Alan Greenspans last day on the job

[YASNY]

It's just the people that don't have a boat to begin with that drown.

 

Swimming is too much work.

[Balta1701]

There was actually some real studies on upward mobility in the world released sometimem about the middle of last year. They hit the pages of the WSJ, NYT, etc. Here's a summary I found with a brief Google search.

 

Hey, guess what: the social class into which you are born matters a lot when it comes to where you stand on the American socioeconomic ladder.  It matters more in the United States, the supposed land of upward mobility, than it does in Europe. The American Dream of "rags to riches" is less livable in America than it is in the aristocratic Old World that America rejected when its founding document proclaimed that "All Men Are Created Equal."

 

If you don't believe me, check out the front page of the capitalist Wall Street Journal two weeks ago.  In an article titled "As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls: Those on Bottom Rung Enjoy Better Odds in Europe" (May 13th), Journal reporter David Wessel notes that recent scholarship does NOT bear out "the notion that the US is...a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class."  In reality, Wessel finds, the odds that a child born into poverty will climb into the middle or upper class are slighter in the U.S. than they are in "class bound Europe."  According to the latest and best research, the Journal reports, the U.S. and its junior partner England are "the least mobile societies" among the world's "rich countries."  France and Germany "are somewhat more mobile than the U.S.; Canada and the Nordic countries are much more so."

 

These are interesting findings on the front page of the world's leading business class newssheet, whose editors believe that evil social-democratic and regulatory policies mire European economies and societies static "sclerosis." 

 

Two days after Wessel's article, the New York Times noted that mobility up from poverty is less common in the U.S. than in Britain, France, Canada and "some Scandinavian countries."  The best the Times could say about America was that American upward mobility is still "not as low as in developing countries like Brazil, where escape from poverty is so difficult that the lower class is all but frozen in place" (Janny Scott and David Leonhardt, "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide," New York Times. 15 May, 2005). 

[Wong & Owens]

Seems this post was broadbrushed with something of a blue tint to it.  And since we are talking colors, pot meet kettle.

 

 

You're grasping. There's NOTHING in that statement that is either blue or red, as you continue to over-simply put. That statement applies to people on either "team" who rally the flag and go to bat for them at every turn no matter what, simply because they're supposedly on the same side. Democrat senators, Republican Reps, whatever, they're all on their own side, and you're input counts for s*** unless you're donating millions to keep them in office.

 

Broadbrushed? Maybe a bit, but not by much. Give me a list of politicians that have a track record of consistently working in the public's best interests, and back it up. The list won't be long.

[Rex Kickass]

Swimming is too much work.

That's why I'm initiating my "Waterwings for Kids" program.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's why I'm initiating my "Waterwings for Kids" program.

 

To be followed immediately by...

 

Republicans screaming "social welfare BAD!"

 

Democrats suing the waterwing manufacturers for the .000001% of the products that become punctured.

 

And the OMB finding that most of the money for waterwings actually went to a Halliburton subsidiary who used it to build part of the Israeli wall.

[3E8]

I know you're trying to paint the "great divide" with this post, but many of these CEO's who make that much didn't have that when growing up.  They worked for it.

This doesn't address the issue that although many CEO's earned the title that they hold, their annual income is outrageous and all trends reflect this. I pretty sure that's what W&O is upset about.

[NorthSideSox72]

This doesn't address the issue that although many CEO's earned the title that they hold, their annual income is outrageous and all trends reflect this.  I pretty sure that's what W&O is upset about.

 

There is a new law somewhere in committee at the federal level right now to more fully disclose executive pay to the public. Real compensation, non-cash included, is to be given out in plain language terms. This could help give the markets more complete information on just how much profit companies are throwing away at a small handful of people. Stocks will suffer for it. Boards will force companies to tighten up on that. At least, thats the theory anyway.

 

Not sure where the law/reg is right now. Anyone got more on that?

[kapkomet]

There is a new law somewhere in committee at the federal level right now to more fully disclose executive pay to the public.  Real compensation, non-cash included, is to be given out in plain language terms.  This could help give the markets more complete information on just how much profit companies are throwing away at a small handful of people.  Stocks will suffer for it.  Boards will force companies to tighten up on that.  At least, thats the theory anyway.

