> Easy solutions to that problem:
>
> - Impose an automatic death penalty on any and all white collar
> "crimes", without trial.
I love it, but the rich/CEOs can buy off the judge.
> - Take all power away from lawyers and politicians.
Um....and give it to whom?
> - Remove from the law the corporate limited liability structure, and
> nationalize everything with everybody being paid the same wage
> regardless of how much or how little work they do.
Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but there is an argument against that
and I think we'd lose the vote on that if it came to a vote.
> Then everyone all lived happily ever after. :P
Sounds like a great movie title or a great dream theme.
John Galt
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>
>>>>>> morale, meaning that the increases are "borrowed" rather than
>>>>>> permanent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which also means: jobless recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I'd call that a "recovery" at all, but the idea is roughly
>>>> the same.
>>>
>>> Well, that is the phrase being used. The 'recovery' is for those
>>> higher up on the socio-economic scale, and for those farther down the
>>> story is SOL.
>>
>> Always. The lower on the scale starve, while the higher simply switch
>> to cheaper wines with their dinners.
>
> I know it happens, but it ain't right.
It ain't right...........
Hm.
It's definitely unfortunate. "Right" in that context is a little too
subjective for me to comment on.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, they have that over in a lot of east European countries and
>>>>> almost that in Western European countries, and they are stable.
>>>>
>>>> More like 7-8% typical, but there's a subtlety afoot: the natives'
>>>> rate is usually about 2%, and the immigrant rate 20% or more.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but you can say the same thing here in US: blacks, hispanics,
>>> etc., also have higher UE, sometimes much higher.
>>
>> The ethos is different here. We're an immigrant nation. They're not.
>
> What you meant to say was that the whole American continent (north,
> central, south) is an immigrant continent. Then, that doesn't matter
> either because all places on the planet received immigrants from Africa
> (if you go back a little more).
>
> And, from history: all immigrants were either discriminated
> against...OR...they just took over (at least temporarily).
Sure. The larger point is, however, that we're used to living next door
to somebody that somebody else would say "they're not like us."
Sociologically, a heterogenous society is something we are far more used
to than many places in Europe.
>
>>> It's not stable long
>>>> term.
>>>
>>> Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250 years
>>> then die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written records.
>>
>> It's not stable through the generation, without reform.
>
> I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
Cars, Paris, Burning, Muslim slum/suburbs, for one.
>
>>>>
>>>> The GM union lead gets it. He was absolutely savaged by the National
>>>> Socialists because he "gets it", and compromised wage and the job
>>>> bank in order to help keep GM's doors open. The Bethlehem union
>>>> never got it. They held the line until the end. And the end came.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have more information on the B situation. I only recall
>>> bits and pieces. Yes, a union can destroy a company. I hope you don't
>>> think CEOs and executives can't do the same.
>>
>> Both are quite capable of doing so.
>
> Fine.
>
>>>>> All depends on whose side you're on.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, no. A long term financial imbalance is a long term financial
>>>> imbalance. Nobody gains if the finances of the company are unstable.
>>>
>>> On the contrary: I have been blaming specifically the executives for
>>> a couple of decades now for executive-induced fuckups AND
>>> greedy-selfish maneuvers such as manangement-led LBOs which result in
>>> big pay raises and bonuses given BY the executives TO the executives
>>> and the company takes on big debt loads to do this.
>>>
>>> Not to mention pay raises and bonuses even when the company does bad,
>>> or even gets disolved/merged/etc.
>>
>> Same point. In the *vast* majority of cases, exec comp and perks do
>> not lead to systemic fiscal imbalances within the company.
>
> On the contrary: when the compensation packages (based on WSJ articles)
> are geting up to 30-50% of net profits, or more, it really does lead to
> problems. Remember -- just one example -- Drexel-Burnam-Lambert?
Yes. Never said it doesn't happen.
>
> You're leaving out a big fraction of lootings & criminal behavior (eg.
> Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky), and its not a "vast" majority.
>
> Some day you will read the criminology books: big fractions of all
> corporations are repeat criminals. You really need to open your eyes on
> that.
"Corporations" are entities made up of by thousands of individuals. I
find your accusation to be too vague to be useful.
>
> To use your prior example,
>> you may dislike that Jack Welsh gets to fly in a GE private jet
>> whenever he likes, but the cost of doing that for him is a rounding
>> error of corporate profits.
>
> I hate to bring you up to speed when corporate jets cost $50 million,
> and Chrysler at one point had 6-7 Boeing 707s. It ain't chickenfeed.
If Welsh wasn't getting the perk, would the plane go away? If the answer
is NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk. It would
exist regardless, and is thus not attributable to his use.
I'll bet serious money that his agreement states that he can use a
corporate jet WHEN AVAILABLE, and his priority is behind most, if not
all, of the current C-level execs.
>
>> The chances that a corporation actually fails (or even teeters) is
>> much more likely from bad union contracts than it is from exec comp.
>> (Of course, both factors pale in comparison to stupid business deals.)
>
> I guess I'll have to find that Kirkorian Op-Ed piece where he listed
> (and I remembered them) all the really bad investments that Detroit made
> and most of them were bad. I'm talking very big bucks investments, and
> not even in the car business.
Wouldn't surprise me. Like I said re Barad, the biggest issue of
corporate economic dysfunction is stupid business decisions, far more
often occurrning than bad labor agreements and egregious corporate pay.
>
>>>>> "weasels" up to bloated executive pay. Its _easy_ for an overling
>>>>> to say that the underlings won't miss $70/year, but I say take a
>>>>> vote among the underlings and ask them how they feel about this theft.
>>>>
>>>> I;m sure they dislike it. I would. Hell, I remember when minimum
>>>> wage was $1.85, and I was thrilled to death to find a summer job
>>>> that paid $2.00.
>>>
>>> I must be much older than you. When I first got into "work" I was
>>> getting a buck an hour (mid 1950s, earlier).
>>
>> I'm 55. Above was minimum whem I was 16 and had my first summer job.
>
> I'm 66.
>
>>>>> How about the class of criminals, cheaters, tricksters, and sneakers?
>>>>
>>>> How about them? If you break a law, you should go to jail. Business
>>>> people manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
>>>
>>> You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a
>>> section on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks which
>>> do have a section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]). And, you
>>> can easily get data from the IRS that show that the majority of tax
>>> cheating is by the rich. And corporations? Big fraction don't pay any
>>> taxes, either. IRS audits, continuously, 50% of corporations making
>>> at least $250 mil/year.
>>
>> Any of that illegal?
>
> Well, that is why 50% of those corporations are being continuall audited.
>
> Then, you've heard about the "rich" sobs who hid their billions over in
> UBS (the big Swiss bank), and now the IRS is setting up for "payback"?
Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in demanding
taxes on offshore investments? You know that the only nations in the
world that do this are the US and Japan, eh?
>
> I'd love to see some guys end up in the slammer for that.
Doubt it. They'll pay their fines and find darker offshore investments.
The truth is a cop-out?
>
>> It's not their fault,
>
> Co-conspirators.
If an adult person who eats three triples at Burger King every day
contracts obesity-related diabetes, who is at fault?
>
>> or the fault of their clients,
>
> Who have their minds set on cheating.
>
> if
>> the polticians who make the law that are compromised.
>
> They are also to blame.
Entirely, by my way of thinking. The system we have exists because the
politicians like it that way.
If you're the head of the General Services Administration, you can't
accept as much as a burger from an outside group without risking your
job. Congress passed that law, applicable to *all* government employees,
and then exempted themselves. Hm?
>
> I expect every person
>> (rich, poor) or business (dba, partnership, small corporation,
>> multinational) do use every legal remedy available to them to keep
>> their pennies in their pockets as opposed to somebody else's.
>
> It may be impossible to write tax laws and procedures so cheats can't be
> done, but there are also abusive cheats and the IRS has been getting
> around to dealing with them.
Those which they can, yes.
>
> I am not living my life so somebody
>> else (other than my family) can benefit (although I certainly take my
>> charities seriously), and corporations are not altruistic organizations.
>
> I agree, but I think corporations are responsible to society for more
> than just the bottom line AND "the big grab" by the executives.
I don't. I want corporate CEO's that will work their own mothers 60
hours a week, then fire her if they find a cheaper alternative. That
M.O. will maximize profits, AND maximize tax receipts, which the
government can then divvy up to those who are unable to keep up in that
envrionment.
IOW, let the business be the business, and let the government spread the
wealth around.
>
>>>>>>>> have never seen anything greater than the $332 (which is what
>>>>>>>> .16 per hour translates to) per year in the Eisener example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if we had a vote, in all these places, among the underlings,
>>>>>>> you think they would not vote to get that extra $332/year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure they would, but that's not the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its MY point. You're welcome to YOUR point below. I'm not going to
>>>>> vote for your point.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free. It's just arithmetic.
>>>
>>> Its stealing food, etc., off the plates of the underlings.
>>
>> It's not stealing. It's just immoral.
>
> Sleeping with someone else's wife is not stealing, either.
Exactly. I'ts just immoral.
>
> But there is a lot of that going on, too.
>
>>>>>> the wages paid to those workers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your own numbers belie your conclusion. I'd take those $332 bucks.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously. But your standard of living would not be greatly
>>>> affected, even in this outlying case.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but you should let the ones who are suffering the
>>> shortfall give their opinion, and not say "Oh, you're not going to be
>>> hurt if we rip you off for $332."
>>
>> Didn't say that. I said that executive compensation, if lowered to
>> more typical historical levels and spread amongst the employees, will
>> not result in a noticeable change in anyone's standard of living.
>
> You are still playing "judge" here, and I'm still going to suggest to
> let the underlings vote on it, and I'm going to suggest that they will
> want "share" for the many rather than "grab" for the few.
I;m not "playing judge." You mistakenly think that when I say "no
noticeable change in standard of living", I'm being subjective. I'm not.
I'm referring to well-defined economic standards of living which are
normalized throughout the world. There is no question that the worker
would have their per capita earnings increased by getting that money.
There is no question that the worker would WANT the money. What is
nonsense is to say that an extra $50 bucks a year is suddenly going to
kick somebody in the middle class into the upper class, make them able
to afford a better university for their kids, or enable them to move
into a 4,000 sq ft house on a golf course, when currently they struggle
to pay for a 1500 sq ft townhome.
>
>>>>>> Also, let's not make the extreme example out to be the average. On
>>>>>> average you're looking at 50-70 per year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its still a line of thinking that if we cheat N people by small
>>>>> numbers they won't miss the cheat, and the pig gets the whole
>>>>> trough for himself.
>>>>
>>>> It's not cheating. It's legal.
>>>
>>> See, you are rationalizing that if its legal, then its OK.
>>
>> Nope. Things can very well be legal but immoral. I'm simply
>> distinguishing between the two.
