Do you know what kills freedom? Besides President Obama and Democrat Party and increased access to healthcare, obviously? Forcing bazillionaire CEOs to tell us just how many bazillions of dollars they make. No, really, it's true! The bobbledheads on Fox's
And of course corporations already have that data, which they use to calculate salaries, benefits, bonuses, and whether they are on a par with the competition, not to mention all the tax-related stuff they do. They just don't disclose any of it.
And Guidestar.org provides this info online for free for all US for nonprofit corps. It's a great way to see where your charity dollars are going (coughredcrosscough).
<i>Labor unions and liberal advocacy groups backing the provision.</i>
Along with SHAREHOLDERS, who are, youknow, average capitalist Americans, i.e., the wethepeople Fox is always claiming to protect and defend.
<i>They say it will shame companies into lowering CEO pay, but critics say the regulation would just force companies to compile complex data to determine the median salary of all their employees, which could cost them millions. It&rsquo;s already cost them millions of dollars!</i>
In other words, about 4 days&#039;-worth of the CEO&#039;s salary.
Also, total employment numbers, probably with details about location-dependent compensation policies
The target is <i>not</i> total D&amp;O compensation as a percentage of total employees compensation. There are way more employees than officers.
I just re-read the excerpts, and realized that this show must be Fox&#039;s first push into actually instantiating &quot;Idiocracy&quot;.
I don&#039;t believe I&#039;ve ever seen such an conglomeration of uneducated, unthinking, willful morons (and I&#039;m including Dana Perino) anywhere except right-wing comment threads.
I love how how he says he is guaranteeing things. I thought the point of a corporation was that the CEO/shareholders aren&#039;t personally responsible. I&#039;d love to see what they free marketers would do of we made them all form partnership instead.
&quot;stockholders are the only people who have a right to this information.&quot;
Riiight . . . and nobody who&#039;s not a stockholder can ever see the 10k and annual reports. These ignorant twunts know next to nothing, but it&#039;s still more than the average Faux News viewer.
Iain Banks wrote a sci-fi novel called <i>Transition</i>, which used the quantum-mechanical premise of an infinite number of similar universes. At one point, one of the protagonists (who is a member of an organization that can travel between Earths) observes that the organization has found that the crucial difference between unpleasant and pleasant capitalist societies is whether or not they had broadly adopted the concept of &quot;limited liability&quot; business entities.
Banks was a novelist, and not an economist, but I&#039;m inclined to think he was on to something. The problem with limited liability wasn&#039;t obvious when it was first invented. It was a way of assembling enough financial capital to undertake major enterprises where the risk of failure was non-zero (so no small group of rich people would be willing to risk a big piece of their wealth). This probably sped up economic development, so far so good.
In fact, many early corporate charters (issued by the relevant government to make them legal) contained various requirements for the limited liability entity to do things to benefit its community. Sometimes pay, sometimes charity, sometimes specific improvements. The general point is, the earliest corporations did NOT operate under the theory that &quot;increasing shareholder value&quot; was their ONLY operating requirement.
The flaw in the theory was, in retrospect, easy to see. Because limited liability entities were very successful at raising capital, they became very successful in their businesses, and made lots of money, and over time they used that money to buy politicians and weaken the rules binding them.
The Founding Fathers would laugh hysterically at the idea that a corporation could be a &quot;person&quot;. They knew what a &quot;person&quot; was -- a human being (although, yeah, they did have kind of a hierarchy of persons. But none of them were corporations).
So, shorter Banks: we&#039;re in the wrong kind of universe, and fucked.
And actually, the whole idea of a &quot;corporation&quot; is that it becomes a body (&quot;incorporates&quot;) into a legal entity which guarantees things, incurs liability, &quot;worries about receivables,&quot; etc. The CEOs do not personally guarantee things.
Plus also too, when they say the stockholders are the only people who have a right to this information, they show that they&#039;ve never actually looked at an annual report, where the only information disclosed is the information the gummint requires the corporation to disclose; at present this does not apparently include the ratio of CEO pay to whatever the other category is...drones? worker bees?
And the information they <i>do</i> disclose that might be of interest to current or potential stockholders is buried deep in torturous corporate-counsel-scrubbed sentences of maximum opacity.</i>
And of course corporations already have that data, which they use to calculate salaries, benefits, bonuses, and whether they are on a par with the competition, not to mention all the tax-related stuff they do. They just don&#039;t disclose any of it.
