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.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jerome who wrote (2522)	1/5/2015 8:55:02 AM
From: the traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27117

>>Is it good for the country when 1/3 of Bank of America employees qualify for public assistance? >> Interesting post and perspective and i agree the salary structure of TOP executives in large companies is completely out of hand. Over the holidays i read a piece that essentially compared the standard of living in the USA from a base year of 1950 vs 2012. Unfortunately i can't recall where on the internut i found it. I do remember in 1950 there was no Government welfare, no Government mandated health care system, and no Government "entitlements" except of course Social Security. Back in those days even liberals had the good sense not to call SS an entitlement though. So i don't guess any of those Bank of America employees would have been qualified for public assistance in 1950. The take away was the standard of living, according to the article anyway, was better in 2012 but just barely. Oh and the baseline comparison in 1950 assumed one breadwinner per household but allowed for two per household in 2012. (justified by changing social norms etc.) Made it seem a little bit like apples and oranges to me but interesting anyway.

To: Jerome who wrote (2522)	1/5/2015 10:10:31 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27117

My only disagreement would be your choice of the word "getting." It was out of hand in 1998 when I left HP for my attempt to do what Zuckerberg eventually succeeded in doing. Things (compensation) are getting out of hand at the executive level. Knowing first hand how hard it is to work for nothing but stock options and how rare it is to succeed, I have no problem with the old system where someone like Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard could take a great idea and turn it into a company where they get rich on the stock. What I don't like is how AFTER they go public these days, they maintain huge control over the board and the stock where they give/vote themselves tons of stock options and share grants, which constantly dilutes shareholder value. Since they control so much stock and/or load the board with cronies who are paid based on peer salary so they have every incentive to pay more, there is very little shareholders can do to prevent this. It is a big reason I've never owned Oracle. Is any Chief executive worth 1044 times pay vs the average worker????? I'd like to see the pay go up in steps of 20 or even 50% per level on the management chain... but what we have now with the top making tens to hundreds of millions and two levels lower making 100 times less.... completely unfair. For me, it was part of the reason I decided to try something different in life after I my reward for huge success was a good raise and a few stock options while the people at the top eventually both got promoted to GMs and CEOs... I sympathize with Kirk and others who complain about California's high taxes. But if new wealth is going to go to the top 2 or 3% of the population then thats where the tax increases will be concentrated. Why not SPEND LESS? I believe one reason we have so many slackers in states like CA, NY, IL, etc. is government "leaders" pay them for the votes. Also, I didn't mind spending on taxes for infrastructure, but it mostly seems to go to allowing public "servants" to RETIRE with 60% pensions, before spiking, in their early 50s while many/most of us will keep working into our 70s if we want to maintain our standard of living.