>
> And, lots of what is legal ain't right.
Of course. I've said that.
>
>>>
>>> Cheating is cheating, whether it is legal or not.
>>>
>>> We don't have the
>>>> right to arbitrarily decide that things are illegal that are not.
>>>
>>> CEOs are arbitrarily deciding all the time to "game" the system for
>>> anything they can get their hands on to shove in their own pocket.
>>
>> Within the limits of the law, probably so.
>
> And, quite a few of them got their butts fired over the options
> backdating, too, even though I've read that the trick was legal.
Well, good. I think it to be a rather reprehensible practice with no
grounds other than cronyism. Bad for morale.
She got a 50M payout for fucking up. She's been spending her time
working with "charitable endeavors", likely meaning that she sits on a
lot of charity boards and gets to dress up really nice and goes to lots
of cocktail parties (she's quite the babe, you know).
I don't know how many have actually broken the letter of the law, and
quite frankly, nobody does. There are a lot of shrill voices out there
who are unable to distinguish between tough and unempathetic (but legal)
business behavior and behavior which is actually illegal. I don't
disagree at all that business behavior has become extremely tough and
extremely bottom line focused (and thus anti-worker) over the last two
decades. But there are a lot of guys who I personally think are
despicable that I will defend to the death over charges from some
demagogue (not you) who accuses them of committing a crime when they did
not.
It matters. You can be scum and be legal. Accusing a scum who stays
legal of being a criminal is slander. The only criminal in that exchange
is the slanderer, and the scummy CxO is a better man than the slanderer.
>
>>> and the
>>>> people using the argument know that most people don't understand it.
>>>
>>> And, you're using the argument, basically, that since its nothing,
>>> nobody should care, but I don't see any executives turning down that
>>> "nothing".
>>
>> Of course. If you see a nickel on the street, you may or may not
>> bother to pick it up. The execs have the ability to sweep all the
>> nickels together and pass them out to a small group.
>
> Yeah. I remember a movie I saw as a kid: two pirates dig up the treasure
> chest: first guy divides up the booty: "OK, one for you, two for me" and
> the other guy says: "Hey, I did half the work" and the otehr guy says
> "Yeah, but it was my map that showed us where this was."
>
> Clear situation. There was no prior discussion and agreement on the
> quantitation of the division process.
Well, yea. As a worker, if you don't like the division process you've
got, you're not a slave; you can change your job or change your skills.
>
>>>>>>> Show me blue collar stock options (which are probably offered, if
>>>>>>> they are, for purchase), and I'll show you executive stock option
>>>>>>> grant (and backdating) WSJ articles back 2-5 years ago, and I've
>>>>>>> even got one book which tells who got all this crap started.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless the former can be shown,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking YOU to show any stock options _granted_ to underlings,
>>>>> ever....
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
>>
>> Me too. Stock options were typical for regular folks back in the
>> dot-com days.
>
> I think it was rare (but not non-existent) for companies to pay
> underlings in stock.
>
> I did work for a company and they offered me stock options, but I had to
> pay for them (I didn't want any, I wanted the USD).
I've had plenty of stock options with various companies. Most came to
nothing, the ones that turned out didn't turn out to much. I did have
the choice once to pick stock in lieu of a higher salary; I took the
higher salary.
>
> The government put an end to that practice, more or less, by forcing
>> them to be expensed. So, they are now unusual for publically held
>> companies, outside of highly comped execs.
>
> Fine.
>
>>>>> part of their compensation package.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. It doesn't cost the company anything.
>>>
>>> Stock is just like printed dollar bills only the dollar value is left
>>> out.
>>
>> It's basically free to print.
>
> Same with corporate bonds.
Well, if somebody gives you a bond, sure. Having the *rights* to a bond
are a different matter. In the case of options vestable in a couple of
years, all you have is rights until you hit the vesting date. IOW, an IOU.
>
>>> It is a resource and it has value and people will pay some amount of
>>> money for it.
>>>
>>> I would NOT say it doesn't cost the company anything.
>>
>> It's a slight exaggeration. The Board of Directors authorizes a block
>> of stock to be put into a compensation pool. At some point, that stock
>> appeared because the company decided to dilute the shareholders and
>> print it up. So, it did in fact cost SOMETHING, but the cost of it was
>> borne by the shareholders, to the extent that the stock drops in price
>> prior to dilution. That's usually not too much money, for large
>> companies.
>
> Fine, I'll let the propeller-heads argue that one. All I'll leave it at
> is that it is an area where the focus is blurry, but there is an image
> of a real thing and it has value.
It definitely has value once issued. The point is it costs the company
almost nothing to issue it, in most cases.
>
>> So, the company decides to give the CF0 100,000 shares of stock
>> vesting in three years. That immediately appears in the CFO's
>> compensation, but it cost the company nothing other than the fact that
>> they have to expense the option. So, IF they pay taxes, they pay some
>> small percentage of the strike price of the options in taxes.
>
> You're basically writing your middle sentence like banks just tell you
> after you make a deposit of real money that you can get it back anytime
> you want but your money is loaned out the next day. Think about it for
> ten seconds and its a trick. I'm not against banks like gold bugs are,
> but it is a significant trick detail.
There are some similarities, sure.
>
>>> You *do* have to put it on the
>>>> books, now, but it was free to give them.
>>>
>>> It was booty, sitting around nearby, and the sticky fingers got to it
>>> just like the kid who grabbed two cookies out of the cookie jar when
>>> his mom said he could have one.
>>
>> Oh, come on.
>
> Oh, come on, yourself. You never see these guys getting their sticky
> fingers on bricks, blocks, windows, and asphalt off the parking lots.
Shit! You want somebody that you hired to RUN THE PLACE working in the
mail room? :-)
JG
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>> SOL.
>>>
>>> Always. The lower on the scale starve, while the higher simply switch to
>>> cheaper wines with their dinners.
>>
>> I know it happens, but it ain't right.
>
> It ain't right...........
>
> Hm.
>
> It's definitely unfortunate. "Right" in that context is a little too
> subjective for me to comment on.
Fine, you can minutia-ize to whatever level of description you are
comfortable with, and I will minutia-ize to my level of description
comfort.
>>
>> What you meant to say was that the whole American continent (north,
>> central, south) is an immigrant continent. Then, that doesn't matter either
>> because all places on the planet received immigrants from Africa (if you go
>> back a little more).
>>
>> And, from history: all immigrants were either discriminated
>> against...OR...they just took over (at least temporarily).
>
> Sure. The larger point is, however, that we're used to living next door to
> somebody that somebody else would say "they're not like us." Sociologically,
> a heterogenous society is something we are far more used to than many places
> in Europe.
Europe is still very class conscious. The US is more race conscious.
I've read enough about Europe that, even compared to us, a person born
"elsewhere" is a foreigner there just as much as here. Here, I think the
kids (born in the USA) would be 'accepted' (socio-economcally) where the
parents would still be considered foreigners.
Despite the peace, the English still look at the French as "Them", and
vice versa, even in business situations.
Another generation and the EU status and all that might start fading into
the past, though.
>>>> Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250 years then
>>>> die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written records.
>>>
>>> It's not stable through the generation, without reform.
>>
>> I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
>
> Cars, Paris, Burning, Muslim slum/suburbs, for one.
IIRC, there were trigger events on that, and since then things have been
relatively quiet, again. And, you'd have to cite more specifics. And,
that example is more of a short term phenomenon. We've had stuff like tht
here in the US, too.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary: I have been blaming specifically the executives for a
>>>> couple of decades now for executive-induced fuckups AND greedy-selfish
>>>> maneuvers such as manangement-led LBOs which result in big pay raises and
>>>> bonuses given BY the executives TO the executives and the company takes
>>>> on big debt loads to do this.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention pay raises and bonuses even when the company does bad, or
>>>> even gets disolved/merged/etc.
>>>
>>> Same point. In the *vast* majority of cases, exec comp and perks do not
>>> lead to systemic fiscal imbalances within the company.
>>
>> On the contrary: when the compensation packages (based on WSJ articles) are
>> geting up to 30-50% of net profits, or more, it really does lead to
>> problems. Remember -- just one example -- Drexel-Burnam-Lambert?
>
> Yes. Never said it doesn't happen.
OK. Good. Perhaps our perceptions are different at the quantitative
(rather than qualitative) level.
>> You're leaving out a big fraction of lootings & criminal behavior (eg.
>> Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky), and its not a "vast" majority.
>>
>> Some day you will read the criminology books: big fractions of all
>> corporations are repeat criminals. You really need to open your eyes on
>> that.
>
> "Corporations" are entities made up of by thousands of individuals. I find
> your accusation to be too vague to be useful.
The farther down from the top you go, the more innocent the individuals.
At the Enrons, the impressions I got were that most of the underlings
didn't have a good picture of what was going on.
>>> he likes, but the cost of doing that for him is a rounding error of
>>> corporate profits.
>>
>> I hate to bring you up to speed when corporate jets cost $50 million, and
>> Chrysler at one point had 6-7 Boeing 707s. It ain't chickenfeed.
>
> If Welsh wasn't getting the perk, would the plane go away?
OK, how did the plane (don't forget, many big corporations had MANY jets;
RJR Nabisco also had a handful of Boeing 707s, too) get there in the first
place.
And, when the govt bailed out Chrysler the first time they made Chrysler
sell all or almost all the jets.
If the answer is
> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They were
paid for from company treasure chests.
It would exist
> regardless, and is thus not attributable to his use.
>
> I'll bet serious money that his agreement states that he can use a corporate
> jet WHEN AVAILABLE,
And, you think the corporate jet(s) are flying 24/7?
and his priority is behind most, if not all, of the
> current C-level execs.
You think those execs are always going somewhere 5-7 days a week?
>>> The chances that a corporation actually fails (or even teeters) is much
>>> more likely from bad union contracts than it is from exec comp. (Of
>>> course, both factors pale in comparison to stupid business deals.)
>>
>> I guess I'll have to find that Kirkorian Op-Ed piece where he listed (and I
>> remembered them) all the really bad investments that Detroit made and most
>> of them were bad. I'm talking very big bucks investments, and not even in
>> the car business.
>
> Wouldn't surprise me. Like I said re Barad, the biggest issue of corporate
> economic dysfunction is stupid business decisions, far more often occurrning
> than bad labor agreements and egregious corporate pay.
Well, I'll go along with that.
>>>>> people manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
>>>>
>>>> You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a section
>>>> on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks which do have a
>>>> section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]). And, you can easily get
>>>> data from the IRS that show that the majority of tax cheating is by the
>>>> rich. And corporations? Big fraction don't pay any taxes, either. IRS
>>>> audits, continuously, 50% of corporations making at least $250 mil/year.
>>>
>>> Any of that illegal?
