Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (278235)	7/20/2002 2:17:06 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769667

Losing My Stake in the Economy By ROBERT HEMSLEY Editorial / Op-Ed The New York Times July 20, 2002 EVERETT, Wash. I work operating industrial machinery at a paper mill that is owned by a global corporation. My mill was built in the 1920's, when the stock market was soaring, F. Scott Fitzgerald was writing about the rich and Babe Ruth was hitting home runs for the Yankees. I get paid by the hour and do not understand the markets. I do not belong to a country club or own a suit. I just want to work at the mill until I retire. My mill has survived the Depression, a world war, even a couple minor earthquakes. But I worry if it can survive Ken Lay. Small investors like me — encouraged by politicians, financial advisers and CNBC — poured our retirement savings into the stock market. Now we are dismayed that the corporate captains have abandoned accountability while the crew sinks with the ship. Perhaps I am looking for excuses for the recent poor performance of my 401(k) plan, but I wonder if the market is fair. In 2001, the average chief executive's pay was more than $11 million, according to Pearl Meyer & Partners, an executive-compensation consulting firm. Executive pay has been climbing steadily for the past two decades and has outpaced employee pay. Two decades ago, C.E.O.'s were paid about 40 times more than the average hourly employee; now they make more than 500 times the wage of the average hourly employee. Last year the C.E.O. of my company made 592 times more than I did. I wonder if that makes me underpaid or the C.E.O. overpaid. Recently management told hourly employees at my mill to make concessions or risk losing our jobs. We made the concessions last autumn, but last spring the C.E.O. received a stock "gift" worth $1.4 million. This isn't capitalism, it's avarice. I am not naïve. I know about the robber barons of the late 19th century and others throughout history who have abused the system. But never has the gap between executives and employees been greater. This disparity threatens the capitalist system itself. When employees make concessions while executives take bonuses, the bonds of common purpose are broken. Contrast this with the Marine Corps, which is structured so that enlisted personnel and officers work together for a common purpose. The Marine Corps commandant runs an organization with 172,600 men and women, oversees an annual budget of some $13.2 billion and is paid $163,177 annually — just 13 times more than the pay of a new private in boot camp. The system is successful because of a tradition of shared risks and rewards. All employees want their company to succeed, and I am proud to work where I do. I imagine my concern about my company's share price is as great as my C.E.O.'s; a portion of my 401(k) is in company stock. I recognize my job depends upon my company making a profit. But I wonder if corporate executives appreciate the role workers play in their success. Free enterprise is a system of risks and rewards. As it now stands, employees suffer most of the risks, while executives enjoy most of the rewards. ___________________________________________ Robert Hemsley is a member of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers Union. nytimes.com

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (278235)	7/20/2002 3:23:03 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

res- I think you're constructing a bit of a strawman here. After all i haven't heard anyone say that the dishonestly labeled tax rebates are the sole cause of our return to deficits. It's the future tax-cuts which are greatly hurting future revenue projections. So projected deficits can absolutely be tied to the tax bill. Actually I've read quite a few people dishonestly say the tax cuts are the sole cause of our deficits. Further, you've constructed a strawman by stating as if fact, projected deficits can be tied to the tax bill. The growth in our deficit which has gone up throughout the Clinton years, can be mainly attributed to the slowdown in our economy and a growth in spending. It's still an open questions whether our tax cuts will generated revenue long term, or reduce revenues. I give Clinton credit for running surpluses during the last expansion. Reagan ran unprecedented deficits for anytime, but even more incredible that he did it during an expansion. So like it or not Clinton gets some credit for our low interest rates, low inflation, and the fact that we're in relatively good fiscal shape going in to this slowdown Clinton never ran a surplus. Unless one uses fraudulant accounting methods. The deficit continued to grow throughout the Clinton years. Social Security is borrowed money, not surplus money. Reagan grew the economy and dramatically increased revenue to the government while cutting taxes. Congress (led by spendoholic Tip O'neil) increases spending like an Emeldo Marcus dropped off in a Kinney shoe store. Bush is doing a lot of things wrong. A generalized rhetorical spin statement without providing any real analysis. His budgets are dishonest, Another generalized spin phrase direct from the talking points of Dashle/Gephard. that doesn't inspire confidence. His job approval numbers are still high, considered confidence barometers by most standards. His administration is very close to many of the corporate "evildoers." Corporations aren't "evildoers". Most of the accounting scandals will be found to be legal loopholes which Clinton indirectly created when he limited CEO pay and encouraged stock option packages. That doesn't inspire confidence. Another generalized talking point phrase which has no bearing in reality. Wall Street doesn't like his economic team, they long for Robert Rubin. Rubin was one of the main players involved with changing the business environment to encourage stock options for CEO pay. Harvey Pitt was lead attorney for Andersen, Enron's CEO got to help pick the head of the FERC which would regulate Enron. These things don't inspire confidence. This lack of confidence in our current team leads the dollar to slide which leads foreign money to leave our soil which only exacerbates the problems. Lack of confidence, lack of confidence, lack of confidence. You've said it so many times I can conclude it's the latest talking point Democrat memo. Means absolutely nothing objectively. The market doesn't wait for a President to give it confidence. The market responds to corporate performance and projections on future corporate performance. It's as simple as that.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (278235)	7/20/2002 2:42:31 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 769667

Steve, good points: "Reagan ran unprecedented deficits for anytime, but even more incredible that he did it during an expansion. So like it or not Clinton gets some credit for our low interest rates, low inflation, and the fact that we're in relatively good fiscal shape going in to this slowdown. Bush is doing a lot of things wrong. His budgets are dishonest, that doesn't inspire confidence. His administration is very close to many of the corporate "evildoers." That doesn't inspire confidence. "