Print

[blue2]

Haniity had a protester on last night.  I'll say now that I don't watch his show because I think he is to extreme.  But when I turned TV on he was on with the protester so I watched a little.  The protester is going to school working on masters all free.. He believes everything in this country should be free for him.  Housing, medical, school, food etc.  Where do they think the government is going to get the money?  He just though the government was going to have the money.  This guy has really learned alot in with 6 years in college so far. 

[ducksoup]

Haniity had a protester on last night.  I'll say now that I don't watch his show because I think he is to extreme.  But when I turned TV on he was on with the protester so I watched a little.  The protester is going to school working on masters all free.. He believes everything in this country should be free for him.  Housing, medical, school, food etc.  Where do they think the government is going to get the money?  He just though the government was going to have the money.  This guy has really learned alot in with 6 years in college so far. 

Well, I looked up the video and watched it.  A really good hit piece.  Hannity was all set with a great assassination and the kid handing a home run to him.  Did you hear what OWS was about from the kid?  Did you hear anything more than working at making OWS bad, evil, rapists, thugs, and stupid?  Did you hear he had interest on his school?  Hey, I get it, the kid should know how he is funding school and he has loans he is going to have to pay back and seems to not know it. 

Here’s the thing, once again all ya got is insult and blame.  Why is it so hard to even look at what OWS wants before you preemptively shut off your frikking mind?  When the tea radicals started it didn’t take long for everyone to know what they wanted.  Funny how you are too closed minded to even make the attempt, rather than listening to the lies of right wing claptrap.  How is it that you think you can make educated choices, when all you want to hear is a one lopsided side of the story... on anything?

[ducksoup]

What I found more interesting was before you "happened to turn it on" when he repeated over and over (with video) of "the rapists, and thugs, and evil people that are ALL of what OWS is"  Repeatedly.  When the kid tried to explain he got talked over and Hannity kept the same assassination going.  Must make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to stop the voices of anyone but the far far right radical thugs.

[Frenchfry]

Is the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement working? Is the 99% versus the top one percent framing enough of a message? Cenk Uygur and Richard Eskow (Campaign For America's Future) break down the May Day general strike and the movement overall.

Is Occupy Wall Street Working?

[LetsGoWings]

As far as CEO pay.  I read it, I thought about making a comment and didn’t bother.  There are two components of CEO pay.  Yes, shareholders should have a say, and technically they do.  They have the non-binding vote that does not have to be paid attention to.  Just like CITI.  The raise was voted no, CITI is being sued by the shareholders so apparently they said f-- you to the shareholders vote.  So, your lofty idea mans nothing, even if the technical point should be correct.  The second is that CEO pay is not isolated but a part of society.   I think it is immensely fair for society - non shareholder society - to have an input about what affects everyone.

Why do you think they are suing Citi and the Board? How does Immelt's, an example, pay personally affect you? I will agree that potentially what he does with his money affects you, but not what GE pays him. Why does everyone complain about CEO pay compared to the middle class, but no one ever compares MLB players salaries to the middle class, you started the baseball example, so I figured I will continue.

Average MLB salary 3.1 million
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111205&content_id=26096930&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

If Immelt's pay affects you then surely Albert Pujous's pay affects you too? And explain how what an MLB team pays Albert affects you.

Your conception that a new hire low level person is comparable to a supposed genius CEO is silly.  Look at with baseball to make it clearer.  You compare a superstar player who gets millions to the ordinary talent to a high school kid just drafted as if they are the same.  The second part is that apparently there is only superstar CEO’s and no just everyday talents.  In baseball you have those superstars, and a lot of players that are just good, but not superstars.  They are paid less.  Funny how CEO’s seem to not have the average player pay scale, just superstar.   The secondary component of society does indeed have a place.  It is appropriate to question at what level should baseball players overall be compensated.

