> American executives are the best paid in the world. It is commonly believed that they are compensated so richly because they make money for shareholders. Why else would capitalists want to give away a significant portion of their profits?
> In the last 10 years, Barron's tells us, the compensation of top executives in America grew at twice the rate of corporate profits. In 1993-1995, the top five officers of public companies were paid 4.8% of corporate profits. In 2001-2003, the level had jumped to 10.3%.
> In the decade ending 2003, these executives took $290 billion to the top officers.
> Why would capitalists allow their paid employees such a large, and growing, share of what should have been theirs?
> Could competent people not be found for less?
> And yet, you read the story of Enron's management...or of WorldCom's...and you see that many of these highly paid executives shouldn't be allowed to run a grocery store, let alone a billion-dollar public corporation.
> What gives? Over time, institutions - even one as nimble as capitalism - have a way of degenerating and corrupting themselves. Everything falls apart.
> The Catholic Church under the Medici popes would have been barely recognizable to St. Peter.
> America under George W. Bush would have been repulsive to Thomas Jefferson.
> And American capitalism in 2005 is a far different thing from the capitalism of Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller.
> American investors are getting worn down. Major stocks are topping out and falling. Mutual funds are losing money.
> Executives get rich...lawyers and stockbrokers still make money...but the little guys' retirement portfolios whither.
> So, the money and enthusiasm leaves the stock market...and moves to houses. Soon, stock prices will fall. And the real estate market, too, is bound to come to a complete halt early or late.
> A generation ago, people owned houses because they provided financial and physical safety. They were loath to mortgage them, if they could avoid it, because the mortgage made the house less secure. In hard times, they might lose the house - and have no money and nowhere to live.
> Who among the dead could have imagined how things would change!
Now this thread hurts, partly because I agree with most of your comments....
Capitalism has its cycles. It's been 75 years since the last upheaval. I look for one soon. I simply cannot support itself forever. Eventually it crashes and starts over. But it is better than socialism or communism I believe. At least you can reward yourself if you get lucky. Or work hard. Short of complete freedom living on a farm in Montana away from everyone just you and maybe a supermodel, what else to do? Man is a political animal.
Originally posted by arrakisI have a dream, a dream of a world where people remove the >'s at the beginning of every line when pasting email forwards onto messageboards.
> American executives are the best paid in the world. It is commonly believed that they are compensated so richly because they make money for shareholders. Why else would capitalists want to give away a significant portion of their profits?
> In the last 10 years, Barron's tells us, the compensation of top executives in America grew at twice the rate of ...[text shortened]... money and nowhere to live.
> Who among the dead could have imagined how things would change!
Arrakis, could you explain how the capitalism of Carnegie and Rockefellar is different from that of executives today? I am interested in this as I spent last weekend visiting the Biltmore estate (250 rooms not one of them small on 88,000 acres). I think they had about 10 other mansions that were smaller than this one.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe ">" are used to point out individual facts. If you actually took the time to read the data instead of criticizing the structure, maybe the world would be a better place! 😕
I have a dream, a dream of a world where people remove the >'s at the beginning of every line when pasting email forwards onto messageboards.
Originally posted by kirksey957I couldn't do the topic the justice it deserves. I would like to point out though, that big business is running America... running it right into the ground! ðŸ˜
Arrakis, could you explain how the capitalism of Carnegie and Rockefellar is different from that of executives today? I am interested in this as I spent last weekend visiting the Biltmore estate (250 rooms not one of them small on 88,000 acres). I think they had about 10 other mansions that were smaller than this one.
Originally posted by ETeachYou can reward yourself or be rewarded in a socialist state as well.
Now this thread hurts, partly because I agree with most of your comments....
Capitalism has its cycles. It's been 75 years since the last upheaval. I look for one soon. I simply cannot support itself forever. Eventually it crashes and starts over. But it is better than socialism or communism I believe. At least you can reward yourself if you get lucky. Or ...[text shortened]... away from everyone just you and maybe a supermodel, what else to do? Man is a political animal.
The concept that you can't is capitalist propaganda.
You see, under socialism you have control over production and an equal say in distribution. So instead of a boss getting rich from your produce, you get rich from it.
Instead of share holders becoming rich, the people doing the work become richer.
That's the basic difference between the two economic systems.
Share holders pay their Corporate executives ever greater wages/compensation because of the nature of competition inherent in the capitalist society. Hiring an already successful Exec is the only way people have any way of knowing whether their investments are being managed by a person capable of maximising the profits of any stake they own. It is the competition between investors for the best executives, that forces the cost of the top exec rise. Any executive who failed to capitalise on this market force, is hardly likely to be much of an executive now is he/she??
Is it any surprise that a capitalist rises to the top of a capitalist system?
Originally posted by kirksey957Exactly...they weren't called "Robber Barons" for nothing...😲
Arrakis, could you explain how the capitalism of Carnegie and Rockefellar is different from that of executives today? I am interested in this as I spent last weekend visiting the Biltmore estate (250 rooms not one of them small on 88,000 acres). I think they had about 10 other mansions that were smaller than this one.
The republicans won't do anything about the 12,000,000 illegal immigrants because they represent cheap labor for the big companies, which in turn line the pockets of George, Dick & Company...jobs get outsourced to India, factories relocate to Mexico and China in order for the CEOs to make an even bigger profit...I'm afraid that in 50 years or less there will be two Americas: Rich and poor....middleclass is getting squeezed to death....
Governments are inherently evil. The best and only thing a government should do is protect the property and lives of the governed. For ex. "provide for the common defense" "establish courts of law" I do believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolultly. The more leeway you give those in power, the more they encroach upon your liberty.
I do think exec's are overpaid...eventually the market will correct that. What it cannot correct is Uncle Sam taking more and more of what I earn every week for the things they deem "nessesary". I can chose not to shop at companies who I think are overcharging for goods or services. I cannot chose not to pay taxes, or even have a voice in where my money is spent. The USA is becoming more socialistic every day Shav.
Respectfully , no. In 2001 my company I worked for went out of buisness. I had contributed to the 401k to the tune of 30,000 grand. After much debate I used that money to buy my first home for my family. During the year I "contributed" $5,543.00 in withholding tax. After paying the huge penalty up front for burning the IRA, along with the taxes the feds took, that left me with about $18,000 left for home purchase. Bought home. At tax time that year, the whole $30,000 was added as income for that year, so I had to pay an additional $4,500 dollars in taxes. Total combined for that year around $12,000.