ceo payouts are an outrage?

[Spectral]

So keeping a wave of jobs is not productive and profitable,but paying the ceo millions,now that's a deal?

You did not answer my question, I suspect deliberately.

Do you think companies regularly fire employees that are productive and profitable?

[Magpai]

The inherent problem we have here is that people have been trained, whether by the media or Liberal politics or what ever, to judge CEO pay solely in the concept of one person. That is to say that we look at a CEO, look at what he makes, and say, "my God that's too much for one person." We really need to start looking beyond this overly simplistic idea and realize the pay received by a CEO should be directly proportionate to how well they perform their job. An effective CEO can help a company flourish. A company that flourish's and grows employ's more people.

Yes a good CEO might make millions of dollars. But how many millions more in jobs is their company creating because of that CEO's guidance?

By contrast you have many professional athletes who make far more than most CEO's. Yet, no matter how well they do, their performance will not result in the employment of more people. Likewise many movie stars make a million or more per movie. Their performance also does little to assist in job creation.

Personally I think most baseball players are overpaid. I'm sorry. I don't care how good you are. No one deserves millions of dollars a year to scratch their groin half the game and spend the other half standing in the outfield. (The exception to this might be pitchers and catchers who, you know, actually work.)

In the end a good CEO SHOULD make a lot of money. A bad CEO should not.

ADDENDUM:
Not all CEO's make millions. You will find that the heads of small companies and even most franchise owners rarely make a million per year. Most of their money is tied up in the company. Likewise you will find that most CEO's and small business owners don't restrict themselves to administrative duties and 40-hour work weeks. You don't get ahead like that. And the reality is that most "CEO's" in this country are small business owners.

All this "should", "deserve", "too much". These terms have very little relevance in free market economics. Person A and person B agree that person A will pay person B X of person A's dollars. End of story. It's remarkable that someone with your signature would make the "issue" any more complicated than that.

[Kraenen]

You did not answer my question, I suspect deliberately.

Do you think companies regularly fire employees that are productive and profitable?

That much is obvious.

[Stir]

Are you fucking kidding me? You murdering someone is not a mutually voluntary occurrence. A salary agreement is. This has got the be the most moronic analogy I've ever heard on this forum and that is really saying something.

Really? Moronic, huh?
Let's see: There's millions of people living in poverty. Then there's a very wealthy elite. Fair distribution of wealth could literally save millions of lives, but someone hogging enough wealth to feed tens of thousands of people for themselves, and themselves alone, is somehow NOT a MASS MURDERER??

You're the moron.

[Magpai]

then the liberals have won. they've convinced us that we can't make decisions on our own. what happened to the days of personal responsibility when you could do whatever you wanted with another person as long as you were strong enough?

Don't encourage this nonsense. Unless you really don't see the difference between a salary AGREEMENT and a murder.

Actually, keep talking. It's important that people like you have their credibility properly evaluated by anyone reading.

[Felya]

You did not answer my question, I suspect deliberately.

Do you think companies regularly fire employees that are productive and profitable?

I wouldn't say regularly, but I bet with unemployment numbers the way they are, some productive and profitable employees were let go.

[Kraenen]

All this "should", "deserve", "too much". These terms have very little relevance in free market economics. Person A and person B agree that person A will pay person B X of person A's dollars. End of story. It's remarkable that someone with your signature would make the "issue" any more complicated than that.

when you make things this simple you are only ignorant.

[Spectral]

Really? Moronic, huh?
Let's see: There's millions of people living in poverty. Then there's a very wealthy elite. Fair distribution of wealth could literally save millions of lives, but someone hogging enough wealth to feed tens of thousands of people for themselves, and themselves alone, is somehow NOT a MASS MURDERER??

You're the moron.

I guess I hadn't seen the maximum in blowhardy bullshit that's possible. I had no idea that earning more money than strictly necessary made someone a murderer. What's the income threshold on that?

[Adam Jensen]

No. CEOs can make how ever much they want.

The outrage, at least from me, is not that they make monstrous amounts of money, but that they bitch and scream and evade whenever the tax burden, god forbid, falls on their shoulders.

As if they'll be worse off if they actually pay taxes, Once you're a multimillionaire, does it really matter exactly how many millions of liquid assets you have? Maybe it determines how and what types of investments you might make, but goddamn it, they have no right to complain when they can comfortably shelter, cloth, educate and feed their families.