And Guidestar.org provides this info online for free for all US for nonprofit corps. It&#039;s a great way to see where your charity dollars are going (coughredcrosscough).
The statement is true. The fact that all the &quot;more wealth&quot; would be in the hands of about six or eight people is a minor detail.
Sure, if you don&#039;t have all your retirement savings forcibly invested in a 401-K like the rest of us.
<i>Labor unions and liberal advocacy groups backing the provision.</i>
Along with SHAREHOLDERS, who are, youknow, average capitalist Americans, i.e., the wethepeople Fox is always claiming to protect and defend.
<i>They say it will shame companies into lowering CEO pay, but critics say the regulation would just force companies to compile complex data to determine the median salary of all their employees, which could cost them millions. It&rsquo;s already cost them millions of dollars!</i>
In other words, about 4 days&#039;-worth of the CEO&#039;s salary.
Bo don&#039;t knows.
Also, total employment numbers, probably with details about location-dependent compensation policies
The target is <i>not</i> total D&amp;O compensation as a percentage of total employees compensation. There are way more employees than officers.
I just re-read the excerpts, and realized that this show must be Fox&#039;s first push into actually instantiating &quot;Idiocracy&quot;.
I don&#039;t believe I&#039;ve ever seen such an conglomeration of uneducated, unthinking, willful morons (and I&#039;m including Dana Perino) anywhere except right-wing comment threads.
I love how how he says he is guaranteeing things. I thought the point of a corporation was that the CEO/shareholders aren&#039;t personally responsible. I&#039;d love to see what they free marketers would do of we made them all form partnership instead.
Have you sent Dish a thank-you note?
&quot;stockholders are the only people who have a right to this information.&quot;
Riiight . . . and nobody who&#039;s not a stockholder can ever see the 10k and annual reports. These ignorant twunts know next to nothing, but it&#039;s still more than the average Faux News viewer.
Iain Banks wrote a sci-fi novel called <i>Transition</i>, which used the quantum-mechanical premise of an infinite number of similar universes. At one point, one of the protagonists (who is a member of an organization that can travel between Earths) observes that the organization has found that the crucial difference between unpleasant and pleasant capitalist societies is whether or not they had broadly adopted the concept of &quot;limited liability&quot; business entities.
Banks was a novelist, and not an economist, but I&#039;m inclined to think he was on to something. The problem with limited liability wasn&#039;t obvious when it was first invented. It was a way of assembling enough financial capital to undertake major enterprises where the risk of failure was non-zero (so no small group of rich people would be willing to risk a big piece of their wealth). This probably sped up economic development, so far so good.
In fact, many early corporate charters (issued by the relevant government to make them legal) contained various requirements for the limited liability entity to do things to benefit its community. Sometimes pay, sometimes charity, sometimes specific improvements. The general point is, the earliest corporations did NOT operate under the theory that &quot;increasing shareholder value&quot; was their ONLY operating requirement.
The flaw in the theory was, in retrospect, easy to see. Because limited liability entities were very successful at raising capital, they became very successful in their businesses, and made lots of money, and over time they used that money to buy politicians and weaken the rules binding them.
The Founding Fathers would laugh hysterically at the idea that a corporation could be a &quot;person&quot;. They knew what a &quot;person&quot; was -- a human being (although, yeah, they did have kind of a hierarchy of persons. But none of them were corporations).
So, shorter Banks: we&#039;re in the wrong kind of universe, and fucked.
Roger Ailes says &quot;I&#039;m not fat!&quot;
&quot;AND TELL WHOEVER IS RUNNING THE COOTER-CAM THAT WE NEED MORE KENNEDY!&quot;
Yeah and next you&#039;ll be telling me that water, like from the toilet, is what plants crave. Pfff!
And actually, the whole idea of a &quot;corporation&quot; is that it becomes a body (&quot;incorporates&quot;) into a legal entity which guarantees things, incurs liability, &quot;worries about receivables,&quot; etc. The CEOs do not personally guarantee things.
Plus also too, when they say the stockholders are the only people who have a right to this information, they show that they&#039;ve never actually looked at an annual report, where the only information disclosed is the information the gummint requires the corporation to disclose; at present this does not apparently include the ratio of CEO pay to whatever the other category is...drones? worker bees?
And the information they <i>do</i> disclose that might be of interest to current or potential stockholders is buried deep in torturous corporate-counsel-scrubbed sentences of maximum opacity.</i>