>>
>> Well, that is why 50% of those corporations are being continuall audited.
>>
>> Then, you've heard about the "rich" sobs who hid their billions over in UBS
>> (the big Swiss bank), and now the IRS is setting up for "payback"?
>
> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in demanding taxes
> on offshore investments?
Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of net
profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an interest-bearing
account? Or, any account?
> You know that the only nations in the world that do
> this are the US and Japan, eh?
I don't keep up on the tax stuff, but you'll have to clarify what you were
saying above before I answer.
>> I'd love to see some guys end up in the slammer for that.
>
> Doubt it. They'll pay their fines and find darker offshore investments.
Well, post Enron, there were over 100 executives found guilty of various
kinds of fraud....and most of them (per WSJ articles) are in the slammer.
>>>> It pilfers from the underlings, it pilfers from society, it pilfers from
>>>> the customers. This is all socially unredeming and I don't like it.
>>>>
>>>>> If you think that they should have to manage to a different standard,
>>>>> your problem is with the law, not them.
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem is with loopholes in the law, especially if the
>>>> corporations paid lobbyists to push the lawmakers into watering down
>>>> laws, incorporating loopholes, or doing other favors for the
>>>> corporations.
>>>
>>> Lobbyists are legal.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out.
>
> The truth is a cop-out?
No, the idea that "if I can afford to 'influence' govt for special favors,
then it doesn't matter if 3rd parties as well as the govt get cheated in
the process" is the cop-out.
>>> It's not their fault,
>>
>> Co-conspirators.
>
> If an adult person who eats three triples at Burger King every day contracts
> obesity-related diabetes, who is at fault?
First, BK splashes very big, juicy, luscious photographs on billboards,
magazines, newspapers of those triples and I know that causes a lot of
frothing at the mouth. So, lets understand where the motivation originates
from and understand that its origin comes from external manipulations of
the target minds.
Second, there is a line of thinking that is also easy to find in the media
that the fast food craphouses really _should_ be trying to promote
healthier food....buuuuuut....that juicy-greasy-fatty stuff tastes better
and easier to over-sell a product, and thus increase revenue.
So, what is _good_ is sold out for _money_, and I hope you get my drift on
this because if you don't, then I'm going to tell you that if the
advertising wasn't there, then fewer people would be getting that
obesity-related diabetes.
>>
>> if
>>> the polticians who make the law that are compromised.
>>
>> They are also to blame.
>
> Entirely, by my way of thinking. The system we have exists because the
> politicians like it that way.
Fine, but I'm still going to use the phrase: "it aint right"
Gotta go now.
//////////////
morris croy
> > - Take all power away from lawyers and politicians.
>
> Um....and give it to whom?
Mob rule.
John Galt
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>
> Europe is still very class conscious. The US is more race conscious.
> I've read enough about Europe that, even compared to us, a person born
> "elsewhere" is a foreigner there just as much as here. Here, I think the
> kids (born in the USA) would be 'accepted' (socio-economcally) where the
> parents would still be considered foreigners.
I'd say it's pretty much both. England is a decent melting pot. In
France and most other places, if you're not French, you're never going
to be French. I have relatives all over the place there (Netherlands,
Sweden, Austria), all immigrants, and after 30 years they say they're
still not accepted fully. Class explains part of that, but not all of it.
>
> Despite the peace, the English still look at the French as "Them", and
> vice versa, even in business situations.
>
> Another generation and the EU status and all that might start fading
> into the past, though.
Possibly. More than a couple of the countries are now getting the sense
of why a common currency is a risky proposition.
>
>>>>> Nothing is stable long term: history shows empires lasting 250
>>>>> years then die out. That's the experience of 3,000 years of written
>>>>> records.
>>>>
>>>> It's not stable through the generation, without reform.
>>>
>>> I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
>>
>> Cars, Paris, Burning, Muslim slum/suburbs, for one.
>
> IIRC, there were trigger events on that, and since then things have been
> relatively quiet, again. And, you'd have to cite more specifics. And,
> that example is more of a short term phenomenon. We've had stuff like
> tht here in the US, too.
The Paris events have been ongoing almost nightly for years; I checked
up on that when I was in Paris last year. Where it goes I have no idea,
but we really don't have places in the US which are "no go" zones for
the police. France does.
Events like this are always destablizing; simply because they didn't
lead to destablization in the past doesn't mean that the next one won't.
Looking backward gives you no proof of what will happen in the future,
since no two situations are the same. Looking backward simply gives you
indications.
>
>>>>>
<bandwidth>
>
> The farther down from the top you go, the more innocent the individuals.
> At the Enrons, the impressions I got were that most of the underlings
> didn't have a good picture of what was going on.
I was pretty close to that situation. Enron was essentially a trading
company by the end, not too much different than Goldman Sachs, but
playing a treacherous game alongside its legitimate business. Not
everyone knew about the Ponzi off-book scheme, but they were all smart
motherfuckers who easily knew enough to know that something wasn't
right. There's some simlilarity to the Madoff victims, MANY of whom were
very sophisticated investors. Speculation has been that Madoff's
investors, for the most part, KNEW he was up to something snaky, because
you just don't get 1% per month all the time. Same for the Enron people.
>
>>>> he likes, but the cost of doing that for him is a rounding error of
>>>> corporate profits.
>>>
>>> I hate to bring you up to speed when corporate jets cost $50 million,
>>> and Chrysler at one point had 6-7 Boeing 707s. It ain't chickenfeed.
>>
>> If Welsh wasn't getting the perk, would the plane go away?
>
> OK, how did the plane (don't forget, many big corporations had MANY
> jets; RJR Nabisco also had a handful of Boeing 707s, too) get there in
> the first place.
>
> And, when the govt bailed out Chrysler the first time they made Chrysler
> sell all or almost all the jets.
>
> If the answer is
>> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
>
> Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They were
> paid for from company treasure chests.
Sure, and they often meet a business purpose. Are you suggesting that
there is no business reason why a multinational corporation might want a
way to ferry their execs around the world in comfort? I fly overseas
cramped up in coach eight to ten times per year, and I can tell you
straight up that you lose two productive days every time AFTER you get
off the plane. I don't think there's anything unreasonable at all in IBM
wanting to get Sam Palmisano to Bangalore in condition to have a
business event on day of arrival.
>
> It would exist
>> regardless, and is thus not attributable to his use.
>>
>> I'll bet serious money that his agreement states that he can use a
>> corporate jet WHEN AVAILABLE,
>
> And, you think the corporate jet(s) are flying 24/7?
>
> and his priority is behind most, if not all, of the
>> current C-level execs.
>
> You think those execs are always going somewhere 5-7 days a week?
Obviously it depends on how many execs are working in the complex near
the airport, and how many jets there are. There's no question that six
to twelve execs will keep a jet moving almost all the time.
>
<bandwidth>
>
>>>>>> people manage their businesses to the letter of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have not read ANY basic textbooks on criminology which have a
>>>>> section on white collar crime (and I have read three textbooks
>>>>> which do have a section on white collar crime [i.e. executives]).
>>>>> And, you can easily get data from the IRS that show that the
>>>>> majority of tax cheating is by the rich. And corporations? Big
>>>>> fraction don't pay any taxes, either. IRS audits, continuously, 50%
>>>>> of corporations making at least $250 mil/year.
>>>>
>>>> Any of that illegal?
>>>
>>> Well, that is why 50% of those corporations are being continuall
>>> audited.
>>>
>>> Then, you've heard about the "rich" sobs who hid their billions over
>>> in UBS (the big Swiss bank), and now the IRS is setting up for
>>> "payback"?
>>
>> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in
>> demanding taxes on offshore investments?
>
> Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
> suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of net
> profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an interest-bearing
> account? Or, any account?
The latter. You've made the case that morality is different than
legality, and I've agreed. It logically follows that the government can
also pass a law which is immoral; een the military exempts soldiers from
carrying out an order which is immoral. In the case of taxation on
overseas investment, the consensus of the world, by a huge margin,
states that income earned abroad is taxed abroad and not by the home
country.
Simply put, if I want to buy an apartment in Syria, I hold it for a few
years and sell it for a profit, of what business is it of the US
government? (Morally, not legally.) Did the earning of the income depend
on any government-owned US infrastructure, or have anything to do with
the US whatsoever?
>
>> You know that the only nations in the world that do this are the US
>> and Japan, eh?
>
> I don't keep up on the tax stuff, but you'll have to clarify what you
> were saying above before I answer.
>
>>> I'd love to see some guys end up in the slammer for that.
>>
>> Doubt it. They'll pay their fines and find darker offshore investments.
>
> Well, post Enron, there were over 100 executives found guilty of various
> kinds of fraud....and most of them (per WSJ articles) are in the slammer.
Yea, I was talking about offshore taxation.
>
>>>>> It pilfers from the underlings, it pilfers from society, it pilfers
>>>>> from the customers. This is all socially unredeming and I don't
>>>>> like it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think that they should have to manage to a different
>>>>>> standard, your problem is with the law, not them.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the problem is with loopholes in the law, especially if the
>>>>> corporations paid lobbyists to push the lawmakers into watering
>>>>> down laws, incorporating loopholes, or doing other favors for the
>>>>> corporations.
>>>>
>>>> Lobbyists are legal.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out.
>>
>> The truth is a cop-out?
>
> No, the idea that "if I can afford to 'influence' govt for special
> favors, then it doesn't matter if 3rd parties as well as the govt get
> cheated in the process" is the cop-out.
>
>>>> It's not their fault,
>>>
>>> Co-conspirators.
>>
>> If an adult person who eats three triples at Burger King every day
>> contracts obesity-related diabetes, who is at fault?
>
> First, BK splashes very big, juicy, luscious photographs on billboards,
> magazines, newspapers of those triples and I know that causes a lot of
> frothing at the mouth. So, lets understand where the motivation
> originates from and understand that its origin comes from external
> manipulations of the target minds.
Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. They have a product and
want to sell it. They're hardly going to post pictures of gnarly looking
triples.
>
> Second, there is a line of thinking that is also easy to find in the
> media that the fast food craphouses really _should_ be trying to promote
> healthier food....buuuuuut....that juicy-greasy-fatty stuff tastes
> better and easier to over-sell a product, and thus increase revenue.
They supply what the public demands. Change what the public demands
(through education, preferably), and the problem rectifies itself.
>
> So, what is _good_ is sold out for _money_, and I hope you get my drift
> on this because if you don't, then I'm going to tell you that if the
> advertising wasn't there, then fewer people would be getting that
> obesity-related diabetes.
I'm sure that's true. But the advertising *is* there.
JG
<snip>
>>
>>
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, morris croy wrote:
Most of the whole internet is under mob rule (particularly NGs), or
censored blogs, or maleware loaded websites.
