Econ 2009

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Maybe it is time we said to the executives that just doing their job is not a reason for a bonus and if they do not like that, then go for it, see if you can find a job elsewhere.

Because making the company more valuable is their job and you can't get them to do this if you don't give them an incentive. Only a lousy exec won't insist on a bonus when the company is doing better, because he's not good at making the company better.

Therefore, your strategy succeeds in the better executives not applying for a job at your company, which is why people like you have bosses who hire you and not vice versa.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

If a person is hired to work for his salary, that salary is supposed to be the motive for staying on the job, not the bonus

I have no fondness for the jackals of industry and their shenanigans to manipulate bonuses, especially the jackals of the telecommunications industry. But I will point out this particular sentence has a false premise. People accept jobs on the basis of a compensation package, not just the salary. By this same argument employees should not complain about cutting health care and retirement benefits because "the salary is supposed to be the motive for staying on the job." Bonuses have become part of that total compensation package for increasingly larger numbers of industries at increasingly lower levels.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Is greed the real driver for a person to become CEO of a company?

Most CEO's get a basic salary and then 'incentives' such as stock options, bonuses, and perks such as a corporate jet to travel in.

I would posit that most CEO's start the company that they become the CEO for. And most CEO's are in small companies. [/hand waving]

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

you would think they would at least try to find a way to do something for the people who were terminated.

Mmmm... such an idealistic "nuturing parent" -- does my heart good. :-)

But the other end of the society-as-family worldview spectrum, "strict father", is just as valid, and sometimes one end works better than the other in certain situations (which is why the GOP will stick around).

Too bad the Rockridge Institute ^* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockridge_Institute) that posted explanations of those on the Web went out of business (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-...i_b_98383.html). Now one has to read them from George Lakoff's book Moral Politics or somewhere.

- - -

^* Not to be confused with other Rocksomething organizations

[Fusion_power]

Wblipp, While I agree with much of what you say, may I point out that the typical executive compensation package today is written such that the company can go totally down the drain and yet the executive gets his 'bonus'.

Mephitis, when does 'giving them an incentive' turn into just giving them a wad of cash? When a compensation package is written as many today are, there is no incentive to do anything, much less make a company more valuable.

BTW, my previous post was a reflection of thoughts expressed to me by other employees as well as a few of my own. I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I do run a small business of my own so I know exactly what it means to put your thumb down on expenses and keep it there.

DarJones

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by wblipp

People accept jobs on the basis of a compensation package, not just the salary.

< snip >

Bonuses have become part of that total compensation package for increasingly larger numbers of industries at increasingly lower levels.

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

the typical executive compensation package today is written such that the company can go totally down the drain and yet the executive gets his 'bonus'.

I imagine that many top executives nowadays have been fully aware of the possibility that their new employers may go down the drain during their tenure (regardless of responsibility), and make such post-downdrain-anyway bonuses part of their compensation negotiation.

Mephitis, when does 'giving them an incentive' turn into just giving them a wad of cash? When a compensation package is written as many today are, there is no incentive to do anything, much less make a company more valuable.

... which is why we (or at least the shareholders) need to persuade some companies to be firmer in making the negotiated compensation more sensitive to down-the-drainness.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... which is why we (or at least the shareholders)...

If the shareholders can't get their act together, the company they own loses value, so let them figure out how to deal with the problem. A shareholder can always sell his shares, which makes the stock go down, which means that the stock-options go down and the executive is punished.

A company with low market value is the target for a hostile takeover (or a raider) - and the first thing you do after you take over another company is to terminate the previous management with prejudice.

But of course the socialist control-freaks regulate short selling (which would drive values of lousy companies even lower, i.e. make them targets for corporate raiders), because they need to breed idiots who lose their savings by making it attractive for them to invest into lousy companies run by lousy executives - until the bubble pops. Then they step in and save the day - with more regulations! Pffft.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

If the shareholders can't get their act together, the company they own loses value, so let them figure out how to deal with the problem. A shareholder can always sell his shares, which makes the stock go down, which means that the stock-options go down and the executive is punished.