I said one entry level hire compared to Immelt, it is not silly it shows you that different people have different value, and some have a lot more value. Keeping with baseball who has more value to the Tiger's Justin Verlander or Brayan Villarreal? As I explained the CEO represents a whole lot more value to a company than an entry level hire. Value can be measured in stock price, if the CEO quits it is going to have an affect on the stock price, but if just one entry level hire quits it will most likely have no impact.

Anyway, your whole thing was based that shareholders can control CEO pay and they can’t as has been shown with the non binding votes of many places so far.  Didn’t I read that the shareholders voted no confidence in Murdock as head of News Corp and he is still there?  Maybe not.

I have not seen the Murdoch story, but there is a possibility he owns a different class of shares that have more of a vote, similar to the "class Ford" stock.

So, as far as your "funny how you couldn't comment" was because it was stupid.  In a perfect work, yes, shareholders would be the ones to okay CEO pay packages and it would work correctly, but it isn't a perfect world and things don't work as they should.  I have no wish to do one of your petty argument s that what I and everyone else sees as the way it is, ad what you want to argue by minutia is technically what something possibly sorta should be is pointless.

Sorry but, whether you want to admit, it the shareholders still do get a say, last time I checked they still vote the Board in. Why should someone like Immelt not be paid their full value?

[BigMike]

Shoot a few.

[ducksoup]

Why do you think they are suing Citi and the Board? How does Immelt's, an example, pay personally affect you? I will agree that potentially what he does with his money affects you, but not what GE pays him. Why does everyone complain about CEO pay compared to the middle class, but no one ever compares MLB players salaries to the middle class, you started the baseball example, so I figured I will continue.

Average MLB salary 3.1 million
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111205&content_id=26096930&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

If Immelt's pay affects you then surely Albert Pujous's pay affects you too? And explain how what an MLB team pays Albert affects you.

I said one entry level hire compared to Immelt, it is not silly it shows you that different people have different value, and some have a lot more value. Keeping with baseball who has more value to the Tiger's Justin Verlander or Brayan Villarreal? As I explained the CEO represents a whole lot more value to a company than an entry level hire. Value can be measured in stock price, if the CEO quits it is going to have an affect on the stock price, but if just one entry level hire quits it will most likely have no impact.
I have not seen the Murdoch story, but there is a possibility he owns a different class of shares that have more of a vote, similar to the "class Ford" stock.

Sorry but, whether you want to admit, it the shareholders still do get a say, last time I checked they still vote the Board in. Why should someone like Immelt not be paid their full value?

Very simple, cost of goods.  In baseball it affects ticket price (and maybe television service cost).  With CEO pay, pretty much everything.  Second, Baseball takes a small part of the overall economy, where CEO pay is a huge chunk.

Why compare a CEO to an entry level anything.  Why not a low level CEO?  Why is it that it appears all are Verlanders and there are no Joe Nathans, or David Prices?  Both are professional active pitchers with not good stats and likely lower pay.  How many in baseball are mega stars that command that kind of pay? 

“As I explained the CEO represents a whole lot more value to a company than an entry level hire.”  Well, dah, that took a genius.  And a new draft pick is not a Verlander.  Is Sherzer supposed to be paid the same as Verlander because one is exceptional and the other just top level? 

Anyway, your whole thing was based that shareholders can control CEO pay and they can’t as has been shown with the non binding votes of many places so far.

You skipped that part.    Yeah, as you said, they have a vote; and it means nothing!

LOL, so you have to nitpick around Murdock rather than the glaring problem that the shareholders rejected him and they refused to accept the vote.  Saying he might have a different class of stock is funny, as if the vote never mattered in the first place.  Hmmm?

Sorry but, whether you want to admit, it the shareholders still do get a say, last time I checked they still vote the Board in. Why should someone like Immelt not be paid their full value?

Whether I want to admit it?  What are you, someone with no comprehension skills of any kind?  I clearly said they have a say, and I clearly said that it is a non-binding vote that HAS BEEN ignored.  Woop-dee-doo, they get a technicality and it means crap.


