From annual compensation information contained in Proxy Statement filings with the US SEC, the table at the bottom below shows The Timberland Company's Top-Tier Executives Annual Total Compensation for each of the two consecutive full years of employment for the three years before it was acquired in 2011 and also VF Corp's Top-Tier Executives Annual Compensation for each of the two consecutive full years of employment for the past five years.
The Timberland Company's Top-Tier Executives Average Annual Pay and Employee Benefits increase was a blistering 43.5% per year for these three years and VF Corp's increase was 20.6% per year during the past five years. Thus, The Timberland Company is the very highest and V F Corp is the 7th highest of the 11 large New Hampshire-related Companies I have addressed so far.
- The Timberland Co +43.5% per year for three years
- Planet Fitness +40.7% per year for the past four years
- Sturm, Ruger & Co +30.8% per year for the past ten years
- Bottomline Technologies +29.1% per year for the past five years
- Eversource Energy +27.7% per year for the past five years
- Unitil Corp +23.4% per year for the past five years
- V F Corp +20.6% per year for the past five years
- PC Connection +17.9% per year for the past ten years
- Standex International +8.3% per year for the past five years
- White Mountain Insurance +8.1% per year for the past ten years
- Albany International +7.9% per year for the past five years
As you can see from the above table, New Hampshire Company non-executive workers really have had the deck stacked against them versus what is going on with the sky-high annual percentage pay and employee benefit raises of their Companies' Top-Tier Executives.
So which 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate could best help close this massive annual percentage pay raise gap between Top-Tier executives and New Hampshire non-executives?
More than anything needed to solve this thorny problem is to possess exceptionally strong financial and data science skills, coupled with a keen understanding of how businesses operate.
More than anything needed to solve this thorny problem is to possess exceptionally strong financial and data science skills, coupled with a keen understanding of how businesses operate.
Well, that should rule out any Presidential candidate who worked for the US Government, particularly in the past ten years, when these comparative pay raise results were so horrendous, not just in New Hampshire but also in every other US State.
That would rule out Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
That would rule out Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Of the Top Five Democratic Presidential candidates running in New Hampshire that would leave only Pete Buttigieg.
I think there is only one Democratic Presidential candidate who has the requisite financial acumen, data science skills and economic fairness to help turn the tide around on this massive, continuing US income inequality expansion caused mainly by the massive gap in annual percentage pay raises between executive and non-executive employees ..... Pete Buttigieg.
But let me go into more depth on my assessment of the main strengths and weaknesses of the other Top Four Candidates.
All four of them have a lot of Washington DC government experience and all four have well intentions.
My research has shown that both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are spot on when they assert that US Corporate Financial Corruption is rampant. But the problem is that neither of them have any clue on precisely the cause or how to effectively fix this huge problem which is the primary cause of the huge, continuing US income inequality expansion which has been occurring for decades. They don't understand precisely the mechanics of how large US Corps have expanded income inequality so dramatically in each year for decades. You can't fix something you don't sufficiently understand. It's insufficient to just grouchily complain about it all of the time without offering effective solutions.
Joe Biden is an extremely nice man but I think he is devoid of financial acumen. He is so naive on economic issues that he isn't even aware of the extent of this continuing huge US income inequality expansion or precisely its cause which has been occurring under his nose for the past forty plus years.
Nor is Biden aware of, or else has decided to ignore, just how huge the largest US tax shelters are which are located right under his nose in his home State of Delaware, mostly in one Wilmington, Delaware building. These Delaware tax shelters have substantially added to US income inequality each year.
Amy Klobuchar is also a very nice person but she has very little financial acumen.
Nor is Biden aware of, or else has decided to ignore, just how huge the largest US tax shelters are which are located right under his nose in his home State of Delaware, mostly in one Wilmington, Delaware building. These Delaware tax shelters have substantially added to US income inequality each year.
Amy Klobuchar is also a very nice person but she has very little financial acumen.
Similar to the way Republicans think, Amy successfully pushed strongly for tax breaks for the many Medical Companies in Minnesota but that has substantially expanded income inequality with no trickle down economic benefit to the middle and lower economic classes.
Also on the very negative side, both Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar voted for many years for the Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders which dramatically increased US income inequality expansion each year. On the positive side, voting for many years against these same Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
If you want four more years of huge US pay income inequality expansion like we have had in the past forty years, then Joe Biden is your man.
