Thread: Obama: Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers"

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

There are both types of CEO's out there. The ones who worked from the bottom up and know the company inside-and-out because they spent 30-40 years there. There are also the ones who hop from company to company never lasting at any particular company long enough for their fuck-ups to haunt them.

The former kind make the best CEO's in my experience/knowledge. The latter kind usually make terrible CEO's. Both types get paid shitloads of money - actually the "bottom up" kind usually get paid less than the "company-hop before your fuckups screw you" type.

Now of course there are exceptions: Alan Mulally (who really wasn't a company-hopper type - he just finally got fed up after Boeing screwed him a handful of times) saved Ford's ass.

My problem isn't that good CEOs make good money. My problem is that bad CEO's make good money.

I would also like to add that the era in which these CEOs did it from the bottom up is gone. In the new era, it just is not very likely. Yes there will always be exceptions but most of that opportunity is dead. We aren't going to see too many stories of people going from the mail room to the CEO office any time soon. From my point of view, all I see are walls thrown up everywhere to anyone with the determination and ambition to try and move up the ladder.

Again I work in NYC so it is most likely far worse here than anywhere else trying to get ahead in the corporate environment.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

I would also like to add that the era in which these CEOs did it from the bottom up is gone. In the new era, it just is not very likely. Yes there will always be exceptions but most of that opportunity is dead. We aren't going to see too many stories of people going from the mail room to the CEO office any time soon. From my point of view, all I see are walls thrown up everywhere to anyone with the determination and ambition to try and move up the ladder.

Again I work in NYC so it is most likely far worse here than anywhere else trying to get ahead in the corporate environment.

maybe you're just not as capable as those who get promoted.

i'm not saying you're incapable of being promoted, but have you considered the possibility that top executives usually get to their position by being talented and working hard? in my experience, that's the only way to get promoted to a top position.

Originally Posted by bg85

maybe you're just not as capable as those who get promoted.

i'm not saying you're incapable of being promoted, but have you considered the possibility that top executives usually get to their position by being talented and working hard? in my experience, that's the only way to get promoted to a top position.

shit, man, you haven't worked in corporate America long enough.

Being talented and working hard are far less important than slobbing the right knob, going to the right school, having the right parents, and playing golf with the right people.

Sheer incompetence helps, too, based on many of the VPs I've seen in major corps I've worked in.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

...
Sheer incompetence helps, too, based on many of the VPs I've seen in major corps I've worked in.

Isn't that the Dilbert Principle? The incompetent get assigned to tasks where they will do the least damage - management.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Isn't that the Dilbert Principle? The incompetent get assigned to tasks where they will do the least damage - management.

It explains a lot, including some of the C-level executives I've worked with who weren't quite smart enough to tie their own shoes.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Isn't that the Dilbert Principle? The incompetent get assigned to tasks where they will do the least damage - management.

I'm not sure that I would classify management and / or leadership roles as roles where a person could do the least damage.

Often, it's the role where they could do the most damage. Think of all the bad bosses that you've worked for over the years.

I prefer the Peter Principle, which says everyone gets promoted to their first level of incompetency. In other words, if you do a good job, you get promoted. If you don't do a good job you don't get demoted or promoted - you just sit there.

Therefore, if you are good at your job you keep getting promoted until you are no longer good at your job, and there you stay. Over time the organization becomes filled with people who are one step above where they should be.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I prefer the Peter Principle, which says everyone gets promoted to their first level of incompetency. In other words, if you do a good job, you get promoted. If you don't do a good job you don't get demoted or promoted - you just sit there.

Therefore, if you are good at your job you keep getting promoted until you are no longer good at your job, and there you stay. Over time the organization becomes filled with people who are one step above where they should be.

That's stupid.

If you don't do a good job, you should be fired. Period.

I realize that libs, as free as they are with money, probably see no problem with paying someone to do a shitty job, but it's still stupid...

Originally Posted by Steve

That's stupid.

If you don't do a good job, you should be fired. Period.

I realize that libs, as free as they are with money, probably see no problem with paying someone to do a shitty job, but it's still stupid...

have you really never heard of the peter principle before?

it has nothing to do with libs or cons. anyone who believes as much is stupid or ignorant...

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

While I would agree that CEO compensation and corporate profits have skyrocketed and that a similar increase in middle class compensation hasn't is unfair and bad for the economy, I strongly resist the urge that this necessitates government involvement and regulation to 're-distribute the wealth' - which is what Obama has said both in speech and in deed.

Government involvement and regulation are constants. The only variable is on whose behalf. Note the examples of government policy I listed above: encouragement or discouragement of outsourcing; enforcing the law with employers who employ illegal immigrants or looking the other way; aggressively enforcing labor law or looking for excuses not to. The government can't NOT have a tax policy, an enforcement policy for illegal immigration, a trade policy, or an enforcement policy for labor law. It can't NOT lean one direction or another in these matters. What I'm saying, whether or not it's what Obama's saying, is that it ought to lean in favor of labor instead of, as it's tended to do in recent decades, in favor of capital.

About your other post, there are occasions when a company can slightly exceed the median market wage for a given type of work. A very successful market leader in an industry will sometimes do this in order to improve its competitive hiring position. Similarly, a company can sometimes get away with being slightly stingy in terms of the market price of labor. But no company can afford to go very significantly above or below what the market is calling for at any time. If they go too far below, no one will work for them. If they go too far above, they will waste money that could have gone to other, more productive purposes, or been taken as profits.

That's why I disagree somewhat with Herbert Hoover. Hoover once said, "The only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy!" My view is that while it's true capitalists tend to be greedy, that's the way the system is designed. Capitalists are what they have to be given a certain set of operating rules, which are set in large measure by government, not business. Business can't help being what it is; those businesspeople that refuse to be like that will be driven out of business by those with greater moral flexibility. The responsibility for making the system humane lies with government, not business. There's no point in assigning blame where there is no volition. And that's the mistake I see Obama making here.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Capitalists are what they have to be given a certain set of operating rules, which are set in large measure by government, not business.

Having a gun does not mean you get to dictate reality. Capitalists purpose in existing is maximizing profit.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Business can't help being what it is; those businesspeople that refuse to be like that will be driven out of business by those with greater moral flexibility.

Driven out by force, which is the point of this thread. Share or else.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

The responsibility for making the system humane lies with government, not business.

You do not find it odd to rely on a man with a gun for making something humane?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

There's no point in assigning blame where there is no volition. And that's the mistake I see Obama making here.

The mistake of Obama is he is a socialist.

Originally Posted by bg85

have you really never heard of the peter principle before?

Yes, and it's stupid. Not firing someone who does a shitty job is stupid...

it has nothing to do with libs or cons. anyone who believes as much is stupid or ignorant...

I never said it did. I said that, since libs are free with money, they see no problem in paying someone to do a shitty job. Libs have no problem promoting the idea that people who are incompetent should be maintained. Why? Because it guarantees job security...

Originally Posted by Steve

Yes, and it's stupid. Not firing someone who does a shitty job is stupid...



I never said it did. I said that, since libs are free with money, they see no problem in paying someone to do a shitty job. Libs have no problem promoting the idea that people who are incompetent should be maintained. Why? Because it guarantees job security...

I think that I'd further that statement by saying that since libs are free with someone else's money . . . Usually the tax payers.