You premise that I personally have no stake in CEO pay and that it is stockholders that do.  Well, if stockholders said no to Immelt and the board said F-- you, then why are you defending THAT?  Why are you defending that shareholders votes are irrelevant and the boards can ignore them and do what they want anyway.  You are dancing around trying to nitpick that you declared that regular people have no stake in CEO pay and only shareholders can say.  I showed that you are wrong and that shareholders have been proved to not have a say.  Anything else is just a bunch of distractions from that.

[LetsGoWings]

Very simple, cost of goods.  In baseball it affects ticket price (and maybe television service cost).  With CEO pay, pretty much everything.  Second, Baseball takes a small part of the overall economy, where CEO pay is a huge chunk.

Why compare a CEO to an entry level anything.  Why not a low level CEO?  Why is it that it appears all are Verlanders and there are no Joe Nathans, or David Prices?  Both are professional active pitchers with not good stats and likely lower pay.  How many in baseball are mega stars that command that kind of pay? 

“As I explained the CEO represents a whole lot more value to a company than an entry level hire.”  Well, dah, that took a genius.  And a new draft pick is not a Verlander.  Is Sherzer supposed to be paid the same as Verlander because one is exceptional and the other just top level? 
You skipped that part.    Yeah, as you said, they have a vote; and it means nothing!

LOL, so you have to nitpick around Murdock rather than the glaring problem that the shareholders rejected him and they refused to accept the vote.  Saying he might have a different class of stock is funny, as if the vote never mattered in the first place.  Hmmm?
Whether I want to admit it?  What are you, someone with no comprehension skills of any kind?  I clearly said they have a say, and I clearly said that it is a non-binding vote that HAS BEEN ignored.  Woop-dee-doo, they get a technicality and it means crap.


You premise that I personally have no stake in CEO pay and that it is stockholders that do.  Well, if stockholders said no to Immelt and the board said F-- you, then why are you defending THAT?  Why are you defending that shareholders votes are irrelevant and the boards can ignore them and do what they want anyway.  You are dancing around trying to nitpick that you declared that regular people have no stake in CEO pay and only shareholders can say.  I showed that you are wrong and that shareholders have been proved to not have a say.  Anything else is just a bunch of distractions from that.

CEO pay is not a huge part of the economy, sure larger than baseball, but not huge by any stretch. No one is forcing you to have TV or attend Tigers game, and if you don't like the pay, then voice your opinion and don't go to or watch the games, so I still do not believe that it affects you. No one is forcing you to buy GE products, so Immelt's pay does not affect you.

Show me where News Corp shareholders declared that on Murdoch. and investors should be well aware of different classes of stock in corporations. If someone buy up all the Ford common shares, they still don't hold a majority vote because of the "class Ford stock". http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/stocksoptionswarrants/a/ford-dual-class-stock.htm

I am comparing in the same company because it shows that people in a company hold different value. If you want to compare then why does Joe Nathan deserve less pay than Verlander? Simple, Verlander holds a lot more value. Joe Smith who is the CEO of a small S-corp does not have the same value of Immelt, GE's CEO. Immelt, like Verlander, deserves to be paid a lot more than Joe Smith or Joe Nathan.

Shareholders elect the Board who is able to appoint the CEO, is the shareholders do not like what is going on in a company, then elect a new Board.

I don't think you understand what a non-binding vote means in a corporation. I also do not think you understand what a shareholder does. Instead you just keep making up your own assumptions. I have never once said the shareholder votes mean nothing, please cite that.

You have absolutely failed to show I am wrong, partly because it is personal opinion and you can argue either side. That comment just shows that you think your opinion is always right.  If you have no GE stock, then you have absolutely no say in what GE pays Immelt. If GE pays Immelt 70,000 or 20 million that means nothing to me. If you don't like what GE pays Immelt or any corporation pays their CEO, then don't buy their product plain and simple.