Surely there could be something better?
Me, ...again!
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>>
>
>>
>> Europe is still very class conscious. The US is more race conscious.
>> I've read enough about Europe that, even compared to us, a person born
>> "elsewhere" is a foreigner there just as much as here. Here, I think the
>> kids (born in the USA) would be 'accepted' (socio-economcally) where the
>> parents would still be considered foreigners.
>
> I'd say it's pretty much both. England is a decent melting pot. In France and
> most other places, if you're not French, you're never going to be French.
It's always been like that.
I
> have relatives all over the place there (Netherlands, Sweden, Austria), all
> immigrants, and after 30 years they say they're still not accepted fully.
> Class explains part of that, but not all of it.
And, I'll tell you another one from Latin America: The pure descendants of
the original Spanish (and Portugese) lines have an attitude similar to the
French. I've picked this up from not only books but people who lived or
were born there. They're not all like that, but maybe its a cultural
conservatism(?). The "mixed breed" situation is a little different there,
than here, and better "acceptance" of one another.
>> Despite the peace, the English still look at the French as "Them", and vice
>> versa, even in business situations.
>>
>> Another generation and the EU status and all that might start fading into
>> the past, though.
>
> Possibly. More than a couple of the countries are now getting the sense of
> why a common currency is a risky proposition.
I've read that, too. But, then, no matter what the issue, there's going to
be a pejorative opinion coming from somewhere. However, I saw the purpose
of the EU as a path more to economic clout, and less as aid to national
dreams. And, so far, the exchange game watched in our papers is still the
"big three": USD, Yen, and Euro (after ten years).
>>>> I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
>>>
>>> Cars, Paris, Burning, Muslim slum/suburbs, for one.
>>
>> IIRC, there were trigger events on that, and since then things have been
>> relatively quiet, again. And, you'd have to cite more specifics. And, that
>> example is more of a short term phenomenon. We've had stuff like tht here
>> in the US, too.
>
> The Paris events have been ongoing almost nightly for years; I checked up on
> that when I was in Paris last year. Where it goes I have no idea, but we
> really don't have places in the US which are "no go" zones for the police.
> France does.
Well, its not talked about here much, but I remember one article where the
USPS and UPS won't go, either. And, I know from contacts with businesses
that go to homes to do work that they don't take business in certain
areas, neighborhoods. There is a town on one of the Hawaian islands that
is not on most tourist maps, and if it is, they don't recommend tourists
go there because its unsafe. I don't think I need to tell you the next
sentence about the origin of that.
> Events like this are always destablizing; simply because they didn't lead to
> destablization in the past doesn't mean that the next one won't. Looking
> backward gives you no proof of what will happen in the future, since no two
> situations are the same. Looking backward simply gives you indications.
I'll go along with that, at least unless you bring in a gun (or bomb)
benefactor of some kind.
>> The farther down from the top you go, the more innocent the individuals. At
>> the Enrons, the impressions I got were that most of the underlings didn't
>> have a good picture of what was going on.
>
> I was pretty close to that situation. Enron was essentially a trading company
> by the end, not too much different than Goldman Sachs, but playing a
> treacherous game alongside its legitimate business. Not everyone knew about
> the Ponzi off-book scheme, but they were all smart motherfuckers who easily
> knew enough to know that something wasn't right.
Well, what the knew I'm not sure. I have a couple of books on Enron, and I
remember reading most of the WSJ articles (for 1 to 1-1/2 years there was
between 10-12 Enron articles in EVERY issue of the WSJ), and a pretty big
fraction of the underling employees were still buying Enron stock at the
same time the executives were selling like crazy. So, they may have been
smart motherfuckers, but they were not wise motherfuckers.
There's some simlilarity to
> the Madoff victims, MANY of whom were very sophisticated investors.
My wife and I know someone who put ALL of their money into Madoff. Now,
wiped out. Totally. Man, you don't put all your eggs into one basket.
> Speculation has been that Madoff's investors, for the most part, KNEW he was
> up to something snaky, because you just don't get 1% per month all the time.
Yes, its suspicious but in another book I read, GE really did manage its
profits using off-book accounting, too. But, at least so far as is known,
GE did not fabricate invented money like Enron did.
> Same for the Enron people.
Big rule of thumb: if it seems too good to be true, run like hell.
>> And, when the govt bailed out Chrysler the first time they made Chrysler
>> sell all or almost all the jets.
>>
>> If the answer is
>>> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
>>
>> Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They were paid
>> for from company treasure chests.
>
> Sure, and they often meet a business purpose. Are you suggesting that there
> is no business reason why a multinational corporation might want a way to
> ferry their execs around the world in comfort?
I'd have to ask how many flights per year the typical executive flys on.
I fly overseas cramped up in
> coach eight to ten times per year,
Good for you....I'm proud of you, toughing it out. ;-)
Might even make me ask who your company is so I can buy some stock . ;-)
and I can tell you straight up that you
> lose two productive days every time AFTER you get off the plane. I don't
> think there's anything unreasonable at all in IBM wanting to get Sam
> Palmisano to Bangalore in condition to have a business event on day of
> arrival.
Are you telling me that jet-lag is going to be solved by putting a couple
of people on a 707? instead of packing them along with a bunch of
sardines?
>>> I'll bet serious money that his agreement states that he can use a
>>> corporate jet WHEN AVAILABLE,
>>
>> And, you think the corporate jet(s) are flying 24/7?
>>
>> and his priority is behind most, if not all, of the
>>> current C-level execs.
>>
>> You think those execs are always going somewhere 5-7 days a week?
>
> Obviously it depends on how many execs are working in the complex near the
> airport, and how many jets there are. There's no question that six to twelve
> execs will keep a jet moving almost all the time.
Hmmmm.... at the price of crew, jet fuel, maintenance, lease fees or
amortization.... better be goddamned big deals involved.
>>> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in demanding
>>> taxes on offshore investments?
>>
>> Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
>> suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of net
>> profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an interest-bearing
>> account? Or, any account?
>
> The latter. You've made the case that morality is different than legality,
> and I've agreed. It logically follows that the government can also pass a law
> which is immoral;
Nah, here is the problem: what is immoral depends on who you ask.
What is illegal is independent of who you ask. You CAN call a law a bad
law if you want, but lets see what else you're talking about....
een the military exempts soldiers from carrying out an
> order which is immoral.
Only if it violates, eg., Geneva conventions, and you still have the
problem of disobeying an order.
In the case of taxation on overseas investment, the
> consensus of the world, by a huge margin, states that income earned abroad is
> taxed abroad and not by the home country.
I'm not sure what you mean by consensus. And, I'm not familiar with tax
laws outside of the USA.
> Simply put, if I want to buy an apartment in Syria, I hold it for a few years
> and sell it for a profit, of what business is it of the US government?
> (Morally, not legally.) Did the earning of the income depend on any
> government-owned US infrastructure, or have anything to do with the US
> whatsoever?
Well, I do know about this issue: transfer pricing, and the govts don't
know what to do about it, but transfer pricing can move taxation to
cheapest taxes. And, I'm aware of other cheats, but then we're getting
into what is fair or not fair. A separate discussion, and I'm not a CPA,
either.
>>>>
>>>> Co-conspirators.
>>>
>>> If an adult person who eats three triples at Burger King every day
>>> contracts obesity-related diabetes, who is at fault?
>>
>> First, BK splashes very big, juicy, luscious photographs on billboards,
>> magazines, newspapers of those triples and I know that causes a lot of
>> frothing at the mouth. So, lets understand where the motivation originates
>> from and understand that its origin comes from external manipulations of
>> the target minds.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. They have a product and want to
> sell it. They're hardly going to post pictures of gnarly looking triples.
Its mind manipulation. First book I read about it was Vance Packard's
"Hidden Persuaders" (vintage 1960s) and its even worse today and more
recent books on this as well.
Even worse when corporate interests are promoted to the public in PR
efforts where (and I've seen and heard the commercials) they throw all
and only the good parts of an issue at you, but don't say a word about the
bad parts of an issue. Stacking the deck. Loading the dice.
>> Second, there is a line of thinking that is also easy to find in the media
>> that the fast food craphouses really _should_ be trying to promote
>> healthier food....buuuuuut....that juicy-greasy-fatty stuff tastes better
>> and easier to over-sell a product, and thus increase revenue.
>
> They supply what the public demands.
Not everything the public demands is good.
Change what the public demands (through
> education, preferably), and the problem rectifies itself.
And, when the advertising budgets are bigger than the education budgets?
And, if the education can be lobbied against as "anti-business", sorry,
there is too much power in the hands of the corporations, esp those
focused only on net profits and nothing else.
>> So, what is _good_ is sold out for _money_, and I hope you get my drift on
>> this because if you don't, then I'm going to tell you that if the
>> advertising wasn't there, then fewer people would be getting that
>> obesity-related diabetes.
>
> I'm sure that's true. But the advertising *is* there.
No question about that. And, I usually hate it.
> JG
> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>
Poetic Justice
> On Jan 15, 5:38 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>>> - Take all power away from lawyers and politicians.
>>
>> Um....and give it to whom?
The Normal
John Galt
Sure. Very few countries put the Euro to a popular vote, and where it
was voted on, it lost. People more sensible than politicians.
>
>>>>> I think you'd have to cite specifics on that.
>>>>
>>>> Cars, Paris, Burning, Muslim slum/suburbs, for one.
>>>
>>> IIRC, there were trigger events on that, and since then things have
>>> been relatively quiet, again. And, you'd have to cite more specifics.
>>> And, that example is more of a short term phenomenon. We've had stuff
>>> like tht here in the US, too.
>>
>> The Paris events have been ongoing almost nightly for years; I checked
>> up on that when I was in Paris last year. Where it goes I have no
>> idea, but we really don't have places in the US which are "no go"
>> zones for the police. France does.
>
> Well, its not talked about here much, but I remember one article where
> the USPS and UPS won't go, either. And, I know from contacts with
> businesses that go to homes to do work that they don't take business in
> certain areas, neighborhoods. There is a town on one of the Hawaian
> islands that is not on most tourist maps, and if it is, they don't
> recommend tourists go there because its unsafe. I don't think I need to
> tell you the next sentence about the origin of that.
This is Paris we're talking about. I'm not buying off on the idea that
there's an analagous situation in the US. If a backwater town in Hawaii
is unsafe, that's hardly the same thing.
>
>> Events like this are always destablizing; simply because they didn't
>> lead to destablization in the past doesn't mean that the next one
>> won't. Looking backward gives you no proof of what will happen in the
>> future, since no two situations are the same. Looking backward simply
>> gives you indications.
>
> I'll go along with that, at least unless you bring in a gun (or bomb)
> benefactor of some kind.
