|
Yeah the idea that CEOs are some mythical beast is loving insane. There is a glut of middle management in any industry that you would happily have take the fall as a reduce rate CEO. But hiring someone without a "pedigree" looks bad to your fellow board members so they hire friends to loot it, because that's the safe social choice.
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Anyone dumb enough to trade a $250k job for a CEO position at a failing company paying $400k is too stupid to be CEO. What if the vultures you sell the remaining assets of your failing company to offer you a similar "turnaround CEO" position at a similar failing company And a several million dollar parachute to cover you for a few years off while you fade from public view
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:What if the vultures you sell the remaining assets of your failing company to offer you a similar "turnaround CEO" position at a similar failing company Well then it’s not really just a $400k/year offer then, is it?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Don’t hate the player, hate the game. In this case, I find that there is room enough in my heart to hate both.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
This really becomes a matter of how to put the genie back in the bottle because this is part of why our society is in a death spiral. Or it's at best a symptom.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
We make everyone a CEO, simple, economy fixed
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
being the CEO of a failing company is a challenge to be overcome. The choice is whether they will just cash out an inflated stock via purges or will they do right by the people / company. Don't reply to me saying all CEOs are evil or some dumb shir. It's ignorant. You can be a CEO of a 5, 50 or 500 person company and still treat people decently. It resides in the person not the rank.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
taqueso posted:We make everyone a CEO, simple, economy fixed How do you feel about worker owned co-ops? WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:being the CEO of a failing company is a challenge to be overcome. The choice is whether they will just cash out an inflated stock via purges or will they do right by the people / company. It doesn't matter how nice a CEO is, they're parasites sucking up as much of the wealth their workers are creating as possible. Society would be objectively better if they were all paid less and their workers were paid more, and that's not "dumb" that's observable reality. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 04:57 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
All CEOs are evil, though. It's practically a qualification for the job. If you're not evil then you'll just get replaced by a CEO who is, before long
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Surely that's just an empty phrase that was made up to deflect any blame or responsibility. How it's totally unreasonable to be angry at the people causing the problems in the first place because it's totally not their fault and they couldn't possibly do anything but perpetuate since that's how the system they are happily maintaining works. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
Poil posted:Surely that's just an empty phrase that was made up to deflect any blame or responsibility. How it's totally unreasonable to be angry at the people causing the problems in the first place because it's totally not their fault and they couldn't possibly do anything but perpetuate since that's how the system they are happily maintaining works. No, it’s a recognition that it’s an unreasonable fantasy to say that one person can solely overturn the current state of capitalism if they individually take lower pay. The current machinations of the economy says that the pay of a CEO of a retail company JC Penney’s size is worth $X per year on average. All I’m saying is that, all else equal, anybody who is in a position to become CEO would be absolutely stupid to take the average rate of pay to take on the harder task. It’s like if you have the choice to work at an Aldi or a Piggly Wiggly. The expectations are higher at Aldi and you’d need to be paid more than at the Pig. Just because there are a couple more zeroes on the CEO pay doesn’t affect the situation from the person taking the job.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:No, it’s a recognition that it’s an unreasonable fantasy to say that one person can solely overturn the current state of capitalism if they individually take lower pay. Literally no one said this, nor anything similar to it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:No, it’s a recognition that it’s an unreasonable fantasy to say that one person can solely overturn the current state of capitalism if they individually take lower pay. Like if Jeff Bezos got "woke" all of a sudden about capitalism, he could single-handedly change the world. If he decided to like.. well frankly act like a human being and treat his employees as human beings, that would have a huge impact on our way of life.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Literally no one said this, nor anything similar to it. So JC Penney’s new CEO should have come in and be paid peanuts compared to what they could at other, more stable companies, where the job would be easier for what reason?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:So JC Penney’s new CEO should have come in and be paid peanuts compared to what they could at other, more stable companies, where the job would be easier for what reason? Are we defending the people getting million dollar bonuses while workers get cut off with nothing? Because they are still paying out exec bonuses unless that's changed in the last day
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:So JC Penney’s new CEO should have come in and be paid peanuts compared to what they could at other, more stable companies, where the job would be easier for what reason? All this started because you said "hate the player not the game" It's quite reasonable to hate both in this case, both capitalism and its biggest players have a lot of blood on their hands. But do have fun defending CEO pay.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Dehry posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/15/jc-penney-bankruptcy-chapter-11/ WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:In retail news Victorias Secret is closing 250 stores. This is a good time to invest in dead mall videos