I also think Joe Biden would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump. At his advanced age, Biden has a very low energy level, whereas Trump, with his unbelievably high energy level, reminds me of the energizer bunny. US citizens want a highly energetic US President. Barack Obama clearly had it. Joe Biden at his advanced age clearly doesn't.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still both saddled with their pure Medicare For All positions which, because of its incredibly prohibitive cost and of its removal of existing health care insurance coverage that many people really like, is highly unpopular to US general election Presidential voters at large.
Bernie and Elizabeth are also very nice people but still don't know how large the ten-year cost of their Medicare For All will be. You don't propose something so huge without having a CBO-scored cost of it. Some outside pundits estimate the cost will run to in excess of $30 trillion over ten years, which will compound to in excess of $80 trillion over twenty years. Thus there would be a substantial amount of US government deficit spending needed to get this legislation passed and that would probably result in a US stock market crash, coupled with at best a deep US recession and maybe even a US depression. And there will be no money available to pay a dime of social security benefits to the elderly. Suffice it to say that neither Bernie nor Elizabeth are financial whizzes.
If either of them won the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, she or he would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential general election.
A very recent Jan 20-23, 2020 NY Times/Siena College poll of Iowa general election voters in the 2020 US Presidential general election showed that despite the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 9% in 2016, Iowa is clearly in play in 2020 if Pete Buttigieg is the candidate against Trump, with Trump winning by only 1% ..... Trump 45% to Pete's 44%. On the other hand, if the candidate is Bernie Sanders, Trump wins by 6% ..... Trump 48% to Bernie's 42%. And Pete Buttigieg even fares better against Trump than Joe Biden does in this key Iowa poll. Also in this poll, Trump beats both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar by 5% and Trump also beats Michael Bloomberg by 8%.
Also on the very negative side, both Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar voted for many years for the Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders which dramatically increased US income inequality expansion each year. On the positive side, voting for many years against these same Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
If you want four more years of huge US pay income inequality expansion like we have had in the past forty years, then Joe Biden is your man.
I also think Joe Biden would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump. At his advanced age, Biden has a very low energy level, whereas Trump, with his unbelievably high energy level, reminds me of the energizer bunny. US citizens want a highly energetic US President. Barack Obama clearly had it. Joe Biden at his advanced age clearly doesn't.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still both saddled with their pure Medicare For All positions which, because of its incredibly prohibitive cost and of its removal of existing health care insurance coverage that many people really like, is highly unpopular to US general election Presidential voters at large.
Bernie and Elizabeth are also very nice people but still don't know how large the ten-year cost of their Medicare For All will be. You don't propose something so huge without having a CBO-scored cost of it. Some outside pundits estimate the cost will run to in excess of $30 trillion over ten years, which will compound to in excess of $80 trillion over twenty years. Thus there would be a substantial amount of US government deficit spending needed to get this legislation passed and that would probably result in a US stock market crash, coupled with at best a deep US recession and maybe even a US depression. And there will be no money available to pay a dime of social security benefits to the elderly. Suffice it to say that neither Bernie nor Elizabeth are financial whizzes.
If either of them won the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, she or he would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential general election.
A very recent Jan 20-23, 2020 NY Times/Siena College poll of Iowa general election voters in the 2020 US Presidential general election showed that despite the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 9% in 2016, Iowa is clearly in play in 2020 if Pete Buttigieg is the candidate against Trump, with Trump winning by only 1% ..... Trump 45% to Pete's 44%. On the other hand, if the candidate is Bernie Sanders, Trump wins by 6% ..... Trump 48% to Bernie's 42%. And Pete Buttigieg even fares better against Trump than Joe Biden does in this key Iowa poll. Also in this poll, Trump beats both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar by 5% and Trump also beats Michael Bloomberg by 8%.
And this above poll saying that Pete Buttigieg is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump was reinforced later in the actual 2020 Iowa Democratic Presidential primary with the Edison Media entrance poll of Iowa voter preferences. On the question "Would you rather nominate a candidate who can beat Donald Trump?", the Iowa caucus voters chose as follows: Pete 24%, Biden 23%, Warren 16%, Klobuchar 16%, Sanders 15% and Other 6%.
I do think that Elizabeth Warren, with her consistently likable, charismatic, positive posture and fire in her belly, would stand a substantially better chance of beating Trump than Bernie would.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary but there are much better candidates to choose from in 2020 than there was in 2016 and also I feel that at his advanced age, Bernie now comes across too frequently as a grumpy old white guy. Further, the bulk of the US general election Presidential voters think that Bernie believes in Socialism more than he does US Capitalism.
On the other hand, Warren says she favors US capitalism but that it needs to work much fairer for the middle and lower US economic classes.
