CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

[ultimatebob]

If millions of people watched tiddly-winks matches in sports arenas and on TV, the top player would also be making a seven figure salary and getting monster product endorsement deals. Nobody is interested in watching tiddly-winks matches, though, so they aren't going to make any money.

Likewise, if there wasn't a strong demand for talented people to run multi-billion dollar corporations, CEO's wouldn't be making those huge salaries. There is, however, so they do.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
If millions of people watched tiddly-winks matches in sports arenas and on TV, the top player would also be making a seven figure salary and getting monster product endorsement deals. Nobody is interested in watching tiddly-winks matches, though, so they aren't going to make any money.

Likewise, if there wasn't a strong demand for talented people to run multi-billion dollar corporations, CEO's wouldn't be making those huge salaries. There is, however, so they do.

Actually, CEOs do suffer from a strong 'old boys club' and many essentially set their own salaries. Athletes are at least legitimately paid by 'someone else'.

Many CEOs are dynamic, talented, valuable people. But their wages are not particularly market driven, and it is a certainty that many are badly overpaid for what they deliver.

I have a great idea - pay CEOs entirely in stock options, and FORCE them to xercise the options at the expiry date, whether they make money or not

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
If millions of people watched tiddly-winks matches in sports arenas and on TV, the top player would also be making a seven figure salary and getting monster product endorsement deals. Nobody is interested in watching tiddly-winks matches, though, so they aren't going to make any money.

Likewise, if there wasn't a strong demand for talented people to run multi-billion dollar corporations, CEO's wouldn't be making those huge salaries. There is, however, so they do.

Again, as I have said before, *YOU* make a concious decision to watch sports and pay for those performances. Nobody BUT compensation comissions on controlled boards set CEO salaries.

The ignorance of the salary process for CEOs is staggering. People actually think it's a free market. However, it isn't. Your blind acceptance of it tells me a lot about your stance in life. More or less, too many people excuse bad behavior and are willing to roll over and take it up the arse.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.

I never said that. You never addressed my third point, either. By allowing my second point you admit that what you said was not necessarily true-- that players make most of what they bring to a team monetarily.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
If millions of people watched tiddly-winks matches in sports arenas and on TV, the top player would also be making a seven figure salary and getting monster product endorsement deals. Nobody is interested in watching tiddly-winks matches, though, so they aren't going to make any money.

Likewise, if there wasn't a strong demand for talented people to run multi-billion dollar corporations, CEO's wouldn't be making those huge salaries. There is, however, so they do.

The supply of talented managers so far outstrips the demand at the CEO level that your claim is ridiculous on its face. In addition, CEOs make stupid mistakes all the time, such as Carly Fiorina's $500M blunder on implementing Itanium servers at HP. CEOs are fired for lack of performance all the time, and not just in scapegoating efforts. Are you claiming that CEOs get their positions based on ability?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.

I never said that. You never addressed my third point, either. By allowing my second point you admit that what you said was not necessarily true-- that players make most of what they bring to a team monetarily.

I adressed your third point, and I explicitly stated that using expectations of value in lieu of value is not unusual. Nearly everyone's salary is set before they actually deliver any work, and adjusted for the future based on past performance.

The point is teams pay players high salaraies because they make more money that way. Period.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

Yup, and much of the increased revenue can be attibuted to the player himself.

Poll fans and ask them who their favorite player on the Lakers is. Kobe Bryant.

Ask them who they come to the game to see. Kobe Bryant.

Whose jersey are they wearing? #8, Kobe Bryant.

It's really obvious that he has a strong effect on the success of the team, both in winning and making money, and thats why he's paid more than benchwarming scrubs.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value".

Works like that for any job. You sign up, get a contract of some sort with a salary, the company has no idea whether you're going to perform as advertised, or become a drunkard, lazy, get into a car accident, or whatever.

If teams are wary of aging players they can stick with short term contracts.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

Yup, and much of the increased revenue can be attibuted to the player himself.

Poll fans and ask them who their favorite player on the Lakers is. Kobe Bryant.

Ask them who they come to the game to see. Kobe Bryant.

