Nation's CEOs paid better last year than in 2007

Hummm. Intelligent response for solutions is deafening.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Hummm. Intelligent response for solutions is deafening.

What, reducing the power and budget of the federal gov. isn't intelligent?

neptunechimney wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Hummm. Intelligent response for solutions is deafening.

What, reducing the power and budget of the federal gov. isn't intelligent?

I think you misunderstand. What you propose is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of implementation. How will you reduce the budget? Will it actually be possible to get it under control? Are there alternative pathways for the federal budget that have less of a deleterious effect on our nation? If you reduce power, how will that change affect the states and how will you insure they can handle it? It is one thing to throw out concepts or cry for changes that need to be made and quite another to provide a viable plan of action. This is exactly what we have not heard from past presidential candidates because none had a plan, much less a viable one.

For example we hear that corporations need to be taxed more while also hearing that we need to create more jobs. How does that work? One side argues it will not work, but chase corporations overseas, the other side has not offered a viable counter argument. It is examples like this that need to be addressed and viable solutions found.

Cheep labor around the globe is attractive to companies to keep their prices down and competitive. America is not willing to accept a pay cut to become competitive. Are tariffs the answer or will that be a short term fix that will come to haunt us BIG time later?

We have internal issues such as Bowing wanting to open a factory in a non-union state and unions are fighting to keep that from happening. Our government's silence on the matter speaks volumes on their position. Are we going to allow companies to locate where they deem it best or are we going to let labor dictate such matters?

Rockdoc Franz wrote: This is exactly what we have not heard from past presidential candidates because none had a plan, much less a viable one.

I think it's safe to say that any Presidential candidate who actually had a plan would never be elected. Because there is NO viable plan that isn't going to call for pain, and the delivery of a whole lot of bad news to ideologues on both sides of the aisle. Voters don't want to hear that. They just want to believe that if only "their guy" gets into office all the pain will be on someone else.

This is a big part of the reason I think, as I commented on another thread, so many Americans are acting like infants instead of adults. We cover our ears and throw a tantrum at anyone who says anything we don't want to hear. It's also, I believe, a big part of the reason so many have lost faith in political solutions. Because candidates can't reveal the real actions they intend to take for fear of the childish reactions, they institute them by stealth. And then those who voted for this or that candidate end up feeling betrayed, even though we are getting exactly what we deserve when we refuse to act like adults.

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: If you do not like the vision of lower wages, but local jobs, how would you encourage companies to bring their labor back? Raising tariffs might do it, but its a global market these days and companies can sell and make a profit in many other countries, so they might just shun selling their products in the US. So what other means are available to create a "friendly" environment, as that is what it is clearly going to take?

Before this gets better, it will get worse. We see that in technology heading overseas where companies like Microsoft or Apple can find highly trained people who work at a fraction of the cost US labor demands. If I'm going to compete with oil industry consultants across the globe, my rates need to be in accord with those other consultants are getting. It may mean I work for less than I used to. The global market place sets the pay scale. The same can be said for all other jobs throughout the US. The global market sets the pay scale, meaning many Americans will either have to lower their wage expectations or retool into a skill set that still enables them to be paid at a higher rate provided they can compete for those jobs. Reality can be rather cruel and that has little to do with democrat or republican.

My feeling on this is that the jobs are going to go overseas and continue to go overseas until global wages come to more or less equilibrium. This will happen whether we try to bribe the rich with tax cuts or not. At this point I think it serves about as much purpose as it would to burn incense to Baal.

So if we're looking at what may very well turn out to be the impoverishment of tens of millions of Americans, I'd just as soon not add insult to injury by alsoo saddling what's left of the middle class with the brunt of the deficit that results when you cut taxes drastically, especially on the highest earners, and at the same time keep increasing expdentitures, as was done throughout the Bush administration and continues today. In my opinion it was a cynical and cruel strategy that the perpetrators were fully aware of, not some accidental by-product of Bush policy. Although once it was set in motion it is not clear to me how it could have been reversed, either by Bush or Obama.

It's too late to do anything about that now, of course, but now we have a problem of a huge deficit with a population that is looking at permanently reduced economic prospects. Slashing the budget beyond reason isn't going to change any of this, in fact, may make the pain even more intense on those who have or will yet lose their jobs, the retired, and the sick.

Yes, there is going to be pain, lots of it. My guess is that the only way out of this is going to be severe inflation that effectively wipes out most of the public and private debt. It will also, of course, wipe out pensions and savings at a time when people can little afford it, but the math doesn't lie. The debt is pretty much unpayalbe otherwise.

And i agree that this isn't really a partisan issue. The problems were brought on by partisan ideology that was allowed to trump the best interests of the nation of a whole, but there is no partisan solution to this. Those who imagine that "if only" we had a libertarian in office, or an old school conservative, or four more years of Obama, or God Knows What, are deluded. It's too late for policy solutions and at any rate, political ideology has become so dependent on fantasy worlds conjured up by the likes of Ayn Rand or other utopian dreams that have no bearing on reality that I can't imagine any political solution that wouldn't just make things worse than they already are.

How can America compete with lower labor cost in other countries? My brother had this debate with me and he believed like you do that America will continue to lose manufacturing to overseas concerns. I did ask him to consider this, since the end of slavery, America has had higher labor costs than Asia but we were exporting to them and Europe for decades. So in getting back to the partisan aspect, if you make it easier for American companies to compete on the global market, I think those jobs will come back. America does tend to impose less restrictions on business than Europe so so they have moved their assembly plants here and actually export those vehicles back to Europe.
So it isn't hopeless, but I do think we are making it harder for corporations to keep jobs here.