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Are we defending the people getting million dollar bonuses while workers get cut off with nothing? Because they are still paying out exec bonuses unless that's changed in the last day I am defending that individuals are being paid based on what they agreed to be paid in exchange for the work they did. I am also defending that, all else equal, that a person being hired to do job X at company Y would be paid more than similar job X at company Z if the work at company Y would be more difficult and it is well-known that the job at company Y is more likely to be shorter in duration. I am not defending that job X is paid more than job W.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:All this started because you said "hate the player not the game" I said exactly the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Part of the problem is the concept of talent and that companies must pay executives to attract it or that they will not attract it. Like many other ideas, that idea can create its opposite and negation. They really do want the most talented person, but they often get the most connected person with the most paper qualification. They want talent but they end up selecting for privilege and power because it can identify and fit itself to the metrics they have associated with talent.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:I said exactly the opposite. My mistake, the greater point is that my heart still finds hate enough for both it's not a binary choice no matter which side you choose to excuse. Have fun defending exorbitant CEO pay
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Like if Jeff Bezos got "woke" all of a sudden about capitalism, he could single-handedly change the world. If he decided to like.. well frankly act like a human being and treat his employees as human beings, that would have a huge impact on our way of life. Jeff Bezos owns 1/9 of Amazon shares. If he improved working conditions (which at the very least would increase labor costs) he could be removed and replaced with a CEO who would “return the company to profitability” and the norm. I’m fairly positive that Amazon could not make money without treating the employees terribly. But the same goes with Wal-Mart and probably most of all retail.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:I am defending that individuals are being paid based on what they agreed to be paid in exchange for the work they did. I am also defending that, all else equal, that a person being hired to do job X at company Y would be paid more than similar job X at company Z if the work at company Y would be more difficult and it is well-known that the job at company Y is more likely to be shorter in duration. The immediate issue was asset stripping by executives paying themselves exorbitant bonuses a day or two before filing Chapter 11, knowing that those payments are never going to be clawed back by the US Bankruptcy Court as an illegal preference payment while stiffing the poo poo of the minimum wage goons by flushing all but $12,850 of back wages due but unpaid out. Please explain how this is not clearly the equivalent of stripping copper wiring and a "gently caress You, Got Mine" move.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
If they really cared about turning a company around they start low pay and would get paid based on how profitable the company becomes. All rich people are bad. If you make over a million dollars a year, you need to be striped of everything you own.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:The immediate issue was asset stripping by executives paying themselves exorbitant bonuses a day or two before filing Chapter 11, knowing that those payments are never going to be clawed back by the US Bankruptcy Court as an illegal preference payment while stiffing the poo poo of the minimum wage goons by flushing all but $12,850 of back wages due but unpaid out. Please explain how this is not clearly the equivalent of stripping copper wiring and a "gently caress You, Got Mine" move. How exactly would the rank-and-file workers at JC Penney be affected by the $12,850 per employee back wages limit in bankruptcy court? These pre-bankruptcy bonuses are pretty standard, and these bonuses have strings attached to keep the executives at the company, where it would be extremely difficult to find someone willing to take on that position.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:These pre-bankruptcy bonuses are pretty standard, and these bonuses have strings attached to keep the executives at the company, where it would be extremely difficult to find someone willing to take on that position. Alternatively, it's fraudulent conveyance.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Alternatively, it's fraudulent conveyance. maybe, in an alternate timeline with regulators that do their job
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Jeff Bezos owns 1/9 of Amazon shares. If he improved working conditions (which at the very least would increase labor costs) he could be removed and replaced with a CEO who would “return the company to profitability” and the norm. This is not how corporate governance works.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:This is not how corporate governance works. Care to expand on what you think I have wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:I am defending that individuals are being paid based on what they agreed to be paid in exchange for the work they did. I am also defending that, all else equal, that a person being hired to do job X at company Y would be paid more than similar job X at company Z if the work at company Y would be more difficult and it is well-known that the job at company Y is more likely to be shorter in duration. No, you’re leaving out the workers who aren’t going to get paid at all once they’re laid off (at best) to pay off debt or shareholders.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:No, you’re leaving out the workers who aren’t going to get paid at all once they’re laid off (at best) to pay off debt or shareholders. They’re getting laid off no matter what else happens. They will be paid for the hours they worked above other unsecured creditors and all shareholders.