>
>>> The farther down from the top you go, the more innocent the
>>> individuals. At the Enrons, the impressions I got were that most of
>>> the underlings didn't have a good picture of what was going on.
>>
>> I was pretty close to that situation. Enron was essentially a trading
>> company by the end, not too much different than Goldman Sachs, but
>> playing a treacherous game alongside its legitimate business. Not
>> everyone knew about the Ponzi off-book scheme, but they were all smart
>> motherfuckers who easily knew enough to know that something wasn't right.
>
> Well, what the knew I'm not sure. I have a couple of books on Enron, and
> I remember reading most of the WSJ articles (for 1 to 1-1/2 years there
> was between 10-12 Enron articles in EVERY issue of the WSJ), and a
> pretty big fraction of the underling employees were still buying Enron
> stock at the same time the executives were selling like crazy. So, they
> may have been smart motherfuckers, but they were not wise motherfuckers.
There was a party on. The execs created a very Wall-Street environment
where if you WEREN'T holding your entire net worth in Enron stock in
your 401K (and they could check) it affected your performance reviews.
That said, there were tons of smart people who should have known better
who were "true believers" and kept buying the crap.
>
> There's some simlilarity to
>> the Madoff victims, MANY of whom were very sophisticated investors.
>
> My wife and I know someone who put ALL of their money into Madoff. Now,
> wiped out. Totally. Man, you don't put all your eggs into one basket.
Yep.
>
>> Speculation has been that Madoff's investors, for the most part, KNEW
>> he was up to something snaky, because you just don't get 1% per month
>> all the time.
>
> Yes, its suspicious but in another book I read, GE really did manage its
> profits using off-book accounting, too. But, at least so far as is
> known, GE did not fabricate invented money like Enron did.
No, they didn't. There are reasons for off-book accounting, but the riks
of the bad so outweighs the good that it's rightfully prohibited.
>
>> Same for the Enron people.
>
> Big rule of thumb: if it seems too good to be true, run like hell.
>
>>> And, when the govt bailed out Chrysler the first time they made
>>> Chrysler sell all or almost all the jets.
>>>
>>> If the answer is
>>>> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
>>>
>>> Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They
>>> were paid for from company treasure chests.
>>
>> Sure, and they often meet a business purpose. Are you suggesting that
>> there is no business reason why a multinational corporation might want
>> a way to ferry their execs around the world in comfort?
>
> I'd have to ask how many flights per year the typical executive flys on.
Could be over a hundred. Large companies could easily have dozens of
internal events over the course of the year that the CEO might put in an
appearance at. Then there are customer events, same number. Then there
are meetings in various nations about building new plants, negotiating
large contracts, buying companies. CEO's of course vary as to how much
of this major stuff gets delegated and how much they show up at, but
they all know the importance of showing the flag. They travel a lot.
>
> I fly overseas cramped up in
>> coach eight to ten times per year,
>
> Good for you....I'm proud of you, toughing it out. ;-)
>
> Might even make me ask who your company is so I can buy some stock . ;-)
>
> and I can tell you straight up that you
>> lose two productive days every time AFTER you get off the plane. I
>> don't think there's anything unreasonable at all in IBM wanting to get
>> Sam Palmisano to Bangalore in condition to have a business event on
>> day of arrival.
>
> Are you telling me that jet-lag is going to be solved by putting a
> couple of people on a 707? instead of packing them along with a bunch
> of sardines?
Absolutely. We used to fly business class before the economic downturn,
and that lowered the down-time lag by 50%, just being able to flatten
out that seat, pop an Ambien, and shut down for the duration. Lag is a
function of (1) time zone change, and (2) the sleep you didn't get
because you were sitting upright. If a company is using a 707 as a
corporate jet, that damn thing has bedrooms in it. All the jets have the
ability to at least convert the corners into draped off sleep areas with
flat beds, all-the-time internet connectivity, and some of them carry
enough water for a hot shower (although that's still unusual).
At any rate, the aforementioned Palmisano can hop off his jet in
Bangalore almost as perky as when he went to bed in New York. Jet lag is
manageable if you've had an excellent night's sleep.
>
>>>> I'll bet serious money that his agreement states that he can use a
>>>> corporate jet WHEN AVAILABLE,
>>>
>>> And, you think the corporate jet(s) are flying 24/7?
>>>
>>> and his priority is behind most, if not all, of the
>>>> current C-level execs.
>>>
>>> You think those execs are always going somewhere 5-7 days a week?
>>
>> Obviously it depends on how many execs are working in the complex near
>> the airport, and how many jets there are. There's no question that six
>> to twelve execs will keep a jet moving almost all the time.
>
> Hmmmm.... at the price of crew, jet fuel, maintenance, lease fees or
> amortization.... better be goddamned big deals involved.
There are cheaper ways of doing this, and some companies are starting to
realize it:
http://www.netjets.com/default.asp
Shareholders should at least consider pressuring their companies to show
that ownership is financially justified as opposed to NetJets. If I'm
not mistaken, Lloyd Blankfein flew NetJets a couple of times early in 08
for whatever reason, liked it, had his assistant run the numbers, and as
a result sold all of Goldman's private jets and replaced it with a
NetJets account.
I doubt this will happen fast enough for me, but someday I expect
NetJets (or somebody) will offer rather rudimentary jets for use at
prices that are justifiable over business class if (for example) you
have six people going to the same place at the same time. A
business-class ticket to Tokyo on two week notice from most US stations
runs about 10K.
>
>>>> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in
>>>> demanding taxes on offshore investments?
>>>
>>> Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
>>> suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of
>>> net profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an
>>> interest-bearing account? Or, any account?
>>
>> The latter. You've made the case that morality is different than
>> legality, and I've agreed. It logically follows that the government
>> can also pass a law which is immoral;
>
> Nah, here is the problem: what is immoral depends on who you ask.
That's correct as a general principle. When people start using terms
like "fair" or "just" or "moral", my inclination is to ask them if if
they are a priest or a philosopher, because these terms are subjective.
However, in this context, an argument for what is moral (and what is
not) can be what the consensus position by other nations is. We're the
outlier on this one.
Did you know that if you take your assets offshore and give up your
citizenship, the IRS still has the legal right, without a trial, to
classify you as a tax evader the first year you fail to file, and can
arrest you if you enter the US?
That's something you'd expect from the USSR.
>
> What is illegal is independent of who you ask. You CAN call a law a bad
> law if you want, but lets see what else you're talking about....
>
> een the military exempts soldiers from carrying out an
>> order which is immoral.
>
> Only if it violates, eg., Geneva conventions, and you still have the
> problem of disobeying an order.
>
> In the case of taxation on overseas investment, the
>> consensus of the world, by a huge margin, states that income earned
>> abroad is taxed abroad and not by the home country.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by consensus. And, I'm not familiar with tax
> laws outside of the USA.
Well: the laws in all but two or three nations in the world, of which
the US is one, do not collect taxes on offshore income, AND do not
require their citizens living outside the country to file tax returns if
they have no earned income in their home country. Monaco is full of
European professional athletes and actors for that reason, and Europeans
countries do not consider these people to be "cheating" or "not paying
their fair share" in any way.
Sure. Buyer beware. Always. A fool and his money are easily parted.
>
>>> Second, there is a line of thinking that is also easy to find in the
>>> media that the fast food craphouses really _should_ be trying to
>>> promote healthier food....buuuuuut....that juicy-greasy-fatty stuff
>>> tastes better and easier to over-sell a product, and thus increase
>>> revenue.
>>
>> They supply what the public demands.
>
> Not everything the public demands is good.
>
> Change what the public demands (through
>> education, preferably), and the problem rectifies itself.
>
> And, when the advertising budgets are bigger than the education budgets?
Advertising is ineffective against the educated. I love Burger King
triples. If I got coupons in the mail, I'd make sure I'd get to BK
before they expired. I thought I was being dietetic because I'd throw
away the fries. I have 20 lbs I'd like to lose, and did some reading on
high-density caloric sources, and my jaw dropped when I saw how many fat
grams you're getting PER BITE of one of those things.
Haven't been back. Coupons get tossed in the garbage.
>
> And, if the education can be lobbied against as "anti-business", sorry,
> there is too much power in the hands of the corporations, esp those
> focused only on net profits and nothing else.
There is. Capitalism has become too synonynmous with corporatism in
America. THe job of government is to create a level playing field
between worker, corporation, and consumer. We're tilted in favor of the
corporation.
THe political problem is that the GOP does not distinguish between
corporatism and capitalism, and all the Democratic solutions to the
problem stink, because they'd cost jobs and competitiveness. We need a
third way. (Paul Ryan has been talking about this of late, and there's
as good of a chance that he has a turn at the presidency over the next
25 years as anyone else.)
JG
Old Pif
>
> FYI -the H1bs coming to USA are from
> middle class and their parents usually don't have more than 2-3 kids
> Malthus into the picture on that.
>
H1B is not the point here. This program good or bad will not solve the
problem of India overpopulation. It might help on individual level to
escape environment that is getting progressively unlivable but the
Indian society as a whole is going to catastrophe with increasing
pace. Even if the West outsource ALL its jobs to India or even if the
Indians get ALL the US jobs only small fraction of the Indian
population solve its problems. The rest stay in the same dismal
conditions. All charitable organization in the World combined don't
have funds to help India even on the current level of its population.
Neither the World would like to have Indians everywhere spreading the
culture of corruption and irresponsibility.
morris croy
Everybody walking around with a machine gun.
Me, ...again!
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another generation and the EU status and all that might start fading into
>>>> the past, though.
>>>
>>> Possibly. More than a couple of the countries are now getting the sense of
>>> why a common currency is a risky proposition.
>>
>> I've read that, too. But, then, no matter what the issue, there's going to
>> be a pejorative opinion coming from somewhere. However, I saw the purpose
>> of the EU as a path more to economic clout, and less as aid to national
>> dreams. And, so far, the exchange game watched in our papers is still the
>> "big three": USD, Yen, and Euro (after ten years).
>
> Sure. Very few countries put the Euro to a popular vote, and where it was
> voted on, it lost. People more sensible than politicians.
Yeah, but I could see how the European financial community would prefer
one strong currency instead of 25 little dinky currencies.
There's at least two sides to every story.
>>>> here in the US, too.
>>>
>>> The Paris events have been ongoing almost nightly for years; I checked up
>>> on that when I was in Paris last year. Where it goes I have no idea, but
>>> we really don't have places in the US which are "no go" zones for the
>>> police. France does.
>>
>> Well, its not talked about here much, but I remember one article where the
>> USPS and UPS won't go, either. And, I know from contacts with businesses
>> that go to homes to do work that they don't take business in certain areas,
>> neighborhoods. There is a town on one of the Hawaian islands that is not on
>> most tourist maps, and if it is, they don't recommend tourists go there
>> because its unsafe. I don't think I need to tell you the next sentence
>> about the origin of that.