Whose jersey are they wearing? #8, Kobe Bryant.

It's really obvious that he has a strong effect on the success of the team, both in winning and making money, and thats why he's paid more than benchwarming scrubs.

Show us a pic of your Bush jersey.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

Yup, and much of the increased revenue can be attibuted to the player himself.

Poll fans and ask them who their favorite player on the Lakers is. Kobe Bryant.

Ask them who they come to the game to see. Kobe Bryant.

Whose jersey are they wearing? #8, Kobe Bryant.

It's really obvious that he has a strong effect on the success of the team, both in winning and making money, and thats why he's paid more than benchwarming scrubs.

Show us a pic of your Bush jersey.

http://www.itsalreadysigned4u.com/shop/media/images/product_detail/reg9.jpg

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.

I never said that. You never addressed my third point, either. By allowing my second point you admit that what you said was not necessarily true-- that players make most of what they bring to a team monetarily.

I adressed your third point, and I explicitly stated that using expectations of value in lieu of value is not unusual. Nearly everyone's salary is set before they actually deliver any work, and adjusted for the future based on past performance.

The point is teams pay players high salaraies because they make more money that way. Period.

Just saying you addressed my third point doesn't mean you actually did. I'm going to ask again: how do you determine how much a particular player affects the bottom line?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
The supply of talented managers so far outstrips the demand at the CEO level that your claim is ridiculous on its face. In addition, CEOs make stupid mistakes all the time, such as Carly Fiorina's $500M blunder on implementing Itanium servers at HP. CEOs are fired for lack of performance all the time, and not just in scapegoating efforts. Are you claiming that CEOs get their positions based on ability?

Carly is a great example of how stupid CEOs can be. The whole HPaq merger was horrible, it destroyed billions in investor wealth.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.

I never said that. You never addressed my third point, either. By allowing my second point you admit that what you said was not necessarily true-- that players make most of what they bring to a team monetarily.

I adressed your third point, and I explicitly stated that using expectations of value in lieu of value is not unusual. Nearly everyone's salary is set before they actually deliver any work, and adjusted for the future based on past performance.

The point is teams pay players high salaraies because they make more money that way. Period.

Just saying you addressed my third point doesn't mean you actually did. I'm going to ask again: how do you determine how much a particular player affects the bottom line?

In your case, I would start by learning to read.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.

I never said that. You never addressed my third point, either. By allowing my second point you admit that what you said was not necessarily true-- that players make most of what they bring to a team monetarily.

I adressed your third point, and I explicitly stated that using expectations of value in lieu of value is not unusual. Nearly everyone's salary is set before they actually deliver any work, and adjusted for the future based on past performance.

The point is teams pay players high salaraies because they make more money that way. Period.

Just saying you addressed my third point doesn't mean you actually did. I'm going to ask again: how do you determine how much a particular player affects the bottom line?

In your case, I would start by learning to read.

That's mumbo jumbo. It doesn't answer my question at all-- I could never have guessed that you meant THAT to be the answer to #3. Past performance of a single player isn't a good predictor of how many playoff games you will have. Also, while playoff ticket sales are probably worth a decent amount, I'm sure they're not close to the whole picture-- and they depend also on how many games you play home and away.

Instead of a fuzzy phrase, how would you actually predict it? I want to know. There's no way that salaries are fixed this way-- I think it's based largely on off-the-cuff estimates about how well the player will help the team's overall play (which you can't know beforehand based on simple stats), the need to fill an outstanding position, how many others are bidding on a free agent at the time, etc. etc. etc.

It's simple in your world, but not in the real world. Maybe you should learn to think.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
That's mumbo jumbo. It doesn't answer my question at all-- I could never have guessed that you meant THAT to be the answer to #3. Past performance of a single player isn't a good predictor of how many playoff games you will have. Also, while playoff ticket sales are probably worth a decent amount, I'm sure they're not close to the whole picture-- and they depend also on how many games you play home and away.

Instead of a fuzzy phrase, how would you actually predict it? I want to know. There's no way that salaries are fixed this way-- I think it's based largely on off-the-cuff estimates about how well the player will help the team's overall play (which you can't know beforehand based on simple stats), the need to fill an outstanding position, how many others are bidding on a free agent at the time, etc. etc. etc.