[LetsGoWings]

If the Board authorizes a pay increase and the shareholder's don't agree then the following should happen:
Shareholders votes the Board out and then vote a new board in. Therefore, the investors ultimately determine the CEO pay through the Board election.

Or do you not understand the concept of voting people out when they aren't doing a job you like?

[LetsGoWings]

JOB IN JEOPARDY: Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson could be fired after just four months at the struggling Internet company because he allowed an inaccuracy about his college education to appear in his official bio, including a version filed with securities regulators.

THE TROUBLE: The distorted bio said Thompson held two degrees — one in accounting and the other in computer science — from Stonehill College. After being confronted by a major shareholder, Yahoo Inc. acknowledged Thompson never got the computer science degree.

THE FALLOUT: The shareholder who exposed the fabrication has demanded that Yahoo fire Thompson by noon ET Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/summary-box-yahoo-ceo-faces-possible-firing-225846472--finance.html

[LetsGoWings]

The head of Bank of America has lost one of his titles. Ken Lewis was chairman and CEO of the giant bank until yesterday, when shareholders voted to separate the two jobs. Mr. Lewis is now just the CEO. NPR's Jim Zarroli has more.

JIM ZARROLI: Lewis had been targeted by disgruntled shareholders who wanted to remove him and some other directors from the board. Many of them showed up at the company's board meeting in Charlotte yesterday. The source of their anger was last year's acquisition of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, both of which lost money in the mortgage crisis. Shareholders complained that Lewis had been pressured by the government to complete the deal and had kept news of Merrill's big losses a secret. But Lewis defended the deals, saying they helped to make the company profitable during the first three months of the year.

Lewis survived the move to oust him, winning approval of two thirds of the votes. But shareholders approved a proposal to separate the jobs of chairman and CEO, essentially undercutting his authority. While Lewis will stay on as chief executive, the job of chairman will be filled by board member Walter Massey, the president emeritus of Morehouse College.

Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103642542

[ducksoup]

The 80-year-old chairman and CEO of News Corp was condemned for his handling of the phone hacking scandal.
At the company's annual meeting in Los Angles some of his biggest investors voted against his re-election and that of his sons, James and Lachlan as directors.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052129/Murdoch-Investors-tycoon-sons-resign-phone-hacking-scandal.html#ixzz1u7W5LiBo

As Scandal Swirls, News Corp. Shareholders Call For Reduced Murdoch Influence

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/04/03/as-scandal-swirls-news-corp-shareholders-call-for-reduced-murdoch-influence/#ixzz1u7bVmPvZ

Please quit drifting from your original assertion that common non-shareholders have no say over CEO pay and that shareholders do.  When shareholders say no and the board says so what, yippee, you win they voted, and it meant nothing.  Why go through contortions to say that “well, if they are ignored then they can fire the board.  WHY?  Why is it that they have to go more and more and does it matter if they vote no to the board?  Can they just say F- you to that?  I don’t know. 

So, if shareholders say someone is NOT a Verlander (as they claim), but just a Brandon Inge, it is fine and dandy to ignore it by your representation?

Or do you not understand the concept of voting people out when they aren't doing a job you like?

There is no reason to a making up a totally new idea and CLAIM that I cannot comprehend it.  You said shareholders are the ones that can vote and say what CEO pay is.  I showed that it doesn’t have to be listened to, and has not.  If you want to jump ship on what you originally asserted, fine, but admit before that that you made an incorrect assertion that they can vote down CEO pay.  To take another leap to electing the board to change the pay, which they may or may not do, okay.  But that still leaves your assertion wrong.  Other than voting to say that they disapprove and the company CAN and HAS ignored it they have no more say than non shareholders.

[ducksoup]

JOB IN JEOPARDY: Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson could be fired after just four months at the struggling Internet company because he allowed an inaccuracy about his college education to appear in his official bio, including a version filed with securities regulators.

THE TROUBLE: The distorted bio said Thompson held two degrees — one in accounting and the other in computer science — from Stonehill College. After being confronted by a major shareholder, Yahoo Inc. acknowledged Thompson never got the computer science degree.

