Forget Subway, you want to work at JCPenny's. Startng salary 1st Year: $53M per Month

[T-post Tom]

By KAREN TALLEY

Ronald Johnson, who joined J.C. Penney Co. JCP -0.70% as chief executive in November, received $53.3 million in total compensation from the retailer last year.

Mr. Johnson, a former Apple Inc. executive, received a base salary of $375,000 and $52.7 million in stock awards, according to a regulatory filing. Mr. Johnson's performance-based bonus was $236,000, which the company said was pro-rated based on his period of service during the fiscal year. He also received compensation valued at $13,000 for personal use of the company's aircraft.

Myron "Mike" Ullman, whom Mr. Johnson replaced, received $34.6 million in compensation. Mr. Ullman received $1.49 million in salary, $11.4 million in stock awards and $3.6 million in stock option awards. Mr. Ullman's performance-based bonus was $1.9 million and the change in the value of his pension plan was $857,000. Mr. Ullman also received $15.3 million in "other compensation" that included a $10.1 million "transition services," payout, $4.8 million for stock options that would have been forfeited and $363,000 for personal use of the company's aircraft.

J.C. Penney brought on a number of other executives during the year, including a president, a chief operating officer and a chief talent officer, all of whom received multi-million dollar signing bonuses.

The company is in the midst of trying to reinvent itself, eschewing its old way of constant daily promotions and relying largely on single prices and offering numerous "stores within stores."

In its annual report filed earlier this week, the new strategy is listed under "risk factors." The company says there is no guarantee it will be able to get its new approach in place and if it doesn't, the business and financial results could be adversely affected. Penney also says changes to its pricing strategies could result in "a prolonged decline" in sales.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...413344804.html

[mr. tegu]

I always liked Penneys and I too found the new price structure to be strange. People want to feel they are getting a good deal and they don't feel that way when they are paying a "full" price. If a shirt cost $15 at the everyday price or it cost $15 but is on sale from $20 people will by the "sale" item in larger quantities simply because they are conditioned to believe "sale" means good price and value.

Their price structure was interesting to try, but they will probably be the last ones to try it. They will better off by bringing back "sales."

[Prison Bitch]

Too many firms are going "everyday low price" format. It's dumb. Promotions work. People are psychological buyers. Some will go to WalMart for the first format, but others want the "deal." This new CEO proved he lacked any sense of originality trying to lamely copy WalMart. Hope he fails miserably for being thoughtless and spineless.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Promotions work. People are psychological buyers. Some will go to WalMart for the first format, but others want the "deal."

Especially on women...

Hell, you could put "SALE" on something and actually INCREASE the price and women would buy it.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by loochy

Especially on women...

Hell, you could put "SALE" on something and actually INCREASE the price and women would buy it.

Repped.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Thanks. I feel like the "99%" direct their anger at the wrong targets. Ideally, businesses would all be run by the most talented people thus ensuring that the economy thrives, jobs are plentiful, and everyone wins (albeit to wildly varying degrees).

The economy is an ecosystem, and these occupy tools are like the little Plover birds that pick food from alligators' teeth. The alligator makes the kill, and the alligator eats the bulk of the meal. The bird gets to eat the scraps because he provides a little bit of value to the alligator. If the bird decided to stop cleaning teeth and chose instead to eat straight from the antelope carcas, the bird would die.

Thus the bird has two choices; enjoy the scraps or kill an antelope. If the bird doesn't possess the necessary skills to kill an antelope, I would suggest that it do everything it can to make sure those teeth are clean and healthy thus enabling the gator to keep catching prey. There are plenty of birds, but there are only so many gators.

The alligators and plover birds is a good example.

The problem as I see it though, is that the alligators have gotten so efficient at what they do, that their profit is now coming in at the expense of the environment they're in. The alligators have been in control for so long that they've altered the rules/laws to favor themselves to a great degree. Exponentially more than at any time in previous history. And the changes they've made benefit themselves to such a large degree, while not benefitting the birds, that it has now damaged the environment and created this inequality.