This and many other of your arguments seem to suppose that folks act entirely rationally. (Or at least that the folks sharing your view are acting entirely rationally :-)

However, modern psychological studies have found that people making such decisions are actually influenced by non-rational considerations, even when they're sure they aren't. (I was just reading about that yesterday -- on the Scientific American site, I think. I can look it up if necessary.) They are not entirely cool, strictly-rational decision-makers of the sort that your argument requires.

That's why some regulations are justified -- to help our better (rational) sides have contemplation time to balance our fast emotional responses. It's a simple matter of recognizing realities of human psychology. We have better rational control over our emotions than chimps do (according to the most recent Nova episode, "Ape Genius"), but it's not perfect or instant.

But of course the socialist control-freaks regulate short selling (which would drive values of lousy companies even lower, i.e. make them targets for corporate raiders),

Short-selling regulations don't prevent short-selling from sending stocks lower -- they just limit the speed with which that happens, so that investors' rationality has time to overcome herd-instinct fear. Don't you understand that?

Did short-selling regulation prevent the stocks of GM, Chrysler, BoA, and other major financial companies from recently descending to low prices? No.

So, where's the harm you're pretending? Give us a specific example of how short-selling regulations prevented (not just slowed) the stock of a company that deserved to go down from going down. (And include objective measures, not just your opinion, of how far the stock deserved to descend.)

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

However, modern psychological studies have found that people making such decisions are actually influenced by non-rational considerations, even when they're sure they aren't. (I was just reading about that yesterday -- on the Scientific American site, I think. I can look it up if necessary.) They are not entirely cool, strictly-rational decision-makers of the sort that your argument requires.

Which includes the ones who make the regulation. And the people who support them. You, for example, have decided that politicians are rational decision-makers, capable of passing rational regulations, which by your own argument, is irrational.

That's why some regulations are justified -- to help our better (rational) sides have contemplation time to balance our fast emotional responses. It's a simple matter of recognizing realities of human psychology.

Which is why you got the PATRIOT act, are sending troops to Afghanistan and worry so much about GW that you support stupid regulations for CO2 emissions.

That's why none of these regulations is justified -- because they only appear to help your better side to have contemplation time to balance your fast emotional response. It's a simple matter of recognizing realities of human psychology.

Short-selling regulations don't prevent short-selling from sending stocks lower -- they just limit the speed with which that happens, so that investors' rationality has time to overcome herd-instinct fear. Don't you understand that?

Nope, because the same argument applies to going long, and socialists don't argue that that "investors' rationality has time to overcome herd-instinct greed".

A 100% short position is as stupid as a 100% long position.

What your stupid regulator doesn't understand is that one uses shorts to hedge a portfolio. If I think McDonalds is going to do better than Burger King, I sell Burger King short and buy McDonalds. If the market crashes and McDonalds loses 50% and BK 60% I make as much money (provided my analysis of the companies is correct), as when the market overheats and McD gaines 60% and BK 50%.

Did short-selling regulation prevent the stocks of GM, Chrysler, BoA, and other major financial companies from recently descending to low prices? No. So, where's the harm you're pretending? Give us a specific example of how short-selling regulations prevented the stock of a company that deserved to go down from going down. (And include objective measures, not just your opinion, of how far the stock deserved to descend.)

Because more selling prevents lousy stock from going up in the first place.

[Fusion_power]

Word today is that the U.S. economy shed just almost 500,000 more jobs over the last month. I may not have the totals straight, but that seems to add up to about 18% unemployment when you consider:
1. people who have much lower paying jobs
2. people who are part time employed but want full time jobs
3. people going to school for retraining so they can get a job
4. kids just out of school who can't find a job
5. people who have lost jobs and are hunting and are on the 'official' unemployment rolls.


Will the "real" unemployment numbers please stand up?

DarJones

[garo]

You should look at the U-6 numbers when they are released tomorrow.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...ght-month.html
As of last month, the "real" unemployment rate was 16.4%.