THE FALLOUT: The shareholder who exposed the fabrication has demanded that Yahoo fire Thompson by noon ET Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/summary-box-yahoo-ceo-faces-possible-firing-225846472--finance.html

Wow, one guy demands.  That is not your claim that shareholders can fire them.  He asks the board to do something and they may, or may not and that shareholder, or all makes no difference.

[ducksoup]

The head of Bank of America has lost one of his titles. Ken Lewis was chairman and CEO of the giant bank until yesterday, when shareholders voted to separate the two jobs. Mr. Lewis is now just the CEO. NPR's Jim Zarroli has more.

JIM ZARROLI: Lewis had been targeted by disgruntled shareholders who wanted to remove him and some other directors from the board. Many of them showed up at the company's board meeting in Charlotte yesterday. The source of their anger was last year's acquisition of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, both of which lost money in the mortgage crisis. Shareholders complained that Lewis had been pressured by the government to complete the deal and had kept news of Merrill's big losses a secret. But Lewis defended the deals, saying they helped to make the company profitable during the first three months of the year.

Lewis survived the move to oust him, winning approval of two thirds of the votes. But shareholders approved a proposal to separate the jobs of chairman and CEO, essentially undercutting his authority. While Lewis will stay on as chief executive, the job of chairman will be filled by board member Walter Massey, the president emeritus of Morehouse College.

Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103642542

Your assertion is shareholders can cut their pay.  That is not shown here, and he was not fired as the shareholders seemed to want.

[LetsGoWings]

The 80-year-old chairman and CEO of News Corp was condemned for his handling of the phone hacking scandal.
At the company's annual meeting in Los Angles some of his biggest investors voted against his re-election and that of his sons, James and Lachlan as directors.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052129/Murdoch-Investors-tycoon-sons-resign-phone-hacking-scandal.html#ixzz1u7W5LiBo

As Scandal Swirls, News Corp. Shareholders Call For Reduced Murdoch Influence

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/04/03/as-scandal-swirls-news-corp-shareholders-call-for-reduced-murdoch-influence/#ixzz1u7bVmPvZ

Please quit drifting from your original assertion that common non-shareholders have no say over CEO pay and that shareholders do.  When shareholders say no and the board says so what, yippee, you win they voted, and it meant nothing.  Why go through contortions to say that “well, if they are ignored then they can fire the board.  WHY?  Why is it that they have to go more and more and does it matter if they vote no to the board?  Can they just say F- you to that?  I don’t know. 

So, if shareholders say someone is NOT a Verlander (as they claim), but just a Brandon Inge, it is fine and dandy to ignore it by your representation?

There is no reason to a making up a totally new idea and CLAIM that I cannot comprehend it.  You said shareholders are the ones that can vote and say what CEO pay is.  I showed that it doesn’t have to be listened to, and has not.  If you want to jump ship on what you originally asserted, fine, but admit before that that you made an incorrect assertion that they can vote down CEO pay.  To take another leap to electing the board to change the pay, which they may or may not do, okay.  But that still leaves your assertion wrong.  Other than voting to say that they disapprove and the company CAN and HAS ignored it they have no more say than non shareholders.

Those articles do not say a majority of shareholders have called for Murdoch being fired.

Shareholders do determine CEO pay through the election of the board. It is obvious you have no idea on corporate structure you just spout off ideas and hope you are right.

I have no idea where you are going with the Verlander-Inge comment, can you elaborate more on it?

It is simple, if the shareholders do not like the pay that the Board authorizes, then next election cycle you vote the Board out. How do you not understand this? Also show me where I said the shareholders determine pay? I said "It should be the shareholders of the corporation that determine that. If GE wants to pay Immelt and insane amount of money, and a majority of the shareholders agree, why should a non-shareholder care so much and why should they even have a say in it?"

Looks like you are the one with reading comprehension problems.