The DumbBrexit / #Wexit thread

[Ryan Strome]

@ForsbergTheGreat you have made some great analogies for a tobacco chewing,  beer drinking hillbilly. 

[Pickly]

6 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Sounds like Canada has quite the problem with too many climate change deniers.... Do you think this is reflective of a sub par educational system ?

It is important to  understand Science....

Good one pal 

 

 

 

[Duodenum]

20 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm saying the value they bring to society is very low.  Their skill set is easily replaceable, you can't seem to grasp and concept of how supply and demand works.  This is basic understanding. 

 

YES.  1000 over yes and this is where you show your lack of understanding.  There's a reason why CEO get to where they are and they don't just hire unqualified bums of the street.   The problem, you're projecting your own understanding and you have zero idea of the sacrifice and hard work it takes to become a CEO of a major company.  You compare flipping a burger stress, to managing a company with over 10k people, where one decision could cost everyone their jobs and destroy the incomes their families count on to survive.   How many people depend on the bottom persons decision to survive?  At most his/her immediate family.  Where as, thousands of people depend on that CEO's decisions.  

 

Since you clearly don't have any concept on understanding that i'll try to explain it in a viewpoint for you.  The average ECHL player makes 550/week or 28,600 a year (it's technically even less since they don't get paid for summer months).  Now Connor Mcdavid makes over 425 times more than that player.  Are you going to tell me that you don't believe McDavid doesn't bring over 300x more value than your average ECHL player?  How many jerseys and ticket sales are those ECHL players generating?  Exactly..  

 

 

 

 

 

CEO pay was at 20:1 in 1978 and 50:1 in 1989. Why are they worth 300:1 today? 

 

[Toews]

2 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

 

CEO pay was at 20:1 in 1978 and 50:1 in 1989. Why are they worth 300:1 today? 

 

They deserve it, cutting costs, firing employees, moving manufacturing to countries with slave wages makes companies a lot of profit. The CEOs must be compensated for these bold and innovative choices. 

[Duodenum]

The further drop in oil prices isn't going to help Alberta, especially with the funky budget they put out which looks to really rely on oil prices going up substantially. 

The budget predicts oil being at 68$ per barrel when it's at $45 per barrel right now. I think the projection is a $10 billion deficit indefinitely until either 1) Oil shoots up enormously or 2) The pipelines finish being built in 4-5 years. 

 

Oil will recover eventually and after the pipelines are built, Alberta's budget should move back into surplus in 2023 or so. 

[Warhippy]

20 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm saying the value they bring to society is very low.  Their skill set is easily replaceable, you can't seem to grasp and concept of how supply and demand works.  This is basic understanding. 

Funny.

 

I've used this exact methodology to explain to rig workers why they got turfed so quickly or replaced by machines.  No skills, easily replaced as the value they bring to society is very low.  That the scale of pay for the level of skill needed in their work is incredibly over inflated.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Warhippy

[spur1]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yeah just because you’ve worked doesn’t mean you understand it. 

 

haha wow you met a few hockey players, cool story, must feel special. 
 

You’ve made that conclusion all based on having an interaction with them? 

...you clearly don’t understand how supply and demand works. Let me let you in on a little secret. Typically half of a CEO’s salaries is made up from stock options, hence they only make a lot when they are able to make the company a lot. In other words they have to prove their value. But you’ve met one before so you must know best. Hahaha, yeah there’s no debate here. All you have is the opinion you’ve came to based on your experiences in your own little bubble. And you say I have my head in the horses rear end. 
 

if your looking for a good laugh that will also help put this into perspective. Boom

 

You forgot bonuses...had a few of those in my day as well.

Now I get your handle...lol...you actually think you are.

A word of advice from a wiser man than me...you are what you are, not what you do.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Duodenum said:

The further drop in oil prices isn't going to help Alberta, especially with the funky budget they put out which looks to really rely on oil prices going up substantially. 

The budget predicts oil being at 68$ per barrel when it's at $45 per barrel right now. I think the projection is a $10 billion deficit indefinitely until either 1) Oil shoots up enormously or 2) The pipelines finish being built in 4-5 years. 

 

Oil will recover eventually and after the pipelines are built, Alberta's budget should move back into surplus in 2023 or so. 

if AB goes into more debt all they will do is blame the NDP. If that's not enough they'll throw in some Justin. And then there's always PET's original sin that we all know held Alberta back and we're all still paying for it. 

 

Its a conspiracy theory, every answer is always anything but the PC government thats been in power 95% of the time. 

[Duodenum]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if AB goes into more debt all they will do is blame the NDP. If that's not enough they'll throw in some Justin. And then there's always PET's original sin that we all know held Alberta back and we're all still paying for it. 

 

Its a conspiracy theory, every answer is always anything but the PC government thats been in power 95% of the time. 

No arguments here, they were handed a golden egg that they've been sitting on for decades and didn't put in policies to make that money work for them. 

Even with equalization payments, they should be sitting on a huge pile of cash right now. 

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Funny.

 

I've used this exact methodology to explain to rig workers why they got turfed so quickly or replaced by machines.  No skills, easily replaced as the value they bring to society is very low.  That the scale of pay for the level of skill needed in their work is incredibly over inflated.

