Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shallowest Generation

ritholtz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#41

Post by Retric »

newt0311 wrote: post #9
jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the author's selective memory and faulty logic continually undermines the point His chart doesn't help either: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/debt... Yes, if you cut the Y-axis in arbitrary places, you can make small changes seem important. Too bad they aren't. Here is a chart comparing my apples to oranges: 1000.0001 - ****** - ****** - ****** - ****** 1000.0000 - ****** ****** ~ ****** ****…

read the chart again. 0.7 projected vs. 1.0 actual. That is a very significant change. Then just think about the 1.0 number. The total amount of debt is what everybody in the US earned in year. A scary thought in of itself.

Low interest debt is not that important. If you get out of med school with 300k debt at 4% your probably going to be fine. In five years when you still have 250k of medical debt and add a 1Million mortgage at 6% you are going to be fine if your making 350k+.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#42

Post by Retric »

hugh wrote: post #39
mellow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is relative. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, many more have got poorer. This is not coincidental.

Wealth is absolute. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, very few have got poorer.

Outsourcing our manufacturing base has reduced the inflation adjusted income of a lot of people.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#43

Post by hugh »

Retric wrote: post #42
hugh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is absolute. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, very few have got poorer.

Outsourcing our manufacturing base has reduced the inflation adjusted income of a lot of people.

I'm talking in a worldwide context, not a US one.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#44

Post by mellow »

hugh wrote: post #39
mellow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is relative. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, many more have got poorer. This is not coincidental.

Wealth is absolute. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, very few have got poorer.

'Wealth', as in how many Yankee dollars you have is relative. I understand all the arguments about absolute wealth, and it is true that my parents (and I) are absolutely wealthier than 60 years ago.

Now, here this: millions of people are starving to death every year. Starving from lack off food, water, ideas and hope. And Obama isn't gonna change it one bit.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#45

Post by ryanwaggoner »

mellow wrote: post #44
hugh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is absolute. Since the Baby Boomers' DoB, many people have got wealthier, very few have got poorer.

'Wealth', as in how many Yankee dollars you have is relative. I understand all the arguments about absolute wealth, and it is true that my parents (and I) are absolutely wealthier than 60 years ago. Now, here this: millions of people are starving to death every year. Starving from lack off food, water, ideas and hope. And Obama isn't gonna change it one bit.

Interesting how you roped Obama into the discussion, despite it being completely irrelevant.

And it's true that millions of people are starving every year, dying of preventable diseases, etc. But those things correlate strongly with extreme poverty, and the number of people in extreme poverty has dropped dramatically over the last 25 years and continues to drop.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#46

Post by likpok »

time_management wrote: post #23
jd wrote: post #5

Is it just me, or does the author use a lot of unintentionally funny analogies? Anyway, I'm going to chip in on the issue of CEO pay. Many, including the author, are outraged that they're paid 500 times the wage of the average worker. But the CEO job is generally given to somebody who a) has proven himself (5mm b) is willing to work 80 hours per week c) is willing to pick work over family/friends, no matter the circu…

But the CEO job is generally given to somebody who a) has proven himself (5mm b) is willing to work 80 hours per week c) is willing to pick work over family/friends, no matter the circumstances I'm not convinced that B and C are good things. Sometimes, it's necessary to work 80 hours per week, but doing that for years on end is unhealthy and counterproductive. Most of the long hours in upper-tier corporate result not…

People have tried the CEO pay thing. Ben and Jerry's, specifically. They limited to something like 10x. And completely failed to find any qualified candidates who were willing to work for that.

Then they raised it slightly (14x?) to get someone, who turned out to be a bad CEO, and had to fire him and raise it more (30x?) to get someone decent.