Now there are too many birds and not enough scraps to feed them all. There used to be 10,000 alligators and 10 million birds. And that system worked well for a long time. But the biggest alligators have now killed off the majority of the smaller alligators. So now we have 100 alligators, and 100,000,000 birds. Which is not sustainable. The giant alligators didn't necessarily do anything wrong. I don't hate the giant alligators for it. They just did what giant alligators do. But that doesn't change the fact that the ecosystem is not sustainable for the current number of birds and alligators.

It has nothing to do with what is morally fair. It has everything to do with what is sustainable. The current environment is not sustainable. It's that simple. The giant alligators have every right to do what they do. But if the environment cannot find equilibrium enough to sustain the drastic change in the numbers of alligators and birds, then the birds are going to suffer and die because there's too many of them and not enough alligators providing scraps. It's also infinitely harder for smaller alligators to survive and grow, because the giant alligators are so big, they quickly eat the smaller alligators before they have a chance to grow. And like you said, the birds don't have the capability to kill an antelope themselves, so they're left relying on the giant alligators. Which they can't do because there's still not enough scraps.

The alligators don't want to change. And the birds don't have the ability to change the environment. So here we are left with an unsustainable ecosystem. I don't care about what's fair here. I care about what's sustainable. And you can't convince me that the current environment is sustainable. Just as in nature, an unsustainable system such as this eventually fails. And when that happens, the giant alligators are the only ones that won't suffer.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Fish

wall of text

Thanks for looking at this from a practical and analytical point of view instead of the all too common "bitching and whining because they have more than me" point of view.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

The alligators and plover birds is a good example.

The problem as I see it though, is that the alligators have gotten so efficient at what they do, that their profit is now coming in at the expense of the environment they're in. The alligators have been in control for so long that they've altered the rules/laws to favor themselves to a great degree. Exponentially more than at any time in previous history. And the changes they've made benefit themselves to such a large degree, while not benefitting the birds, that it has now damaged the environment and created this inequality.

Now there are too many birds and not enough scraps to feed them all. There used to be 10,000 alligators and 10 million birds. And that system worked well for a long time. But the biggest alligators have now killed off the majority of the smaller alligators. So now we have 100 alligators, and 100,000,000 birds. Which is not sustainable. The giant alligators didn't necessarily do anything wrong. I don't hate the giant alligators for it. They just did what giant alligators do. But that doesn't change the fact that the ecosystem is not sustainable for the current number of birds and alligators.

It has nothing to do with what is morally fair. It has everything to do with what is sustainable. The current environment is not sustainable. It's that simple. The giant alligators have every right to do what they do. But if the environment cannot find equilibrium enough to sustain the drastic change in the numbers of alligators and birds, then the birds are going to suffer and die because there's too many of them and not enough alligators providing scraps. It's also infinitely harder for smaller alligators to survive and grow, because the giant alligators are so big, they quickly eat the smaller alligators before they have a chance to grow. And like you said, the birds don't have the capability to kill an antelope themselves, so they're left relying on the giant alligators. Which they can't do because there's still not enough scraps.

The alligators don't want to change. And the birds don't have the ability to change the environment. So here we are left with an unsustainable ecosystem. I don't care about what's fair here. I care about what's sustainable. And you can't convince me that the current environment is sustainable. Just as in nature, an unsustainable system such as this eventually fails. And when that happens, the giant alligators are the only ones that won't suffer.

Leaving the analogy aside, what makes the current state unsustainable?

And to your point about small alligators struggling to become large alligators, the more complex the tax system and the more dense the regulatory environment, the bigger the advantage of the large alligators.

[Graystoke]

When did JC Penny Start selling Alligators?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I always liked Penneys and I too found the new price structure to be strange. People want to feel they are getting a good deal and they don't feel that way when they are paying a "full" price. If a shirt cost $15 at the everyday price or it cost $15 but is on sale from $20 people will by the "sale" item in larger quantities simply because they are conditioned to believe "sale" means good price and value.

Their price structure was interesting to try, but they will probably be the last ones to try it. They will better off by bringing back "sales."

Yep, I don't really care how much the guy got paid, he was an idiot for doing what he did.

The JCPenney model requires people to get off of their butts, get in there car, go to the store, find a parking spot and then walk in and buy something. Everyday "value" pricing is not the "call to action" to get them to do that. They can put it off and do it anytime with his model.

