It is nonsense. Govt. spending is the only multiplier, and it is a negative effect. Unless the rich people are putting their money in their mattresses, the money goes into banks or investments. Either way into investments, effectively. Invest in google at $1/share and you make out like a bandit when the stock hit $500. Even so, I wouldn't claim that's a multiplier of 500. You've effectively taken the investment capital from google to give to the rich guys who put the money back into google. GDP only grows because Google is creating wealth in the form of intellectual property. It is a wash. No multiplier. Workers' labor is factored into GDP. Part of the finished goods metric. Artificially paying more for the labor only reduces the net value of the finished good. It is a wash. No multiplier. A really basic example. Worker gets paid $100 to make a car. The car costs $100 to buy (no profit). The $100 is the only cost (ignoring the price of the parts). Raise worker's income to $110, and the car maker pays $110 to build a car he sells for $100. GDP loss by $10/car, no? So raise the price of the car to $110 and you get a wash. All you've done us started selling cars worth $100 for $110. More on how bogus these multipliers are: http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/NBER_Fiscal.pdf
Bush didn't selectively change his own existing law. Plus, I thought Barry was supposed to be the anti-Bush? Looks like he fooled you. Obama is Bush Junior, except he is laughed at by people like Putin because Barry is all about words, and just words, when it comes to foreign policy. "Red line," my ass. What a joke.
What a fucking idiot. Does he know that in I-Banking and S&T your base pay is really low (for Manhattan) and most of what you receive in bonus is based on what you personally contributed to the bottom line? In other words, if you lost the company money or the firm overall has a tough year, you get squat.
CEO to worker ratio has grown from 42:1 in 1980 to 354:1 in 2012. Also during our prime boom years of 2002-2012 while CEO's were doing great thing with the economy their ratio grew from 281:1 to 354:1. Problem is that CEO bonuses are often tied to high risk short sighted goals, when that doesnt work out they golden parachute and avoid accountability for their decisions. By comparison the UK is 84:1 and France is 104:1, even Canada is 204:1. Expecting people to curb their own greed for the good of the economy is foolish.
In the 1980s, the largest Japanese corporations dwarfed ours. Now ours are the biggest in the world. If a CEO gets .0001% of sales, he's going to have a huge bump just because the companies got larger. And they get more than .0001%, I'm just making the case for why they make more. Seems to me that they grew the companies that big, they deserve it. And another way to look at it is the CEO makes 1% of the sales and the employees make 80% of it. They're not being taken advantage of somehow.
I get your point but thats not always the case. I can pull up plenty of golden parachute examples of CEO's making bank for running their companies in the ground. You might hit on part of the problem, why have some of those companies grown in the wake of the financial disaster. To big to fail only got bigger.
I believe he would be drastically overstepping his authority. If he succeeds, I won't turn down the overtime pay.
CEOs command guaranteed contracts, or they'd take a job elsewhere. They're criminally liable, so they are taking quite a bit of risk. The CEO isn't likely to be the highest paid in a company. You'd think the top sales guy would be best paid, due to his override commission. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/override
Thank you for putting a spotlight on your ignorance. Bill Moyers was talking about Wall Street bonuses, not CEOs. Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between them, then perhaps this isn't the thread or the topic for you.
It's the very government intervention you beg for that caused this bullshit. In 2008, the investment banks should have been allowed to die. We would have had a short, incredibly painful recession, but it would have been a damn sight better than what we have now. Glass-Steagall should never have been repealed. Investment banking is incompatible with commercial banking.
Sure poor people damn near never do, because they have no money. They're poor. But you know what poor people do? They spend all their fucking money! I thought the "Job creators" needed the poor people to have someone to organize and do the boring shit they don't want? I thought we needed poor people to manufacture things and work in stores to sell things? Was I wrong to believe that poor people are needed to teach our kids?