SS109 wrote: [How can America compete with lower labor cost in other countries? My brother had this debate with me and he believed like you do that America will continue to lose manufacturing to overseas concerns. I did ask him to consider this, since the end of slavery, America has had higher labor costs than Asia but we were exporting to them and Europe for decades. So in getting back to the partisan aspect, if you make it easier for American companies to compete on the global market, I think those jobs will come back. America does tend to impose less restrictions on business than Europe so so they have moved their assembly plants here and actually export those vehicles back to Europe.
So it isn't hopeless, but I do think we are making it harder for corporations to keep jobs here.

Look back to decades ago when we were exporting goods around the world and you will notice two things. One, in a postwar world, we were the only major country with an intact infrastructure and manufacturing capability, hence no competition, and two, much of what we were exporting was raw materials, like steel.

Today, our infrastructure is a mess and we've shuttered so many factories it would take decades to rebuild them even assuming there was a market for our goods if we factor in higher labor costs. Two, read a little on the history of what happened to the steel industry and you will understand why we can't go back to an economy based on exporting raw materials.

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: This is exactly what we have not heard from past presidential candidates because none had a plan, much less a viable one.

I think it's safe to say that any Presidential candidate who actually had a plan would never be elected. Because there is NO viable plan that isn't going to call for pain, and the delivery of a whole lot of bad news to ideologues on both sides of the aisle. Voters don't want to hear that. They just want to believe that if only "their guy" gets into office all the pain will be on someone else.

This is a big part of the reason I think, as I commented on another thread, so many Americans are acting like infants instead of adults. We cover our ears and throw a tantrum at anyone who says anything we don't want to hear. It's also, I believe, a big part of the reason so many have lost faith in political solutions. Because candidates can't reveal the real actions they intend to take for fear of the childish reactions, they institute them by stealth. And then those who voted for this or that candidate end up feeling betrayed, even though we are getting exactly what we deserve when we refuse to act like adults.

Alas, all too true. The biggest problem we have is ourselves. Is that what you are saying? If so, what will it take to wake up the majority? And, wake up we must or our current crisis will continue its downward spiral. We see things like this in nature. As I mentioned on the same thread you alluded to, entitlement is a disease and it is not the only one infesting our population. If we take that analogy and look at nature, we see few infected survive. Now that sounds cruel, but it's not going to be possible to rescue everyone. Perhaps the media pen will wake up Americans and get them to seek immunization (meaning a wake up call and a greater readiness to embrace pain) so they can agree to the hard action that needs to be taken. Between then and now, many will still be looking for a miracle cure rather than prepare for the worst.

What do you think it will take for Americans to face reality? What will it take for Americans to embrace a candidate who has a viable plan for recovery?

AspenValley wrote:

SS109 wrote: [How can America compete with lower labor cost in other countries? My brother had this debate with me and he believed like you do that America will continue to lose manufacturing to overseas concerns. I did ask him to consider this, since the end of slavery, America has had higher labor costs than Asia but we were exporting to them and Europe for decades. So in getting back to the partisan aspect, if you make it easier for American companies to compete on the global market, I think those jobs will come back. America does tend to impose less restrictions on business than Europe so so they have moved their assembly plants here and actually export those vehicles back to Europe.
So it isn't hopeless, but I do think we are making it harder for corporations to keep jobs here.

Look back to decades ago when we were exporting goods around the world and you will notice two things. One, in a postwar world, we were the only major country with an intact infrastructure and manufacturing capability, hence no competition, and two, much of what we were exporting was raw materials, like steel.

Today, our infrastructure is a mess and we've shuttered so many factories it would take decades to rebuild them even assuming there was a market for our goods if we factor in higher labor costs. Two, read a little on the history of what happened to the steel industry and you will understand why we can't go back to an economy based on exporting raw materials.

Surely there is something we can export. What about education based products or education itself? Technology? I really do not know what would work.

Your comments have me wondering if the Bush war strategy was not a take off on the postwar world as a means of getting back a viable economy. We know it failed.

And another question. What should Americans be doing to prepare for the painful times ahead? What are those times going to look like?

Sorry I haven't read all the posts here so if I repeat someone elses point..sorry.

I was just thinking about the number of celebrities, musicians, atheletes, and reality stars that make as much or more than these CEO's that are so hated by the left. Then I think about the number of jobs each can be credited with. Why is there no outrage when Tiger Woods makes $100 milion a year for smacking around a little white ball and employing a handful of people?

If the man/woman on top of a big corporation makes $100 million and that company employs thousands of people, why is that so wrong compared to those who make similar money and employ very few?

CriticalBill wrote: Sorry I haven't read all the posts here so if I repeat someone elses point..sorry.

I was just thinking about the number of celebrities, musicians, atheletes, and reality stars that make as much or more than these CEO's that are so hated by the left. Then I think about the number of jobs each can be credited with. Why is there no outrage when Tiger Woods makes $100 milion a year for smacking around a little white ball and employing a handful of people?

If the man/woman on top of a big corporation makes $100 million and that company employs thousands of people, why is that so wrong compared to those who make similar money and employ very few?

Tiger Woods makes $100 million a year because he brings in huge revenues to companies who sponser him. If he stops bringing in those revenues, his gravy train stops. There is nowhere near such a clear correlation between CEO performance and compensation, in fact there are many examples of CEOs totally screwing up and still walking away with millions. There is also the fact that in no other country do CEOs and other top executives take home such blaoted compensation packages.

But if it was just CEOs, that wouldn't be such a big issue. The issue is that somehow or other, a two-tiered system of rules got established. People at the top can pay themselves whatever they want, demand anything they want when things go bad (TARP, anyone) and do anything at all they want, including outright fraud and not fear prosecution. That is destroying this country.