>
> This is Paris we're talking about. I'm not buying off on the idea that
> there's an analagous situation in the US. If a backwater town in Hawaii is
> unsafe, that's hardly the same thing.
No, I'm talking about the worst parts of some of our cities with serious
inner city ghetto characteristics.
>>>> At the Enrons, the impressions I got were that most of the underlings
>>>> didn't have a good picture of what was going on.
>>>
>>> I was pretty close to that situation. Enron was essentially a trading
>>> company by the end, not too much different than Goldman Sachs, but playing
>>> a treacherous game alongside its legitimate business. Not everyone knew
>>> about the Ponzi off-book scheme, but they were all smart motherfuckers who
>>> easily knew enough to know that something wasn't right.
>>
>> Well, what the knew I'm not sure. I have a couple of books on Enron, and I
>> remember reading most of the WSJ articles (for 1 to 1-1/2 years there was
>> between 10-12 Enron articles in EVERY issue of the WSJ), and a pretty big
>> fraction of the underling employees were still buying Enron stock at the
>> same time the executives were selling like crazy. So, they may have been
>> smart motherfuckers, but they were not wise motherfuckers.
>
> There was a party on. The execs created a very Wall-Street environment where
> if you WEREN'T holding your entire net worth in Enron stock in your 401K (and
> they could check) it affected your performance reviews.
That's extortion.
That said, there were
> tons of smart people who should have known better who were "true believers"
> and kept buying the crap.
Yes.
>>> Speculation has been that Madoff's investors, for the most part, KNEW he
>>> was up to something snaky, because you just don't get 1% per month all the
>>> time.
>>
>> Yes, its suspicious but in another book I read, GE really did manage its
>> profits using off-book accounting, too. But, at least so far as is known,
>> GE did not fabricate invented money like Enron did.
>
> No, they didn't.
Well, then, you and the book are talking different stories.
There are reasons for off-book accounting, but the riks of
> the bad so outweighs the good that it's rightfully prohibited.
Well, the rest of the story as I read it is that there are a lot of
investors out there that expect companies to hit their numbers and if they
don't the investors get pissed (read: dump stock), and that is why GE (and
others, a lot of others) "play" with their books.
Oh, I just remembered where I read this: CFO magazine, back just about
when they started. Last time I checked, they had back issues on their
website: www.cfo.com/backissues in case you want to dig it out
yourself.
Also, a lot of banks (they said) were doing the same thing.
>>>> sell all or almost all the jets.
>>>>
>>>> If the answer is
>>>>> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They were
>>>> paid for from company treasure chests.
>>>
>>> Sure, and they often meet a business purpose. Are you suggesting that
>>> there is no business reason why a multinational corporation might want a
>>> way to ferry their execs around the world in comfort?
>>
>> I'd have to ask how many flights per year the typical executive flys on.
>
> Could be over a hundred.
Over a hundred? With some 270 workdays/year?
I'm going to call your bluff and say that's going to be a rare executive
that spends half his time away from his office.
Large companies could easily have dozens of internal
> events over the course of the year that the CEO might put in an appearance
> at. Then there are customer events, same number. Then there are meetings in
> various nations about building new plants, negotiating large contracts,
> buying companies. CEO's of course vary as to how much of this major stuff
> gets delegated and how much they show up at, but they all know the importance
> of showing the flag. They travel a lot.
I'm still calling your bluff.
>>> lose two productive days every time AFTER you get off the plane. I don't
>>> think there's anything unreasonable at all in IBM wanting to get Sam
>>> Palmisano to Bangalore in condition to have a business event on day of
>>> arrival.
>>
>> Are you telling me that jet-lag is going to be solved by putting a couple
>> of people on a 707? instead of packing them along with a bunch of
>> sardines?
>
> Absolutely. We used to fly business class before the economic downturn, and
> that lowered the down-time lag by 50%, just being able to flatten out that
> seat, pop an Ambien, and shut down for the duration. Lag is a function of (1)
> time zone change, and (2) the sleep you didn't get because you were sitting
> upright.
I don't have any trouble sleeping upright. Been doing it since I was a
kid.
If a company is using a 707 as a corporate jet, that damn thing has
> bedrooms in it. All the jets have the ability to at least convert the corners
> into draped off sleep areas with flat beds, all-the-time internet
> connectivity, and some of them carry enough water for a hot shower (although
> that's still unusual).
Hah!
> At any rate, the aforementioned Palmisano can hop off his jet in Bangalore
> almost as perky as when he went to bed in New York. Jet lag is manageable if
> you've had an excellent night's sleep.
Sure sounds like a "dog-ate-my-homework" kind of rationale. Sorry.
>>> Obviously it depends on how many execs are working in the complex near the
>>> airport, and how many jets there are. There's no question that six to
>>> twelve execs will keep a jet moving almost all the time.
>>
>> Hmmmm.... at the price of crew, jet fuel, maintenance, lease fees or
>> amortization.... better be goddamned big deals involved.
>
> There are cheaper ways of doing this, and some companies are starting to
> realize it:
>
> http://www.netjets.com/default.asp
>
> Shareholders should at least consider pressuring their companies to show that
> ownership is financially justified as opposed to NetJets.
What is this, timeshare? Like condos? Then where is the big demand since
so damned many execs need jets?
If I'm not
> mistaken, Lloyd Blankfein flew NetJets a couple of times early in 08 for
> whatever reason, liked it, had his assistant run the numbers, and as a result
> sold all of Goldman's private jets and replaced it with a NetJets account.
Fine, the impression I got about Detroits (and RJR Nabisco) was that their
jets sat around doing nothing most of the time.
> I doubt this will happen fast enough for me, but someday I expect NetJets (or
> somebody) will offer rather rudimentary jets for use at prices that are
> justifiable over business class if (for example) you have six people going to
> the same place at the same time. A business-class ticket to Tokyo on two week
> notice from most US stations runs about 10K.
Fine, I know they can also get cheap pilots, too.
>>>>> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in demanding
>>>>> taxes on offshore investments?
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
>>>> suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of net
>>>> profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an interest-bearing
>>>> account? Or, any account?
>>>
>>> The latter. You've made the case that morality is different than legality,
>>> and I've agreed. It logically follows that the government can also pass a
>>> law which is immoral;
>>
>> Nah, here is the problem: what is immoral depends on who you ask.
>
> That's correct as a general principle. When people start using terms like
> "fair" or "just" or "moral", my inclination is to ask them if if they are a
> priest or a philosopher, because these terms are subjective.
I'll be glad to give you my opinion, very quickly, on a wide variety of
moral questions. And, if you want an in-depth opinion, I'll give that,
too. Just like I am now.
> However, in this context, an argument for what is moral (and what is not) can
> be what the consensus position by other nations is. We're the outlier on this
> one.
Fine, China does not think it is cheating with the cheap renminbi. But its
not hard to find knowledge in economics/economic history books that
devaluing currency is a trick to gain wealth for a country.
> Did you know that if you take your assets offshore and give up your
> citizenship, the IRS still has the legal right, without a trial, to classify
> you as a tax evader the first year you fail to file, and can arrest you if
> you enter the US?
There is a guy with the last name Larner, or something like that, who
wrote a book: "The Tax Exile Report" and he is a international lawyer (I
also read the book) who will help anyone renounce US citizenship and
repark your money out of the reach of the IRS.
So, your sentence, above, is (according to the book) an incomplete story
on how to do this.
> That's something you'd expect from the USSR.
In the USSR, which is now Russia, the corrupt gangsters will take your
money at gunpoint, and maybe kill you, too.
>> In the case of taxation on overseas investment, the
>>> consensus of the world, by a huge margin, states that income earned abroad
>>> is taxed abroad and not by the home country.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by consensus. And, I'm not familiar with tax
>> laws outside of the USA.
>
> Well: the laws in all but two or three nations in the world, of which the US
> is one, do not collect taxes on offshore income, AND do not require their
> citizens living outside the country to file tax returns if they have no
> earned income in their home country. Monaco is full of European professional
> athletes and actors for that reason, and Europeans countries do not consider
> these people to be "cheating" or "not paying their fair share" in any way.
Well, I'm still not familiar with this.
>>>>> If an adult person who eats three triples at Burger King every day
>>>>> contracts obesity-related diabetes, who is at fault?
>>>>
>>>> First, BK splashes very big, juicy, luscious photographs on billboards,
>>>> magazines, newspapers of those triples and I know that causes a lot of
>>>> frothing at the mouth. So, lets understand where the motivation
>>>> originates from and understand that its origin comes from external
>>>> manipulations of the target minds.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. They have a product and want
>>> to sell it. They're hardly going to post pictures of gnarly looking
>>> triples.
>>
>> Its mind manipulation. First book I read about it was Vance Packard's
>> "Hidden Persuaders" (vintage 1960s) and its even worse today and more
>> recent books on this as well.
>>
>> Even worse when corporate interests are promoted to the public in PR
>> efforts where (and I've seen and heard the commercials) they throw all and
>> only the good parts of an issue at you, but don't say a word about the bad
>> parts of an issue. Stacking the deck. Loading the dice.
>
> Sure. Buyer beware. Always. A fool and his money are easily parted.
Yes. Especially when there is a manipulator out there trying to influence
your decisions.
>>>> Second, there is a line of thinking that is also easy to find in the
>>>> media that the fast food craphouses really _should_ be trying to promote
>>>> healthier food....buuuuuut....that juicy-greasy-fatty stuff tastes better
>>>> and easier to over-sell a product, and thus increase revenue.
>>>
>>> They supply what the public demands.
>>
>> Not everything the public demands is good.
>>
>> Change what the public demands (through
>>> education, preferably), and the problem rectifies itself.
>>
>> And, when the advertising budgets are bigger than the education budgets?
>
> Advertising is ineffective against the educated.
All depends on your definition of "the educated."
I love Burger King triples.
> If I got coupons in the mail, I'd make sure I'd get to BK before they
> expired. I thought I was being dietetic because I'd throw away the fries. I
> have 20 lbs I'd like to lose, and did some reading on high-density caloric
> sources, and my jaw dropped when I saw how many fat grams you're getting PER
> BITE of one of those things.
And, THEY don't go out of their way to tell you about it, either.
> Haven't been back. Coupons get tossed in the garbage.
I've cut back on caloric intake, too. Not that hard to do.
>> And, if the education can be lobbied against as "anti-business", sorry,
>> there is too much power in the hands of the corporations, esp those focused
>> only on net profits and nothing else.
>
> There is. Capitalism has become too synonynmous with corporatism in America.
> THe job of government is to create a level playing field between worker,
> corporation, and consumer. We're tilted in favor of the corporation.
