<p>I have long suspected that the people I chat with here are a more high-class crowd than I am myself—and now I know it’s true! :-)</p>
<p>skyhook, from what I can see of your posts, you’re pretty darn high class. 
</p>
<p>Proudmom, you are exactly on the money (pun intended) with this one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder, just musing, if there would be a way to deal with this. I am at a loss. Maybe a law saying you cannot sit on the board of directors for anyone who sits on your board? The lobbyists would be out in billion dollar force to prevent that law. But, it would be a good law, I think.</p>
<p>Bay- unions have nothing to do with the installation of water heaters at someones home.
It more likely has something to do with the pay of the CEO of the home improvement store.</p>
<p>I just wanted to see who on CC would admit they are top 1%, kind of like the admitted thread without a lot of chit chat.</p>
<p>I’m curious if anyone has any examples of this ‘cross-pollination’ (sic) of boards of directors. I hear a lot of talk about it here on CC but I don’t recall anyone providing information about which corporations are examples. I’m not as familiar with U.S boards but I do know that in Canada, there are governance issues at many large corporations/financial institutions, etc. which restrict the number of boards you may serve on, what type of companies they are, etc. I would actually be pretty surprised if similar policies were not in existence in the U.S.</p>
<p>AIG was known to have several cross pollinated board members. Candidly I work for a large employer with that issue, 3-4 of our directors also sit on each others boards…different industries represented (retail, utility, etc) but they all are buddies nonetheless. (same industry cross pollination is known to have anti trust issues, so that happens less often, but it does still happen…and in more private/closely held situations it is commonplace). Also some media play on this issue with an oil company, maybe remembef reading something in Tx literature with Cameron oil?</p>
<p>Google “interlocking directorate” for articles and examples.</p>
<p>Apple, Google, Tesla, Daimler, Caterpillar, Safeway, Paypal, Youtube, Hewlett Packard, Ebay, etc.</p>
<p>All these boards share and they have come and gone.</p>
<p>Well, also, just for one example, Jamie Dimon is on the board for the New York Federal Reserve Bank. I mean, really? come on.</p>
<p>There’s nothing that governs this. There is a shocking lack of law in this area.</p>
<p>Two of the greatest turn-around stories in corporate America were orchestrated by CEO’s earning $1 per year (Iacocca & Jobs). Sure they profited when they cashed in their stock options, but only after they had succeeded. Every form of compensation in life (even for basketball players) is contingent on performance- but not CEO pay.</p>
<p>Both Iacocca and Jobs were wealthy beyond their wildest dreams at that point; they took the jobs for ego purposes. They had absolutely nothing to lose financially and nothin gut upside. While the reference to their $1 pay is a fun datapoint, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the success of the turnaround. It was showmanship and theatre–but good theatre. </p>
<p>Tend to find agreement on CEO comp with you. CEO comp can be tied to performance if annual bonuses weren’t such a big piece of their take home pay; annual earnings are easily manipulated. Success can only be measured validly over a 3-5 year horizon in a large corp. And these mega golden parachutes negotiated up front in case of failure need to stop. The argument that it’s “market” is true but it’s a self defined market created by those interlocked director buds.</p>
<p>In Hawaii, with many of the homes in the top 6 figures, there are quite a lot of people who may have net worth that approaches or is in the top 1% but many do NOT have incomes that are in the top 1%–$300+K.<br>
This is why many families and households are VERY large (17+ in some households; 3 bedroom homes with 3 generations living there–grandparents, adult kids AND their children). They collectively may have a net worth of over $1.2M as a household but not as individuals or even nuclear families. Even if they might, many do not have LIQUID assets to pay bills with, tho on paper they have high value real estate.
I know many families with multi-generations living under one roof, even before the economy tanked. Now with the recession, there are just more under that roof. Even if you add all the incomes of all the 4+ adults in the households with all their multiple jobs, you will probably not get to $300K in income.</p>
<p>That’s a lot of people under one roof. </p>
<p>I can’t live with my parents or my siblings.</p>
<p>They are nice people, but…no.</p>
<p>And my wife definitely can’t. :)</p>
<p>Himom…doesn’t anybody like privacy in your neck of the woods?</p>
<p>And with all those people…maybe the household income is over 300,000?</p>
<p>Oops…you answered my last question.</p>
<p>Sure, people LIKE privacy, but it is a luxury that many unfortunately can’t afford. One of my sibs lives in a house with her H & MIL. They will be adding a young child to the mix soon. Her BIL & SIL w/ kids (who have recently left the nest) live with SIL’s parents.</p>
<p>The combined family has a lot of pros and cons. One of the biggest issues is housing is so expensive in our state. Another is frankly as folks age, they DO need some help getting around, shopping, errands, etc. Pooling income, meals, maintenance, ultilities can have benefits as well. Even with the combined incomes, many households don’t reach $300K. Many of our state jobs pay around $40-50K for a “good” salary with college degree & experience. You would need 6+ such incomes to get to $300K.</p>
<p>We are grateful that we have been able to have our own dwelling that we lived in with just our kids (who have now both flown the nest). H & my combined annual income is well below $300K, but we have no complaints.</p>
<p>Himom…the way people you describe live is more efficient and less expensive …and obviously…people do not need to make $300,000 to live well…</p>
<p>Not sure living with my extended family is considered living well. I would rather live in a hut by myself than in a palace with my extended family.</p>
<p>Dstark, define ‘live well’,lol</p>
<p>post 114. Thank you, very informative.</p>
<p>someone living well under 300,000 - I hope they can. In the rural area I live in, people live fairly well on very limited incomes because they raise the majority of their own food, and they hunt. As far as I can tell this lifestyle is only possible for those locals who have inherited their land. </p>
<p>Sometimes I read on this board that hunger is not a problem in this country. This seemed like it could be a true statement to me. After all this is the USA. But finally I decided to google it. I am only linking to one of the most mainstream sites I found. </p>
<p>[Hunger</a> at Home: Crisis in America - ABC News](<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger_at_home/]Hunger”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger_at_home/)
^^lots of stories</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[HUNGER</a> HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News](<a href=“Shocking Need: American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News”>Shocking Need: American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News)</p>
<p>Depends on the person…what the person wants…</p>
<p>"As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, “Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011.”</p>
<p>alh, This is an embarassment…</p>
<p>I had no idea till I googled it!</p>
<p>I think if there isn’t money to feed children, there must not be money for prescription meds either… asthma, diabetes,</p>
<p>if someone suggests it is because their parents bought electronics instead, I am going to barf</p>