The fact of the matter is that CEO's are paid for the value they bring to the company. The reason they are so well paid is market forces, much the same reason why you are paid the wage you are paid.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#47

Post by Psyonic »

callmeed wrote: post #36
jd wrote: post #5

Is it just me, or does the author use a lot of unintentionally funny analogies? Anyway, I'm going to chip in on the issue of CEO pay. Many, including the author, are outraged that they're paid 500 times the wage of the average worker. But the CEO job is generally given to somebody who a) has proven himself (5mm b) is willing to work 80 hours per week c) is willing to pick work over family/friends, no matter the circu…

True, though I don't think it "boils down to incentives" only. Frankly, I'm tired of people crying about CEO pay. Yes, there are examples of ridiculous compensation and severance packages (former Home Depot CEO got a $210M severance when leaving, for example). But I think it also boils down to demand and human capital. A good CEO can do things the average person in the labor force cannot. No two ways about it. And, a…

Which is why the CEO's of Toyota, Honda, etc make around 1 million USD per year, and are actually able to manage a company successfully? People aren't bitching about 1 million a year. Unfortunately, excessive bullshit like the Home Depot situation is more common than you'd apparently like to believe.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#48

Post by callmeed »

Psyonic wrote: post #47
callmeed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, though I don't think it "boils down to incentives" only. Frankly, I'm tired of people crying about CEO pay. Yes, there are examples of ridiculous compensation and severance packages (former Home Depot CEO got a $210M severance when leaving, for example). But I think it also boils down to demand and human capital. A good CEO can do things the average person in the labor force cannot. No two ways about it. And, a…

Which is why the CEO's of Toyota, Honda, etc make around 1 million USD per year, and are actually able to manage a company successfully? People aren't bitching about 1 million a year. Unfortunately, excessive bullshit like the Home Depot situation is more common than you'd apparently like to believe.

Ok, first of all, you just listed 2 Japanese companies. Not really germane to the article or my comment. Second, neither Honda or Toyota appear to publish their executive salaries (at least I couldn't find them on financial sites). If you have a source for the $1M salary claim, I'd love to see it.

Third, according to the links below, median CEO pay is $8.2M for Fortune 1000 companies and $2M for a larger sampling.

http://tinyurl.com/5rmlwx http://tinyurl.com/556enm

I'm all for companies being responsible in regards to CEO pay–I just think that portion of the original article is misleading and unqualified.

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#49

Post by tc »

callmeed wrote: post #48
Psyonic wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the CEO's of Toyota, Honda, etc make around 1 million USD per year, and are actually able to manage a company successfully? People aren't bitching about 1 million a year. Unfortunately, excessive bullshit like the Home Depot situation is more common than you'd apparently like to believe.

Ok, first of all, you just listed 2 Japanese companies. Not really germane to the article or my comment. Second, neither Honda or Toyota appear to publish their executive salaries (at least I couldn't find them on financial sites). If you have a source for the $1M salary claim, I'd love to see it. Third, according to the links below, median CEO pay is $8.2M for Fortune 1000 companies and $2M for a larger sampling. ht…

I went looking. The article I found is interesting in its own right:

"Engineers Rule: At American auto companies, finance guys and marketers rise to the top. Not at Honda."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=366709

From the article:

"Honda doesn't disclose executive pay in detail, but the sum of salaries and bonuses that Fukui shares with 36 board members, $13 million, is just about enough for the boss at a big American company."

also:

"Honda has never had an unprofitable year. It has never had to lay off employees."

Re: The Shallowest Generation

#50

Post by blackguardx »

palish wrote: post #18
blackguardx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people enjoy being CEO for the same reasons people enjoy founding startups or going into politics. You say, "aside from the prestige, power, and money, it's not fun." If someone's job provides all three, I would say that they are doing pretty well! Also, CEOs that focus on quarterly numbers do so only to enrich themselves (via stock options) to the detriment of the company. At my own company (a large tes…

I wish Hacker News allowed us to upvote or downvote individual paragraphs. I upvoted you because of your first paragraph, but would have downvoted otherwise. (Shareholders besides the management team still matter. :P)

"(Shareholders besides the management team still matter. :P)"

What is your reasoning behind that statement?

It is nice to have a high stock price as a source of future cash, but companies rarely have additional offerings. Most companies take on debt. Having a high stock price also discourages hostile take overs, but the shareholders themselves don't matter.

I want to know why you think they do. Many people say that shareholders matter and use them as an excuse for their actions. I think it is just that: an excuse.

Post reply on HN