So, what I'll push for is for corporate culture to try to expand on the
"culture" like it used to do decades ago (all kinds of sponsorships,
charity work, etc).
> THe political problem is that the GOP does not distinguish between
> corporatism and capitalism, and all the Democratic solutions to the problem
> stink, because they'd cost jobs and competitiveness.
Well, I don't have a favorite answer for the problem, either.
We need a third way.
> (Paul Ryan has been talking about this of late, and there's as good of a
> chance that he has a turn at the presidency over the next 25 years as anyone
> else.)
OK, I don't know the name. I don't follow everyone's blab. I don't like
Sarah Palin, by the way. A little two-bit gold-digger I think.
> JG
>
>
Me, ...again!
Yeah..... I like that better.
Don't forget plenty of ammo.
morris croy
> Yeah, but I could see how the European financial community would prefer
> one strong currency instead of 25 little dinky currencies.
>
> There's at least two sides to every story.
Before the Euro became an official currency, the only "strong"
currency in continental europe was the German Mark. The Bundesbank
was very much the dominant monetary policy maker for decades, with a
reputation for fighting inflation. They essentially didn't want
another repeat of the German hyperinflation and another Hitler.
morris croy
Disputes are settled by wild west style duels.
John Galt
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another generation and the EU status and all that might start
>>>>> fading into the past, though.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. More than a couple of the countries are now getting the
>>>> sense of why a common currency is a risky proposition.
>>>
>>> I've read that, too. But, then, no matter what the issue, there's
>>> going to be a pejorative opinion coming from somewhere. However, I
>>> saw the purpose of the EU as a path more to economic clout, and less
>>> as aid to national dreams. And, so far, the exchange game watched in
>>> our papers is still the "big three": USD, Yen, and Euro (after ten
>>> years).
>>
>> Sure. Very few countries put the Euro to a popular vote, and where it
>> was voted on, it lost. People more sensible than politicians.
>
> Yeah, but I could see how the European financial community would prefer
> one strong currency instead of 25 little dinky currencies.
>
> There's at least two sides to every story.
Well, there's a statist side and a libertarian side, in this case. If
the goal is to "compete with the US and China more effectively" the Euro
is a good idea. Problem is that all the countries that gave up the Euro
essentially run their own economies, and the Euro prevents them from
diluting when they would normally do so. This guarantees that in a time
of fiscal distress, some of the euro regions will have far deeper
recessions than others. Moving off the Euro has been politically
discussed by Spain (approaching 20% unemployment), Italy, Germany, and
Greece at least, and if Ireland HASN'T been talking about it, they
should have their heads examinted.
>
>>>>> here in the US, too.
>>>>
>>>> The Paris events have been ongoing almost nightly for years; I
>>>> checked up on that when I was in Paris last year. Where it goes I
>>>> have no idea, but we really don't have places in the US which are
>>>> "no go" zones for the police. France does.
>>>
>>> Well, its not talked about here much, but I remember one article
>>> where the USPS and UPS won't go, either. And, I know from contacts
>>> with businesses that go to homes to do work that they don't take
>>> business in certain areas, neighborhoods. There is a town on one of
>>> the Hawaian islands that is not on most tourist maps, and if it is,
>>> they don't recommend tourists go there because its unsafe. I don't
>>> think I need to tell you the next sentence about the origin of that.
>>
>> This is Paris we're talking about. I'm not buying off on the idea that
>> there's an analagous situation in the US. If a backwater town in
>> Hawaii is unsafe, that's hardly the same thing.
>
> No, I'm talking about the worst parts of some of our cities with serious
> inner city ghetto characteristics.
I'm not really aware of any places where police cars will be bricked if
seen, even in really bad neighborhoods.
No, I'm agreeing that GE didn't fabricate money like Enron did.
>
> There are reasons for off-book accounting, but the riks of
>> the bad so outweighs the good that it's rightfully prohibited.
>
> Well, the rest of the story as I read it is that there are a lot of
> investors out there that expect companies to hit their numbers and if
> they don't the investors get pissed (read: dump stock), and that is why
> GE (and others, a lot of others) "play" with their books.
>
> Oh, I just remembered where I read this: CFO magazine, back just about
> when they started. Last time I checked, they had back issues on their
> website: www.cfo.com/backissues in case you want to dig it out yourself.
>
> Also, a lot of banks (they said) were doing the same thing.
All true. That's (one of the) drawbacks of having to report financials
every 90 days. There are repercussions if you don't hit your numbers, so
you manage things accordingly.
>
>>>>> sell all or almost all the jets.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the answer is
>>>>>> NO, you can't factor in the cost of the jet into the perk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, those jets didn't materialize out of thin air for free. They
>>>>> were paid for from company treasure chests.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, and they often meet a business purpose. Are you suggesting
>>>> that there is no business reason why a multinational corporation
>>>> might want a way to ferry their execs around the world in comfort?
>>>
>>> I'd have to ask how many flights per year the typical executive flys on.
>>
>> Could be over a hundred.
>
> Over a hundred? With some 270 workdays/year?
These guys usually go weekends too.
>
> I'm going to call your bluff and say that's going to be a rare executive
> that spends half his time away from his office.
Call it if you wish. I don't think it's unusual in the least. That's why
a jet that can act as his office comes into play. Not unusual anymore. I
work for a major multinational, live in a major city, and have no office
to go to. It's all internet. If I didn't travel, I'd never leave my
spare bedroom. Anything they can do from an office these guys do from a
jet.
>
> Large companies could easily have dozens of internal
>> events over the course of the year that the CEO might put in an
>> appearance at. Then there are customer events, same number. Then there
>> are meetings in various nations about building new plants, negotiating
>> large contracts, buying companies. CEO's of course vary as to how much
>> of this major stuff gets delegated and how much they show up at, but
>> they all know the importance of showing the flag. They travel a lot.
>
> I'm still calling your bluff.
>
>>>> lose two productive days every time AFTER you get off the plane. I
>>>> don't think there's anything unreasonable at all in IBM wanting to
>>>> get Sam Palmisano to Bangalore in condition to have a business event
>>>> on day of arrival.
>>>
>>> Are you telling me that jet-lag is going to be solved by putting a
>>> couple of people on a 707? instead of packing them along with a
>>> bunch of sardines?
>>
>> Absolutely. We used to fly business class before the economic
>> downturn, and that lowered the down-time lag by 50%, just being able
>> to flatten out that seat, pop an Ambien, and shut down for the
>> duration. Lag is a function of (1) time zone change, and (2) the sleep
>> you didn't get because you were sitting upright.
>
> I don't have any trouble sleeping upright. Been doing it since I was a kid.
Congrats. I can't do it. Every business trip overseas for me means going
20+ hours total without sleep at least.
>
> If a company is using a 707 as a corporate jet, that damn thing has
>> bedrooms in it. All the jets have the ability to at least convert the
>> corners into draped off sleep areas with flat beds, all-the-time
>> internet connectivity, and some of them carry enough water for a hot
>> shower (although that's still unusual).
>
> Hah!
>
>> At any rate, the aforementioned Palmisano can hop off his jet in
>> Bangalore almost as perky as when he went to bed in New York. Jet lag
>> is manageable if you've had an excellent night's sleep.
>
> Sure sounds like a "dog-ate-my-homework" kind of rationale. Sorry.
You don't have to like it, agree with it, or approve of it. It's happening.
>
>>>> Obviously it depends on how many execs are working in the complex
>>>> near the airport, and how many jets there are. There's no question
>>>> that six to twelve execs will keep a jet moving almost all the time.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm.... at the price of crew, jet fuel, maintenance, lease fees or
>>> amortization.... better be goddamned big deals involved.
>>
>> There are cheaper ways of doing this, and some companies are starting
>> to realize it:
>>
>> http://www.netjets.com/default.asp
>>
>> Shareholders should at least consider pressuring their companies to
>> show that ownership is financially justified as opposed to NetJets.
>
> What is this, timeshare? Like condos? Then where is the big demand since
> so damned many execs need jets?
Yep. Corporate fractional ownership of jets. Warren Buffett bought the
company, he thought it made so much sense.
>
> If I'm not
>> mistaken, Lloyd Blankfein flew NetJets a couple of times early in 08
>> for whatever reason, liked it, had his assistant run the numbers, and
>> as a result sold all of Goldman's private jets and replaced it with a
>> NetJets account.
>
> Fine, the impression I got about Detroits (and RJR Nabisco) was that
> their jets sat around doing nothing most of the time.
Some may indeed.
>
>> I doubt this will happen fast enough for me, but someday I expect
>> NetJets (or somebody) will offer rather rudimentary jets for use at
>> prices that are justifiable over business class if (for example) you
>> have six people going to the same place at the same time. A
>> business-class ticket to Tokyo on two week notice from most US
>> stations runs about 10K.
>
> Fine, I know they can also get cheap pilots, too.
There are ALWAYS ex-military flyboys who want to keep flying, and
NetJets lets them do it on an on-call basis. They're independent
contractors. I know one guy who is worth at least 20M who flies for
NetJets just for the fun of it.
>
>>>>>> Do you believe that the US Government is morally justified in
>>>>>> demanding taxes on offshore investments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean taxes on _income_ from offshore investments or were you
>>>>> suggesting that the rich are morally justified in hiding as much of
>>>>> net profits in a secret Swiss bank SD box? Or, even in an
>>>>> interest-bearing account? Or, any account?
>>>>
>>>> The latter. You've made the case that morality is different than
>>>> legality, and I've agreed. It logically follows that the government
>>>> can also pass a law which is immoral;
>>>
>>> Nah, here is the problem: what is immoral depends on who you ask.
>>
>> That's correct as a general principle. When people start using terms
>> like "fair" or "just" or "moral", my inclination is to ask them if if
>> they are a priest or a philosopher, because these terms are subjective.
>
> I'll be glad to give you my opinion, very quickly, on a wide variety of
> moral questions. And, if you want an in-depth opinion, I'll give that,
> too. Just like I am now.
>
>> However, in this context, an argument for what is moral (and what is
>> not) can be what the consensus position by other nations is. We're the
>> outlier on this one.
>
> Fine, China does not think it is cheating with the cheap renminbi. But
> its not hard to find knowledge in economics/economic history books that
> devaluing currency is a trick to gain wealth for a country.
Oh, I think the consensus of the national bankers in the world would be
that China's scheme is immoral. No question. However, it's pretty
obvious why they do it, if you go over there. There's only about 80M
Chinese in what we would consider "middle class and up". Devaluing the
rimby throws the other 1billon plus into even worse poverty than they're
in now. It would wipe out cottage industry. A jade sculptor might work a
month or two than they're going to sell you for a three or four hundred
bucks, and what they do is so cool that you might buy it. If the rimby
floats down 50%, that friggin sculpture doubles in price, and a lot of
people pass on it rather than buy it.