 

Not sure where the law/reg is right now.  Anyone got more on that?

I know that GAAP (Accounting regulations) is changing so that all options, etc. for executives are reported. Part of S-OX has some of those requirements as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

I know that GAAP (Accounting regulations) is changing so that all options, etc. for executives are reported.  Part of S-OX has some of those requirements as well.

 

This was a market thing, not so much GAAP. And I don't think they are amending Sarbanes Oxley. I'll go find it...

 

Found it:

http://hr.blr.com/display.cfm/id/17749

 

Its a new SEC reg.

[Balta1701]

There is a new law somewhere in committee at the federal level right now to more fully disclose executive pay to the public.  Real compensation, non-cash included, is to be given out in plain language terms.  This could help give the markets more complete information on just how much profit companies are throwing away at a small handful of people.  Stocks will suffer for it.  Boards will force companies to tighten up on that.  At least, thats the theory anyway.

But of course, the counterpoint to that "theory" is to say that if a company knows what all of its competitors are paying their execs in total...they will actually have to pay more in order to "stay competitive" or "attract top talent" or whatever other B.S. they use every time they give one of those massive CEO contracts out. If half of the money was hidden as stock options and unreported...then it also is unreported to the guy who wants that same contract.

[NorthSideSox72]

But of course, the counterpoint to that "theory" is to say that if a company knows what all of its competitors are paying their execs in total...they will actually have to pay more in order to "stay competitive" or "attract top talent" or whatever other B.S. they use every time they give one of those massive CEO contracts out.  If half of the money was hidden as stock options and unreported...then it also is unreported to the guy who wants that same contract.

 

Executives know what other executives make.

 

The market pressure is more important in this case, I think. Boards want to make money. That will override any pressure that any single CEO candidate might bring. Boards are all about stock performance. This won't be a fix-all, but it will likely have a significant positive effect.

[Balta1701]

Executives know what other executives make.

 

The market pressure is more important in this case, I think.  Boards want to make money.  That will override any pressure that any single CEO candidate might bring.  Boards are all about stock performance.  This won't be a fix-all, but it will likely have a significant positive effect.

I think you'd be surprised how much cronyism there actually can be on those boards. Several companies have definately been more about enriching each other than about stock price over the last few years. That's the only way some of those gigantic severance bonus packages could have come about.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and by the way...I think tomorrow looks like it may well be a very very bad day for the stock market.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, and by the way...I think tomorrow looks like it may well be a very very bad day for the stock market.

 

 

What's your reasoning? Is there a technical point being hit, or do you mean Bush's speech is going to rattle the markets? There certainly are some fiscally huge things he plans to discuss - health insurance, oil, etc.

[Balta1701]

 

What's your reasoning?  Is there a technical point being hit, or do you mean Bush's speech is going to rattle the markets?  There certainly are some fiscally huge things he plans to discuss - health insurance, oil, etc.

Google.

[jackie hayes]

Google.

Giggle.

[bmags]

Oh really?  I think that's just the opposite.

 

oh you're right, in japan, hong kong, europe, and singapore among others you are born into your class and never can grow or drop. How could i forget?

[3E8]

I didn't hear that the rates rose today..

[NorthSideSox72]

Google.

 

I don't know if Google's volatility will really push the markets that profoundly. I guess we'll find out shortly.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know if Google's volatility will really push the markets that profoundly.  I guess we'll find out shortly.

 

Well after the opening the NASD is down and the Dow is up. Google recovered from being at $350 after the suspension was lifted to be at just under $390 now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well after the opening the NASD is down and the Dow is up.  Google recovered from being at $350 after the suspension was lifted to be at just under $390 now.

I sort of figured. Google is a bellweather, but it's earnings report alone wasn't going to cause a market panic. More would be needed (and that may be coming).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I sort of figured.  Google is a bellweather, but it's earnings report alone wasn't going to cause a market panic.  More would be needed (and that may be coming).

 

 

Its all about Boeing today. They had a boffo earnings report out this morning.

[southsider2k5]

I sort of figured.  Google is a bellweather, but it's earnings report alone wasn't going to cause a market panic.  More would be needed (and that may be coming).

 

All of the indicies have had a nice bounce. The NASD has pared its losses and near break even on the day. The Dow is nicely in the plus column now, by about 1/2%.