It's simple in your world, but not in the real world. Maybe you should learn to think.

No, that's not mumbo-jumbo; that and other similar estimates are all you have to go on - basically, you try to estimate how much of a performance impact a player will have, and how much you can sell the 'hype' for. That's it. It's not rocket science; rocket science is much more predictable.

FTR, it's not simple at all, but the basic principle is; if the player is 'worth it' you pay the price (unless a salary cap prevents you from doing so).

Since my answer was clearly and obviously related to your point #3, I think my little jab was pretty justified; you're pretty far behind the 8-ball here though, and if I have a need to learn how to think, it's certainly not so that I can argue with you.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

http://www.itsalreadysigned4u.com/shop/media/images/product_detail/reg9.jpg

All I get is a image message stating "Image stolen from itsalreadysigned4u"! :laugh:

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't follow pro sports, don't listen to corporate music, and avoid most television and movies. They're whores also and I refuse to buy into media generated hype. So take your preconceived notions regarding my opinions and cram it right back up your ass.

How childish.

That doesn't excuse CEOs who make massive sums of money at the expense of the company they're supposed to be directing.

It does if they lead their company to prosperity and fortune.

The biggest problem is this. Once you get a CEO in and his buddies protect him, how can you fire him without causing the stock price to go down?

The flip side to that argument is that if a particular CEO is indeed leading his company to ruin, a stock hit is inevitable...far better to remove the source of the problem, suffer the short term stock price hit, and move the company in a new direction.

Many CEOs are dynamic, talented, valuable people. But their wages are not particularly market driven, and it is a certainty that many are badly overpaid for what they deliver.

It really begs the question of how do you place a price tag on something that is fairly intangible. The most successful CEOs in corporate America are not necessarily gauged by their own contributions, but rather their ability to build a talented team of individuals capable of executing a vision for the company.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't follow pro sports, don't listen to corporate music, and avoid most television and movies. They're whores also and I refuse to buy into media generated hype. So take your preconceived notions regarding my opinions and cram it right back up your ass.

How childish.

How quaint, I'm being called childish by the guy who's post was essentially "You're just jealous, neener neener neener."

That doesn't excuse CEOs who make massive sums of money at the expense of the company they're supposed to be directing.

It does if they lead their company to prosperity and fortune.[/quote]Yet the compensation we're seeing at some of this country's largest corporations has little or no basis on prosperity or fortune. If you think that being paid tens of millions of dollars to preside over sliding stock prices makes sense, there's really no point in arguing with you any further.

The biggest problem is this. Once you get a CEO in and his buddies protect him, how can you fire him without causing the stock price to go down?

The flip side to that argument is that if a particular CEO is indeed leading his company to ruin, a stock hit is inevitable...far better to remove the source of the problem, suffer the short term stock price hit, and move the company in a new direction.[/quote]Meanwhile the company has to pay out the terms of that CEOs contract, which was put together by the CEO and his buddies on the board to ensure that whether he did well as CEO or not, he's going to make out like a bandit when he gets fired. It's good to be the king.

Many CEOs are dynamic, talented, valuable people. But their wages are not particularly market driven, and it is a certainty that many are badly overpaid for what they deliver.

It really begs the question of how do you place a price tag on something that is fairly intangible. The most successful CEOs in corporate America are not necessarily gauged by their own contributions, but rather their ability to build a talented team of individuals capable of executing a vision for the company.[/quote]
Obviously the price tag is determined by finding the average employees wage and multiplying it by 262.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Many CEOs are dynamic, talented, valuable people. But their wages are not particularly market driven, and it is a certainty that many are badly overpaid for what they deliver.

It really begs the question of how do you place a price tag on something that is fairly intangible. The most successful CEOs in corporate America are not necessarily gauged by their own contributions, but rather their ability to build a talented team of individuals capable of executing a vision for the company.

Obviously the price tag is determined by finding the average employees wage and multiplying it by 262.