Which workers are these? Quote numbers.

If you want a better example use BC mill workers.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

No arguments here, they were handed a golden egg that they've been sitting on for decades and didn't put in policies to make that money work for them. 

Even with equalization payments, they should be sitting on a huge pile of cash right now. 

If a few more people had listed to Jim Prentice, who was 100% correct in his assessment, maybe they'd be better off today. I doubt it but maybe. 

 

Change is going to have to be forced on AB before they diversify, their UCP politicians have stupid baked in to their thinking. Kenney's ideas around taking Alberta citizens pension money and sticking it into oil sands projects is downright scary. 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if AB goes into more debt all they will do is blame the NDP. If that's not enough they'll throw in some Justin. And then there's always PET's original sin that we all know held Alberta back and we're all still paying for it. 

 

Its a conspiracy theory, every answer is always anything but the PC government thats been in power 95% of the time. 

Its commodity prices but absolutely many players have cost Alberta billions in revenue. It's funny you only see one side I recall the liberals blaming the cpc for being left a deficit,  which was a flat out lie.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Its commodity prices but absolutely many players have cost Alberta billions in revenue. It's funny you only see one side I recall the liberals blaming the cpc for being left a deficit,  which was a flat out lie.

nah it was true. Harper left saying he was finally in the black (after adding 160 billion in new debt) but it was based partly on some projections that were a bit too rosy. Canada ended up with a tiny deficit from Harpie's final year.

 

Alberta has cost Alberta billions in revenue. Just look at the waste that was involved with pipeline capacity. It was only last year that they magically found nearly a whole pipeline worth just through efficiencies. 

[Ryan Strome]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

nah it was true. Harper left saying he was finally in the black (after adding 160 billion in new debt) but it was based partly on some projections that were a bit too rosy. Canada ended up with a tiny deficit from Harpie's final year.

 

Alberta has cost Alberta billions in revenue. Just look at the waste that was involved with pipeline capacity. It was only last year that they magically found nearly a whole pipeline worth just through efficiencies. 

Well it certainly wasn't 20 billion was it? Considering the liberals promised a 10 billion dollar deficit but it was 30 billion in year one and guess what they initially blamed the extra 20 billion on the cpc and some on here bought it. As for the debt I agree but it's exactly the same way the BC liberals and BC ndp balance budgets. 

 

No, no major energy player landlocks their oil especially when they have 3 oceans and the biggest coast lines in the world. Energy east was a brilliant idea and JT and the liberals killed that.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Duodenum said:

 

CEO pay was at 20:1 in 1978 and 50:1 in 1989. Why are they worth 300:1 today? 

 

I like this question and I also already answered it. But i like it so much because people see this and they apply an emotional response to justify their opinion.  Just because you can't imagine that type of money, you have a hard time understanding the why someone makes that much.  It seems foreign so people just assume it's incorrect and it doesn't help that media has convinced people that making more is wrong.  Equal opportunity has been trumped by the focus of equal outcome.  When somethings doesn't have an equal outcome it's inherently viewed as evil, immoral needed to be fixed....

 

But enough with my ranting and back to the question.  i've already answered part of the question, Stock options. In 1978, CEO were getting a base pay as their full salary.  With the stock boom in the 90's, the structure for CEO's pay has changed.  Today, more than 50% of a CEO's total compensation is based on stock options.  CEO's pay are more closely tied to performance. You can see this as you compare the ratio over the years.  In 2000 the ratio boomed to 368:1, but following that year you probably remember the stock market bubble burst in 2001.  CEO's compensation dropped 50% and the ratio was only at 168:1 by the end of 2001.  The same thing happened again after the 2007 financial crisis CEO's compensation again lost 44%.  You can start to see how tied the CEO pay is in relation to bringing up the company profits. As these companies are publicly traded Investors demand that CEO's pay should be more closely tied to performance, the good CEO's make the most and the bad CEO's don't.  You are also starting to see companies apply the stock option rule to all employees with ESPP (employee stock purchase plan).  

 

Bob Iger was getting paid 37 of his 50 million (74%) in stock options as Disney was killing it,  Disney stock has rose over 400% since he took over, but in the last 6 months Disney has struggled and has had a 19% drop in 2019... guess what happened last Tuesday, Iger is no longer the CEO of Disney. 

 

The second part to that question is overall growth of industry,  Companies now act on a global stage, CEO's come from all over the world, Canada's own WestJet CEO Ed Sims is from South Wales, the talent level for CEO's has risen from 23 million domestically (canada in 1978) to 7.8 billion globally.  Not only is there more competing talent more, the competing companies are global.  Corporations are much, much more complicated that they were 50 years ago.  The ask of a CEO is rising daily and has become extremely more difficult.  Meanwhile the ask on the bottomline hasn't.  In fact, automation has reduced the ask, and it will continue to eventually reach the point where automation is able to replace that bottomline.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by ForsbergTheGreat

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Funny.