>
>> Did you know that if you take your assets offshore and give up your
>> citizenship, the IRS still has the legal right, without a trial, to
>> classify you as a tax evader the first year you fail to file, and can
>> arrest you if you enter the US?
>
> There is a guy with the last name Larner, or something like that, who
> wrote a book: "The Tax Exile Report" and he is a international lawyer (I
> also read the book) who will help anyone renounce US citizenship and
> repark your money out of the reach of the IRS.
Didn't know that. 98% of the possible places to park money in the world
are out of the reach of the IRS, so I don't know it's that valuable; but
it might be worth a read.
>
> So, your sentence, above, is (according to the book) an incomplete story
> on how to do this.
Sure.
>
>> That's something you'd expect from the USSR.
>
> In the USSR, which is now Russia, the corrupt gangsters will take your
> money at gunpoint, and maybe kill you, too.
Yes, we're far more civilized. We're going to toss people in jail for
not buying health insurance.
No, it's not.
>
>>> And, if the education can be lobbied against as "anti-business",
>>> sorry, there is too much power in the hands of the corporations, esp
>>> those focused only on net profits and nothing else.
>>
>> There is. Capitalism has become too synonynmous with corporatism in
>> America. THe job of government is to create a level playing field
>> between worker, corporation, and consumer. We're tilted in favor of
>> the corporation.
>
> So, what I'll push for is for corporate culture to try to expand on the
> "culture" like it used to do decades ago (all kinds of sponsorships,
> charity work, etc).
Look for stuff that has a return on investment. It's an easier sell than
altruism.
>
>> THe political problem is that the GOP does not distinguish between
>> corporatism and capitalism, and all the Democratic solutions to the
>> problem stink, because they'd cost jobs and competitiveness.
>
> Well, I don't have a favorite answer for the problem, either.
>
> We need a third way.
>> (Paul Ryan has been talking about this of late, and there's as good of
>> a chance that he has a turn at the presidency over the next 25 years
>> as anyone else.)
>
> OK, I don't know the name. I don't follow everyone's blab. I don't like
> Sarah Palin, by the way. A little two-bit gold-digger I think.
Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin.
JG
>
>> JG
>>
>>
>
Me, ...again!
I think they learned their lesson, too.
And, I'll mention that I'm seeing in stores more products where it says
"Made in the European Union" so I think this is showing something, too.
Me, ...again!
yeah, yeah, yeah!
kamal
> On Jan 15, 10:44 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > FYI -the H1bs coming to USA are from
> > middle class and their parents usually don't have more than 2-3 kids
> > on account of their relatively better economic status. So, don't get
> > Malthus into the picture on that.
>
> H1B is not the point here. This program good or bad will not solve the
> problem of India overpopulation. It might help on individual level to
The program even in its best form was not meant to solve any country's
problem. All of the foreigners you see in your country is because an
employer found value in hiring the said person for a particular job
function.
> escape environment that is getting progressively unlivable but the
> Indian society as a whole is going to catastrophe with increasing
but I find this place to be perfectly livable -despite its huge
population. FYI -there are lots of advanced countries which have a
higher population density and are more prosperous, but because of
their small size -they have a lower absolute population size than
India. It doesn't mean anything bad because we are almost a
subcontinent and a country carved out of 300 princely states +
residencies.
> pace. Even if the West outsource ALL its jobs to India or even if the
> Indians get ALL the US jobs only small fraction of the Indian
> population solve its problems. The rest stay in the same dismal
Outsourcing is not exactly a tarnsfer of jobs as much as it is a
transfer of wealth. When capital moves to India -t provides jobs
initially -but the productivity of the workforce spawns a credit
market and consumers for corporations. Just to let you know -the
number of jobs offered in an economy is not a constant. When you were
a small kid, the population was a lot less in your country and so was
the number of jobs open. As the population increaseds, the number of
jobs offered also increased. The limiting factor is only whether the
workforce in a country can deliver a suitable ROI for invested
capital.
> conditions. All charitable organization in the World combined don't
> have funds to help India even on the current level of its population.
you mean we are dependent on charitable organizations? to what extent
and what would happen if they stopped their generosity?
> Neither the World would like to have Indians everywhere spreading the
> culture of corruption and irresponsibility.
You mean western countries don't have corruption? Having worked in the
US, I found as much corruption in the US as in India. What exactly is
it in terms of corruption and irresponsibility that is present in
India and not in the US?
thanks
-kamal
Me, ...again!
This is a very big lie. Why it is a lie is because we also have had many
decades of automation introduced which destroys more jobs than it creates.
Mechanization also destroys jobs. There are many many less farmers in the
USA now than 100 years ago, and some 80% of all farms are owned by
agribusiness.
All efforts to improve "efficiency" and "productivity" are based on
getting the same output with less workers.
Decades ago there were a million jobs for women in the telephone industry
working as "operators". Almost all gone now.
The limiting factor is only whether the
> workforce in a country can deliver a suitable ROI for invested
> capital.
Now, cheap currency in 3rd world countries (India, China, SE Asia, Mexico)
draws even more jobs out of first world coutries (US, Europe, Japan), and
all of that cheap currency (by devaluation...Besides SE Asia devaluing
currency, now Venezuela has devalued its currency to help its trade
problems). Jobs in the USA are not increasing to match the growth in
population (also being fed by immigration, both legal and illegal).
>> conditions. All charitable organization in the World combined don't
>> have funds to help India even on the current level of its population.
>
> you mean we are dependent on charitable organizations? to what extent
> and what would happen if they stopped their generosity?
India can't feed itself yet.
>> Neither the World would like to have Indians everywhere spreading the
>> culture of corruption and irresponsibility.
>
> You mean western countries don't have corruption? Having worked in the
> US, I found as much corruption in the US as in India.
Show yourself the truth by doing a google search on "corruption by
country"
What exactly is
> it in terms of corruption and irresponsibility that is present in
> India and not in the US?
See above.
> thanks
> -kamal
>
Old Pif
>
> You mean western countries don't have corruption? Having worked in the
> US, I found as much corruption in the US as in India. What exactly is
> it in terms of corruption and irresponsibility that is present in
> India and not in the US?
>
According to the published corruption index:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
the difference between India and the bulk of the Western countries is
enormous. India is on the 82nd place in the world. The US takes 18th.
Exact meaning is explained in the link above.
kamal
> On Jan 17, 2:09 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You mean western countries don't have corruption? Having worked in the
> > US, I found as much corruption in the US as in India. What exactly is
> > it in terms of corruption and irresponsibility that is present in
> > India and not in the US?
>
> According to the published corruption index:
>
>
> the difference between India and the bulk of the Western countries is
> enormous. India is on the 82nd place in the world. The US takes 18th.
I saw that India is at 84th place and china is at 79th and italy is at
65+. If you are ok with high corruption in Italy, why not with a
little more from India?
> Exact meaning is explained in the link above.
its based on perception -which could mean that people lower down the
value chain whom one encounters in daily life are relatively honest
in US. The politicians in US have no contemporaries to the best of my
knowledge. They know how to make a good buck by catering to
corporations -which Indian politicians seem to be learning well.
FYI, here is something on outsourcing, for those who want to legislate
or wish it away:-
regards
-kamal
Old Pif
>
> FYI, here is something on outsourcing, for those who want to legislate
> or wish it away:-
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365760457500470389831...
>
*********************************************************************************************************
Earnings growth at Infosys, for example, reached 49% in the year
ending March 2005.
By comparison, analysts expect Infosys's profit to rise 13% in the
year ahead.
*********************************************************************************************************
The US domestic IT industry has been ruined by the outsourcing that
undercut prices. Now those who did that start ripping off the profits.
The US government facilitating that to happen is in a deep shit that
is debt and any now can enjoy the results which is less corporate and
income taxes to be collected.
Day Brown
> The US domestic IT industry has been ruined by the outsourcing that
> undercut prices. Now those who did that start ripping off the profits.
> The US government facilitating that to happen is in a deep shit that
> is debt and any now can enjoy the results which is less corporate and
> income taxes to be collected.
core, slums, crime, or drug problem. But the rural land costs are so
low, ($2500/hectare) and there is no Arkansas building code (no
inspectors to pay off) that the housing costs are no higher than for
upper middle class houses in Asia.
Lets hope it continues; last month, the unemployment rate was still only
5%. Every time an H1b comes there to setup shop, he hires a secretary,
shipping clerk, janitor, lab techs. etc. Creating five lower class jobs
for the one he may, or may not, have taken from a US professional. Then,
his kids will grow up there to be Americans, and do well because the
schools there still work. Zero rates of violence, dropout rates in the
single digits, graduation rates near 90%... commonly seen.
This is the model for the US economy, a global gated community where the
engineers and programmers can work on the technical problems
undistracted by corruption and urban crime to solve the resource issues
that cause socio-pathology in the first place.
Old Pif
>
> Every time an H1b comes there to setup shop, he hires a secretary,
> shipping clerk, janitor, lab techs. etc.
>
If he does it is in blatant violation of the US visa law. H1B requires
sponsorship from an employer. For a person who is willing to run a
business in the US there are other visas available - L e.g.
Jack Welch
Old Pif says...
>The US domestic IT industry has been ruined by the outsourcing that
>undercut prices.
The same words is used by Microsoft against open source products.
Shall we ban open source also.
Me, ...again!
I would not feel sorry for monopolist Microsoft.
Old Pif
<I_LOVE_SHITTING_ON_ART_SOW...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <09117d26-3f32-4522-9e86-151df1889...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
> >The US domestic IT industry has been ruined by the outsourcing that
> >undercut prices.
>
> The same words is used by Microsoft against open source products.
> Shall we ban open source also.
>
Both the US and Microsoft must address that challenge one way or
another in order to survive.
Remarkable is the difference in approaches. Microsoft does not help to
develop the open source products that are harmful to its own business.
It can not stop it but at least it does not help its own detraction,
which minimizes the impact.
On the other hand, the US governments starting from Nixon have been
working against the interests of this country and its own. By now, the
effects of off-shoring and outsourcing have accumulated to megalonomic
deficit and debt. The situation is so dire that nobody even know how
to solve it.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:44 pm, Jack Welch
> <I_LOVE_SHITTING_ON_ART_SOW...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing from you touches me, you are just making dirt on your keyboard.
Your pathetic efforts easily turn themselves into harmless gas which
diffuses away all by itself and hurts no one.
More below...
//////////////////////////
There is virtually zero thinking by any economists, anywhere, about how to
turn the clock back to 1970s or before when we, in the US, had many fewer
problems than now. However, there are some studies by economists that report
that a lot of things have gotten worse due to the process of globalization.
What will happen? The world will be a big game of musical chairs and every
time the music stops, more chairs disappear from the US and poverty will
get worse.