[Kraenen]

Don't encourage this nonsense. Unless you really don't see the difference between a salary AGREEMENT and a murder.

Actually, keep talking. It's important that people like you have their credibility properly evaluated by anyone reading.

You don't agree that people should be free to sort out their issues together without the government getting in the way?

[Masark]

A CEO is a businessman. His pay is dictated by negotiation with the board of directors. As to why a company would pay a CEO millions? The most likely reason is that $5 million is a laughably small sum of money. Consider a company that earns $5 billion in operating income. $5 million is .1% of the company's operating income.
.

A board of directors which is made up of other CEOs, and the CEO of this company sits the boards of those the other companies the board members are CEOs of.

And thus "negotiation" consists of everyone agreeing to raise each others salaries/bonuses/stock options regardless of talents or results.

[Spectral]

I wouldn't say regularly, but I bet with unemployment numbers the way they are, some productive and profitable employees were let go.

That'd be a fuckup though, right? With the exception of outsourcing (which is relevant, but not a huge percentage of jobs lost), firing productive and profitable employees is plainly a bad idea. The obvious reality is that the majority of people that lose their jobs do so because they're insufficiently profitable for a company.

[Magpai]

Really? Moronic, huh?
Let's see: There's millions of people living in poverty. Then there's a very wealthy elite. Fair distribution of wealth could literally save millions of lives, but someone hogging enough wealth to feed tens of thousands of people for themselves, and themselves alone, is somehow NOT a MASS MURDERER??

You're the moron.

"You're the moron!" You sound like a second grader on the playground, lol. Anyway, I guess you're a murderer too, since you're sitting on your ass on an internet connection that you paid for, wearing clothes beyond what you need to survive, living in lodgings more adequate than necessary to sustain life, using up time that could be used to work to keep others alive while people all over the world starve. By this logic, you're the exact same as the millionaires, just much less so. They are guilty of murdering tens of thousands, you are guilty of murdering maybe a couple dozen that you could have used your time and resources to save but chose instead to use them for comfort and minor luxury.

[Deleted]

You did not answer my question, I suspect deliberately.

Do you think companies regularly fire employees that are productive and profitable?

I will answer.Yes.Now you tell what your argument is?

[Magpai]

You don't agree that people should be free to sort out their issues together without the government getting in the way?

A salary agreement is mutually voluntary, a murder is not, and it's stupid to pretend to not see the difference, unless you really don't, in which case you're not worth responding to.

[Spectral]

I will answer.Yes.Now you tell what your argument is?

You seemed rather angry that companies would fire people. I wanted to determine if you think companies are just randomly firing people for no particular reason, and they're too stupid to figure out who to fire. Clearly, that is your belief. So, why is it that you think people are fired? Pure spite?

[Magpai]

I guess I hadn't seen the maximum in blowhardy bullshit that's possible. I had no idea that earning more money than strictly necessary made someone a murderer. What's the income threshold on that?

Most people's answer: "A few dollars more than I earn."

[Deleted]

That'd be a fuckup though, right? With the exception of outsourcing (which is relevant, but not a huge percentage of jobs lost), firing productive and profitable employees is plainly a bad idea. The obvious reality is that the majority of people that lose their jobs do so because they're insufficiently profitable for a company.

If companies didn't pay their CEO millions for no sane reason whatsoever.You can be certain a lot less jobs would be ''unprofitable''.

[Twotonsteak]

I think you greatly underestimate the work that goes into being a major league baseball player. It's not just showing up to the park 10 minutes before the game, scratching your nuts, and swinging a few times.

You're right. There's also the steroids to do.

Point being that everyone is riding high on trying to take money from "the wealthy" CEO's. It's the CEO's who create jobs. Athlete's don't create jobs. Movie stars do not create jobs. And both of those categories make more than most CEO's.

[Felya]

That'd be a fuckup though, right? With the exception of outsourcing (which is relevant, but not a huge percentage of jobs lost), firing productive and profitable employees is plainly a bad idea. The obvious reality is that the majority of people that lose their jobs do so because they're insufficiently profitable for a company.

The 'insufficiently profitable' is the catch. Job losses don't just happen because the work force is not profitable, but because it can be more profitable.