Further, Bernie Sanders wouldn't provide any coattails to Democratic candidates in tough US Senate States and tough US House Districts for their US Senate and US House races that will determine who will win control of both the US Senate and the US House.
On the other hand, of all the Democratic US Presidential candidates, Pete Buttigieg would provide the most coattails to the US Senate and the US House Democratic candidates in very tough races.
So far in my research of large US Corps I have shown that their Top-Tier Executives have been rewarded continually with just enormous annual percentage increases in pay and employee benefits, mostly stock equity compensation, to the extent that the key issue to US citizens should be the huge and continuing Income Inequality Expansion which is at the core of many critical problems the US faces.
While increasing the US federal minimum wage will help here, this would be just a mere drop in the bucket as compared to the fact that the annual percentage increase in the pay and employee benefits of Company non-executive employees are minuscule in relation to that of Company executive employees and this has been going on for decades. When Corporate CEOs and CFOs primarily view non-executive employees as Costs rather than as People, this is what happens. And neither political party has had the courage to take on US Corps here.
But this huge pay inequality problem also exists widely in the non-profit sector including in non-profit hospitals. And it also exists widely in state and local governments, especially in public education.
So who is causing these extremely high Top-Tier Executives annual pay percentage increases, which tend to be much higher than the Companies' actual annual financial performance?
Then the CEO establishes the pay standards for the Top-Tier Executives, which is reviewed by the Company's Board of Directors.
And the CEO also usually approves the overall pay and employee benefits annual percentage increases for each of the other levels of the Company's employees.
So who is this huge, continuing Company pay and employee benefit income inequality "on"?
Clearly it's "on" the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.
It's simple math. The lower the annual percentage raise for the Company's non-executive employees, the higher the Company's annual profits and thus also the higher the annual percentage raise for the Company's executives since their annual pay raise is usually tied by formula to Company profits.
I do think that Elizabeth Warren, with her consistently likable, charismatic, positive posture and fire in her belly, would stand a substantially better chance of beating Trump than Bernie would.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary but there are much better candidates to choose from in 2020 than there was in 2016 and also I feel that at his advanced age, Bernie now comes across too frequently as a grumpy old white guy. Further, the bulk of the US general election Presidential voters think that Bernie believes in Socialism more than he does US Capitalism.
On the other hand, Warren says she favors US capitalism but that it needs to work much fairer for the middle and lower US economic classes.
Further, Bernie Sanders wouldn't provide any coattails to Democratic candidates in tough US Senate States and tough US House Districts for their US Senate and US House races that will determine who will win control of both the US Senate and the US House.
On the other hand, of all the Democratic US Presidential candidates, Pete Buttigieg would provide the most coattails to the US Senate and the US House Democratic candidates in very tough races.
So far in my research of large US Corps I have shown that their Top-Tier Executives have been rewarded continually with just enormous annual percentage increases in pay and employee benefits, mostly stock equity compensation, to the extent that the key issue to US citizens should be the huge and continuing Income Inequality Expansion which is at the core of many critical problems the US faces.
While increasing the US federal minimum wage will help here, this would be just a mere drop in the bucket as compared to the fact that the annual percentage increase in the pay and employee benefits of Company non-executive employees are minuscule in relation to that of Company executive employees and this has been going on for decades. When Corporate CEOs and CFOs primarily view non-executive employees as Costs rather than as People, this is what happens. And neither political party has had the courage to take on US Corps here.
But this huge pay inequality problem also exists widely in the non-profit sector including in non-profit hospitals. And it also exists widely in state and local governments, especially in public education.
So who is causing these extremely high Top-Tier Executives annual pay percentage increases, which tend to be much higher than the Companies' actual annual financial performance?
And who is causing the annual minuscule raises for the company non-executive employees?
Generally it works like this.
The Company's Board of Directors set the pay standards for the total compensation of the CEO for each year.
The Company's Board of Directors set the pay standards for the total compensation of the CEO for each year.
And the CEO also usually approves the overall pay and employee benefits annual percentage increases for each of the other levels of the Company's employees.
So who is this huge, continuing Company pay and employee benefit income inequality "on"?
Clearly it's "on" the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.
It's simple math. The lower the annual percentage raise for the Company's non-executive employees, the higher the Company's annual profits and thus also the higher the annual percentage raise for the Company's executives since their annual pay raise is usually tied by formula to Company profits.
The end result is massive, continuing income inequality expansion.
