TenuredVulture wrote:I do wonder if all superstars are overpaid. Assume the #1 ranked guy commands 100 million, while the #100 ranked guy gets $5 million. Both are outstanding executives. Is #1 really 20 times better than #100? Again, baseball metrics that divide wins/total payroll to evaluate get at this to an extent. Another way superstar pricing raises problems is the assumption that you need to pay 100 million to get the guy. That assumes that there is another company out there willing to pay 99 million, but is that true? I mean, how many Ryan Howards are there in the corporate world?

No, and he doesn't have to be. If he's expected to be 10% better, and his decision impacts a few $Billion, then the company should bid for the top executive. And all of that is even assuming we know how each executive ranks, which is impossible because it's not baseball.

Evaluating executives is more akin to using +/- to evaluate hockey player value. There are so many other factors affecting +/- that it takes a really long time to understand how good an individual player is.

If you really want to compare baseball to executive compensation, imagine that winning the world series resulted in a $10B windfall. What would the Yankees be doing to ensure that they have the best team possible? They are not going to let a top performer switch teams over a million dollars. That's the game that GM/Apple/JPMorgan are playing.

td11 wrote:

your average Reagan Republican

GM isn't doing it right.

So Putin's just gonna go ahead and annex Crimea despite sanctions. Obama's such a pussy and Putin is a beast of a psychopath.

td11 wrote:

Trickle down economics is proof that if you keep repeating something, that it becomes true in a lot of people's minds.

little tidbit I'll clue you guys in on: Eleven years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no cash, no hope and no jobs

trickle down my leg amirite

td11 wrote:

oh look, a camera? i want to fill up my vehicle with excess red tape that reagan cut, the tears of liberals, and rush's extra saliva

TenuredVulture wrote:GM isn't doing it right.

Yeah, they spent all their money on lobbyists and look where it got them! The owners still lost out to the union in bankruptcy proceedings -- mainly because GM wasn't allowed to have them.

Werthless wrote:If you really want to compare baseball to executive compensation, imagine that winning the world series resulted in a $10B windfall. What would the Yankees be doing to ensure that they have the best team possible? They are not going to let a top performer switch teams over a million dollars. That's the game that GM/Apple/JPMorgan are playing.

if only this analogy made any sense

But getting back to politics, how 'bout that Bruce Rauner?

wonderin' about all these people already writing in Hilary for 2016. if she's so damn electable, why isn't she in there right now?

pacino wrote:wonderin' about all these people already writing in Hilary for 2016. if she's so damn electable, why isn't she in there right now?

Obviously because our country is slightly more sexist than it is racist.

slugsrbad wrote:

pacino wrote:wonderin' about all these people already writing in Hilary for 2016. if she's so damn electable, why isn't she in there right now?

Obviously because our country is slightly more sexist than it is racist.

LOL. Love it.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:If you really want to compare baseball to executive compensation, imagine that winning the world series resulted in a $10B windfall. What would the Yankees be doing to ensure that they have the best team possible? They are not going to let a top performer switch teams over a million dollars. That's the game that GM/Apple/JPMorgan are playing.

if only this analogy made any sense

Hey man, does it makes sense than a WAR for CEOs? I'm trying to use the framework that TV introduced! This is a baseball site!

I think her time as Sec State improved her standing among independents and moderate Republicans, so her poll numbers are pretty awesome. She's gotten to spend the last 6 years first as Secretary of State which is an important position that's mostly above petty partisan politics, and now only chiming in on issues when she feels it is to her advantage. She's not taking tough votes in the Senate or getting investigated for closing down lanes of traffic or running a state that can't set up a working health exchange site or having her job performance evaluated by monthly job numbers. Finding a niche in American politics where you have near universal name ID, are seen as relevant, but don't have to say or do anything controversial is nice if you can manage it.

The heat of a campaign will turn her back into a regular politician and wipe away most of those gains pretty quickly, I'd imagine.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:If you really want to compare baseball to executive compensation, imagine that winning the world series resulted in a $10B windfall. What would the Yankees be doing to ensure that they have the best team possible? They are not going to let a top performer switch teams over a million dollars. That's the game that GM/Apple/JPMorgan are playing.

if only this analogy made any sense

Hey man, does it makes sense than a WAR for CEOs? I'm trying to use the framework that TV introduced! This is a baseball site!

As you've found probably more acutely than everyone else here, I confuse easily - and what got me this time was your mix of GM/Apple/JPMorgan, each of whom might be considered to be playing different sports than the others, hence not playing "THE game", but "the gameS".

But now I may see where you're going more clearly.

But, but - my strongest feeling is that the big-company CEO dodge in 21st century is a Schumpeterian dog's breakfast, more a political ("consensus management") than technical/practical skills-driven role/function, which increasingly becomes an image-polishing bullshit fest.

Is Lloyd Blankfein a financial genius? Jamie Dimon a banking swami? Barry Diller an internet seer? No; no; no. Not really; but they've insisted those assertions (or ones like them; 1st rule is, don't yourself publicly agree too directly about what you want people to believe most about you) about themselves are true, and made it their principal business to defend that notion (or one(s) like it), and it's not worth anyone's time or treasure to go about emphatically disproving it.

jerseyhoya wrote:She's gotten to spend the last 6 years first as Secretary of State which is an important position that's mostly above petty partisan politics

but they tried with Bengazi

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:She's gotten to spend the last 6 years first as Secretary of State which is an important position that's mostly above petty partisan politics

but they tried with Bengazi

Benghazi is exactly the sort of issue that will drag her back into being viewed as a regular politician once she's a candidate.