 

I've used this exact methodology to explain to rig workers why they got turfed so quickly or replaced by machines.  No skills, easily replaced as the value they bring to society is very low.  That the scale of pay for the level of skill needed in their work is incredibly over inflated.

You're not wrong.  The difference is while the skill level is low, the working environment isn't for everyone. Long hours, cold weather, physically demanding and long stretches away from home, that also has to be considered in pay which is why the pay is so high.  If the work life was more appealing, everyone would be applying to make 6 figures doing that type of work. But because it's not, the pay must be high to attract people.....Supply and Demand economics

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're not wrong.  The difference is while the skill level is low, the working environment isn't for everyone. Long hours, cold weather, physically demanding and long stretches away from home, that also has to be considered in pay which is why the pay is so high.  If the work life was more appealing, everyone would be applying to make 6 figures doing that type of work. But because it's not, the pay must be high to attract people.....Supply and Demand economics

While you gave the accurate answer he was only attempting to criticize Alberta oil patch workers. 

[Warhippy]

45 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're not wrong.  The difference is while the skill level is low, the working environment isn't for everyone. Long hours, cold weather, physically demanding and long stretches away from home, that also has to be considered in pay which is why the pay is so high.  If the work life was more appealing, everyone would be applying to make 6 figures doing that type of work. But because it's not, the pay must be high to attract people.....Supply and Demand economics

To be honest.  If wages were comparable

 

I'd rather freeze on a deck again swinging chain and locking pipe again than ever stepping foot in a fast food setting.

 

I think front line employees of that nature get far to much flak for the crap they deal with

[Duodenum]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I like this question and I also already answered it. But i like it so much because people see this and they apply an emotional response to justify their opinion.  Just because you can't imagine that type of money, you have a hard time understanding the why someone makes that much.  It seems foreign so people just assume it's incorrect and it doesn't help that media has convinced people that making more is wrong.  Equal opportunity has been trumped by the focus of equal outcome.  When somethings doesn't have an equal outcome it's inherently viewed as evil, immoral needed to be fixed....

 

But enough with my ranting and back to the question.  i've already answered part of the question, Stock options. In 1978, CEO were getting a base pay as their full salary.  With the stock boom in the 90's, the structure for CEO's pay has changed.  Today, more than 50% of a CEO's total compensation is based on stock options.  CEO's pay are more closely tied to performance. You can see this as you compare the ratio over the years.  In 2000 the ratio boomed to 368:1, but following that year you probably remember the stock market bubble burst in 2001.  CEO's compensation dropped 50% and the ratio was only at 168:1 by the end of 2001.  The same thing happened again after the 2007 financial crisis CEO's compensation again lost 44%.  You can start to see how tied the CEO pay is in relation to bringing up the company profits. As these companies are publicly traded Investors demand that CEO's pay should be more closely tied to performance, the good CEO's make the most and the bad CEO's don't.  You are also starting to see companies apply the stock option rule to all employees with ESPP (employee stock purchase plan).  

 

Bob Iger was getting paid 37 of his 50 million (74%) in stock options as Disney was killing it,  Disney stock has rose over 400% since he took over, but in the last 6 months Disney has struggled and has had a 19% drop in 2019... guess what happened last Tuesday, Iger is no longer the CEO of Disney. 

 

The second part to that question is overall growth of industry,  Companies now act on a global stage, CEO's come from all over the world, Canada's own WestJet CEO Ed Sims is from South Wales, the talent level for CEO's has risen from 23 million domestically (canada in 1978) to 7.8 billion globally.  Not only is there more competing talent more, the competing companies are global.  Corporations are much, much more complicated that they were 50 years ago.  The ask of a CEO is rising daily and has become extremely more difficult.  Meanwhile the ask on the bottomline hasn't.  In fact, automation has reduced the ask, and it will continue to eventually reach the point where automation is able to replace that bottomline.

 

 

I sit at around a 13:1 ratio myself., the numbers aren't as foreign as you think. 

 

I understand why the ratio is increasing but you're only looking at the top end. CEO pay is increasing because company values are increasing of course, but an increase in CEO pay is not the only reason the ratio and class divide is increasing. It's also because the same people at the top are keeping workers' pay and benefits down, the world over. Ie. if minimum wage kept up with inflation, then the ratio would probably be sliced in half. So, my answer whether CEO's deserve a 300:1? Absolutely not. I don't doubt that CEO's deserve to be well rewarded, I am a Director myself, but it's the ratio I'm arguing about, not their workload. My beef is with the haves on top that actively work to keep the have-nots with as little as possible, which is a bigger cause of the ballooning ratio. 

[Gurn]

3 hours ago, Duodenum said:

The further drop in oil prices isn't going to help Alberta, especially with the funky budget they put out which looks to really rely on oil prices going up substantially. 

The budget predicts oil being at 68$ per barrel when it's at $45 per barrel right now. I think the projection is a $10 billion deficit indefinitely until either 1) Oil shoots up enormously or 2) The pipelines finish being built in 4-5 years. 

 

Oil will recover eventually and after the pipelines are built, Alberta's budget should move back into surplus in 2023 or so. 

I wonder if Albertans will be bitching about equalization payments, when they are receiving them?