And the only way it will be fixed is by using Pete Buttigieg-type data science skills to wisely design US Government tax legislation which gives companies very nice tax incentives for paying non-executive employees very well in a given year and which also requires companies to pay a luxury tax when executives are paid clearly too much in a given year or when non-executive employees are clearly paid too little in a given year.
And the only way it will be fixed is by using Pete Buttigieg-type data science skills to wisely design US Government tax legislation which gives companies very nice tax incentives for paying non-executive employees very well in a given year and which also requires companies to pay a luxury tax when executives are paid clearly too much in a given year or when non-executive employees are clearly paid too little in a given year.
Also, the US Government should require every Board of Directors of all US Companies and US Non-Profit Organizations to contain at least one worker representative.
In addition, it would be very helpful to dramatically increase the US Earned Income Tax Credit.
So, why hasn't it been fixed?
Because more than half of the US Congress, including surprisingly more than a few Democrats, are effectively controlled by the US Corps or because the US President is controlled by the US Corps who are vigorously fighting to be at the top of the list of US Corps continuing to expand income inequality.
So how do you solve that problem?
Vote for US Senators, US House members and a US President who aren't controlled by the US Corps which view their non-executive employees and contract workers as Costs rather than as People ..... they all don't, but a clear majority of them do.
Because more than half of the US Congress, including surprisingly more than a few Democrats, are effectively controlled by the US Corps or because the US President is controlled by the US Corps who are vigorously fighting to be at the top of the list of US Corps continuing to expand income inequality.
So how do you solve that problem?
Vote for US Senators, US House members and a US President who aren't controlled by the US Corps which view their non-executive employees and contract workers as Costs rather than as People ..... they all don't, but a clear majority of them do.
| FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | ||||
| Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | ||||
| The Timberland Company | 2010 | 2009 | 2009 | 2008 | 2008 | 2007 | |||
| Top-Tier | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | |||
| Executive | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | |||
| $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | ||||
| Jeffrey Swartz CEO | 4,086 | 3,991 | 3,991 | 1,742 | 1,742 | 1,864 | |||
| Carrie Teffner CFO | N/A | N/A | |||||||
| Michael Harrison Chief Brand Officer | 1,409 | 1,309 | 1,309 | 892 | 892 | 587 | |||
| Carden Welsh Chief Administrative Officer | 1,395 | 1,300 | 1,300 | 596 | |||||
| Danette Wineberg General Counsel | N/A | N/A | |||||||
| John Pazzani GM North America Consumer Direct and Global Retail Operations | 761 | 642 | |||||||
| John Crimmins Former CFO | N/A | N/A | 655 | 581 | |||||
| Eugene McCarthy Former GM North America | N/A | N/A | 928 | 465 | |||||
| Totals | 7,651 | 7,242 | 6,600 | 3,230 | 4,217 | 3,497 | |||
| Annual % Change vs Prior Year | 5.6% | 104.3% | 20.6% | ||||||
| 3 Year Average Per Year % Change | 43.5% | ||||||||
| FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | ||||||
| V.F. Corp Parent of | March | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | Dec | |||||
| The Timberland Company | 2019 | 2017 | 2017 | 2016 | 2016 | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 | 2014 | 2013 | |||||
| Top-Tier | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | |||||
| Executive | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | |||||
| $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | ||||||
| Rendle Chairman and CEO | 17,843 | 13,737 | 13,737 | 8,681 | 8,681 | 4,584 | 4,584 | 3,827 | 3,827 | 4,659 | |||||
| Roe CFO | 7,591 | 6,985 | 6,985 | 3,121 | 3,121 | 3,074 | |||||||||
| Baxter EVP | 3,533 | 3,860 | 3,860 | 2,477 | 2,503 | 2,477 | 2,477 | 4,140 | 4,140 | 4,607 | |||||
| Bailey EVP | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||
| Guerrini EVP | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||
| Wiseman Former Chairman | N/A | N/A | 16,300 | 13,155 | 13,155 | 17,833 | 17,833 | 11,787 | |||||||
| Salzburger Former VP | 3,824 | 3,640 | 3,640 | 3,337 | 3,337 | 3,536 | 3,536 | 5,560 | |||||||
| Shearer Former CFO | N/A | N/A | 5,390 | 2,855 | |||||||||||
| Totals | 28,967 | 24,582 | 28,406 | 17,919 | 34,245 | 26,627 | 23,553 | 29,336 | 34,726 | 29,468 | |||||
| Annual % Change vs Prior Year | 17.8% | 58.5% | 28.6% | -19.7% | 17.8% | ||||||||||
| 5 Year Average Per Year % Change | 20.6% |