*ZING!!!!!!!*

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It really begs the question of how do you place a price tag on something that is fairly intangible.

The price tag is placed on it based on how much money the company makes, framed against the productivity of the workers. It is generally accepted that the price of a share of the stock helps represent this.

The most successful CEOs in corporate America are not necessarily gauged by their own contributions, but rather their ability to build a talented team of individuals capable of executing a vision for the company.

That, though, is their contribution, and shows results as if they had made every decision those people did. A CEO is type of manager--such people simply do not make direct contributions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

How quaint, I'm being called childish by the guy who's post was essentially "You're just jealous, neener neener neener."

That's not how I wrote it, but apparently that is how you perceive the world.

Yet the compensation we're seeing at some of this country's largest corporations has little or no basis on prosperity or fortune. If you think that being paid tens of millions of dollars to preside over sliding stock prices makes sense, there's really no point in arguing with you any further.

It doesn't make sense, but as I don't sit on the boards that choose to hire CEOs that lead their companies to ruin, I don't have much of an opinion on it...if this is the business model they choose to follow, so be it...I am not going to get upset over it.

Meanwhile the company has to pay out the terms of that CEOs contract, which was put together by the CEO and his buddies on the board to ensure that whether he did well as CEO or not, he's going to make out like a bandit when he gets fired. It's good to be the king.

It always has been and it always will be...those in power help others in power, and take care of themselves...rinse, wash and repeat. The only difference is that now, any of us has just as much of an opportunity to become the king ourselves...and choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior then the current kings of industry.

Obviously the price tag is determined by finding the average employees wage and multiplying it by 262.

If the skills and knowledge that a CEO brings to the table is worth that kind of salary multiplier, I fail to see the problem with it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

http://www.itsalreadysigned4u.com/shop/media/images/product_detail/reg9.jpg

All I get is a image message stating "Image stolen from itsalreadysigned4u"! :laugh:

Hmph, well it was a Reggie Bush USC jersey.

 

[JS80]

In other news, the average CEO is 262 times smarter than the average worker. The study also showed they are 262 times more productive than the average worker.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JS80
In other news, the average CEO is 262 times smarter than the average worker. The study also showed they are 262 times more productive than the average worker.

BS and you know it. Put up a link showing stats and proof?

 

[drinkmorejava]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: CPA
What/who exactly determines what overpaid is? If someone, or more appropriately, some skill is overpaid, then surely there is a limit to what that payment should be for a skill. So, what is it?

And as for real wages, the Treasury has stated that real wages went up 1.1% from 2001.

Overpaid is supposed to be determined by the Board, who is at the service of the investors. The investors are supposed to be able to vote, but if the majority of shares are held by intermediary institutions, then they are voted by proxy.

Those proxy votes are often "good ole boy" networks and/or investment advisors who want to curry i-banking favor with big institutions.

You see, the problem is not that they are overpaid, but that the basic tenant of a capitalistic system is that there are low barriers to entry and there is no collusion. However, at all levels of the system there is massive collusion at the top. The acceptance of that collusion, or the mere misunderstanding of the situation has caused the current scenario to play out.

If CPA or some other guru like Zendari (heh) has a logical explanation for how CEO pay is set and is NOT colluded with investment advisors and interlocking board members, I'd love to hear it.

However, all I hear is silly arguments that have little to no actual concrete knowledge of the entire system of executive compensation. The tools on this board come out to represent their beliefs with very little to support those beliefs. Largely they are ignorant to the actual mechanics of executive compensation, this is evidenced by their "its a free market" mentality.

Tapping your shoes and saying it while having your ears plugged doesn't make it true.

So there's no possibility that those "good ole boy" networks might just want to see a return on their investment instead of getting the CEO a few million more, which, more than likely, pales in comparison to the aforementioned investor's stock holdings

Furthermore, of course there are no job listings for CEOs, that would be daft. You can't just set a list of basic requirements, take an interview or two and get the job. Most of the time, headhunting companies are paid tens of thousands of dollars to search the whole country and research people out. You can't go looking to be a CEO, you have to be found; my bet is 90% of people here making more than 100k know exactly how this works.