Better yet, find it on line and order it.

I worked at Dillards for 5 years, and it was always about a sale. If there were no sale adds running, there were no customers to speak of.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Leaving the analogy aside, what makes the current state unsustainable?

And to your point about small alligators struggling to become large alligators, the more complex the tax system and the more dense the regulatory environment, the bigger the advantage of the large alligators.

The current economic trends should be proof enough that the environment isn't improving adequately and isn't sustainable. The gap keeps getting bigger. Growth has been limited to those at the top. Right now, we're expecting it to defy logic and somehow trickle down. That's obviously not happened. And without change, it's exponentially more likely that it will topple, as opposed to trickling down. It doesn't matter what model you use, economic or otherwise. When you have unchecked growth and power in one small minority player in the environment, it slows down overall growth for the environment as a whole. There must be a natural balance for growth as a whole.

I agree that the tax system is a huge part of the problem. But the tax system is the way it is because the large alligators are the ones with the greatest influence on it. And they will of course influence it in ways beneficial to themselves first and foremost. You can view the government as a game warden. But instead of managing what's best for the environment as a whole, the game warden is allowing one species to grow unchecked, and is even providing further incentive for that species' growth beyond control. All because the alligator is giving the game warden huge chunks of antelope for allowing the unchecked growth. And while the birds have far greater numbers, they're still unable to provide the game warden with any antelope meat, because all they have are scraps that they're highly dependent on.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

The current economic trends should be proof enough that the environment isn't improving adequately and isn't sustainable. The gap keeps getting bigger. Growth has been limited to those at the top. Right now, we're expecting it to defy logic and somehow trickle down. That's obviously not happened. And without change, it's exponentially more likely that it will topple, as opposed to trickling down. It doesn't matter what model you use, economic or otherwise. When you have unchecked growth and power in one small minority player in the environment, it slows down overall growth for the environment as a whole. There must be a natural balance for growth as a whole.

I don't notice any difference when the ultra rich get richer. I rarely rub elbows with them at all. You're not really offering an explanation about why this is unsustainable here.

Originally Posted by Fish

I agree that the tax system is a huge part of the problem. But the tax system is the way it is because the large alligators are the ones with the greatest influence on it. And they will of course influence it in ways beneficial to themselves first and foremost. You can view the government as a game warden. But instead of managing what's best for the environment as a whole, the game warden is allowing one species to grow unchecked, and is even providing further incentive for that species' growth beyond control. All because the alligator is giving the game warden huge chunks of antelope for allowing the unchecked growth. And while the birds have far greater numbers, they're still unable to provide the game warden with any antelope meat, because all they have are scraps that they're highly dependent on.

The voters have the final say and most of the voters who support heavy regulation and complex taxation seem to be the same ones complaining about the rich getting richer. Are they just dupes of the 1%?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't notice any difference when the ultra rich get richer. I rarely rub elbows with them at all. You're not really offering an explanation about why this is unsustainable here.



The voters have the final say and most of the voters who support heavy regulation and complex taxation seem to be the same ones complaining about the rich getting richer. Are they just dupes of the 1%?

You haven't noticed any economic differences over the last decade or so? I find that very hard to believe, unless you're expecting some rich snob in a top hat and longcoat to stop you on the street and empty your pockets while laughing and puffing on a fancy cigarette holder. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

You haven't noticed any economic differences over the last decade or so? I find that very hard to believe, unless you're expecting some rich snob in a top hat and longcoat to stop you on the street and empty your pockets while laughing and puffing on a fancy cigarette holder. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

No, I haven't noticed any economic differences that seem to be caused by the rich getting richer. Tell me about the ones you've seen.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, I haven't noticed any economic differences that seem to be caused by the rich getting richer. Tell me about the ones you've seen.

Pat, I have no intention of playing your Feigning Ignorance game in the face of obvious US economic downturn. Let's either discuss the topic, or respectfully disagree.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

Pat, I have no intention of playing your Feigning Ignorance game in the face of obvious US economic downturn. Let's either discuss the topic, or respectfully disagree.

That's fine. That feeling you have seems to be class envy to me more than any well thought out economic cause and effect observation.