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Care to expand on what you think I have wrong? Depending on the corporate structure, Amazon has a board of directors who can fire the CEO. Amazon was a startup with a single founder. He'd have to make some pretty insane decisions to get the board to fire him. This fantasy that you can just hoover up the shares of Amazon and elect a new board and put in a new CEO is laughably ignorant. Amazon shares are ~$2400, with a market cap of 1.2T. You'd have to spend billions of dollars buying shares to try to elect a new board, because guess what, most of the people who already own Amazon shares are big-time Bezos cultists. Why? Amazon is laughably overvalued using fundamental analysis. Most of the non-cultists are institutional investors, who are looking for a certain risk profile and are highly adverse to changes in management. Like it's not superman 3 or whichever one it is where they just buy the shares and throw in a new BoD and elect a new CEO. I mean there's just so many ways you're dead wrong... If Bezos went loving nuts you might be able to remove him, but if he was just like "Well our value proposition has changed we believe that we can most highly profit by paying our workers more and offering them better-working conditions because blah blah" you'd practically never be able to remove him. And all this assumes he did nothing with his wealth and power to keep in power, that he just meekly stood by while you maneuvered to remove him. I know in theory a shareholder can sue for corporate officers not maximizing shareholder value but have you ever actually looked how any of those lawsuits play out?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Depending on the corporate structure, Amazon has a board of directors who can fire the CEO. Amazon was a startup with a single founder. He'd have to make some pretty insane decisions to get the board to fire him. This fantasy that you can just hoover up the shares of Amazon and elect a new board and put in a new CEO is laughably ignorant. Amazon shares are ~$2400, with a market cap of 1.2T. You'd have to spend billions of dollars buying shares to try to elect a new board, because guess what, most of the people who already own Amazon shares are big-time Bezos cultists. Why? Amazon is laughably overvalued using fundamental analysis. Most of the non-cultists are institutional investors, who are looking for a certain risk profile and are highly adverse to changes in management. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I absolutely agree that it would take a lot for the board of directors to fire Bezos, but I’m positive that bringing up working conditions and wages to what they would deserve to be would turn the board against Bezos. If he gave a $3/hour raise to the warehouse workers it would be nice but it’s barely a dent in resolving the problems with Amazon warehouses. As I said before, I’m fairly positive that Amazon can’t make money unless they treat their employees terribly, and that’s endemic throughout most of the retail sector. You don’t need to hoover up all of the shares to be able to oust Bezos, and I never would think that. The existing shareholders would have to turn against him (well, in a 50/89 ratio) Yes, some of the shareholders are cultists, and some other shareholders in the company individually own a lot of shares, but they have major portions of their wealth tied in the stock. Money does talk. And the institutional investors, the Vanguards and Fidelities and the BlackRocks of the world, they may not like management change but would they vote to keep a person in charge that is cratering the company’s profitability? Bezos is at least theoretically easier to fire than someone like Zuckerburg because Amazon came into existence before a lot of the crazy super-voting share classes came out. His 11% ownership is only 11% of the votes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:They’re getting laid off no matter what else happens. They will be paid for the hours they worked above other unsecured creditors and all shareholders. But after CEO looting.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I absolutely agree that it would take a lot for the board of directors to fire Bezos, but I’m positive that bringing up working conditions and wages to what they would deserve to be would turn the board against Bezos. If he gave a $3/hour raise to the warehouse workers it would be nice but it’s barely a dent in resolving the problems with Amazon warehouses. As I said before, I’m fairly positive that Amazon can’t make money unless they treat their employees terribly, and that’s endemic throughout most of the retail sector. Some of this is true, but a lot of Amazon's share value is tied to perceived value/ future growth. A fight against a founder often destroys a lot of that. So sure, if he went crazy, yes, money talks. But he'd have to go fairly crazy. Activist investors aren't suing Costco to try to turn it into Walmart. If you break Amazon down as a company using the Gordon growth model it doesn't pencil out at all - and this model underlies all the fundamental analysis models. Also I used to live in Seattle, and I went to post-grad school with a lot of Amazon employees. They big time drink the kool-aid.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Lambert posted:But after CEO looting. An entity like JC Penny exists to exploit labor for the benefit of capital. Why would it be any different in death?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:If they really cared about turning a company around they start low pay and would get paid based on how profitable the company becomes. I'm sure you chose your job based on how much you care about the company you work for and would gladly have taken a lower-paying position doing more work at a less stable company. In fact if you're not working for the legal minimum wage at a company that's in danger of folding within the next six months I'd say you're a total leech on the system and you should be the first one fed into the soylent machines.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Jeff Bezos owns 1/9 of Amazon shares. If he improved working conditions (which at the very least would increase labor costs) he could be removed and replaced with a CEO who would “return the company to profitability” and the norm. The cool thing about guillotines is that they are reusable, and very easy to repair
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 06:06
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Some of this is true, but a lot of Amazon's share value is tied to perceived value/ future growth. A fight against a founder often destroys a lot of that. So sure, if he went crazy, yes, money talks. But he'd have to go fairly crazy. Activist investors aren't suing Costco to try to turn it into Walmart. Activist investors change Costco into Walmart all the time. Just the link Ving founder controls enough of the company to block them
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Activist investors change Costco into Walmart all the time. Just the link Ving founder controls enough of the company to block them Again this just isn't true, this is people reading headlines and not actually following the stories and I don't really want to endlessly educate people on how corporate governance works. Most of the time these activist investors get nothing, sometimes they get a buyout, sometimes they get a board seat, sometimes they get a bit of change. Rarely do they change the fundamental way a public company runs, or it's core value proposition.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:35
|
|