I was never Talking about hating the "Rich" or being Jealous of them. I was talking about the generalized Overpayment of CEO s compared to the generalized payment of average workers.
But you continue to work hard. Because yes everyone can "Get there". Just continue to put in 10 times the effort as everyone else......Mayb e one day youll become a Ceo based on your ability to peel 374 potatos per hour.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
The pie is infinite? Which pie? You mean how much wealth one can acquire? It's finite. It might be a large number, but it's finite. The world's population can only produce a certain amount of work, represented by money. Sure, one person could theoretically obtain all of the money in the world, but then it'd be worthless - only one person would have it, so no one else would really care. They'd probably just go back to bartering.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
As long as the government expands the money supply, there is indeed an infinite supply. However, many of the grunts (you, me, other middle class folks) are having their wages swept down by inflation (Real wages) and benefits constantly being lowered or taken from them while the Executive class gets more and more % of the available pie. Pensions for CEO's going up and being eliminated for everyone else. Wages for CEO's going up (Real wages) and going down for the rest of us.
People get their panties in a wad when their portion is going down while they are producing more and more (real wages down .1% since 2001 while productivity up 14.7%). Just like professional athletes, executives are overpaid.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
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.
What do you do Zendari? as far as your education level, professional field, company size, and position within that company?
I am quite curious as to your perspective.
As I mentioned before, I have my mba, under 30, almost earned my cfa designation, work at a fortune 100 company, and am a finance manager. I doubt Henry Silverman is worth 262 of me or my peers.
However, that is my perspective. What is yours?
This is one of the basic failures of unfettered capitalism. It is in the self-interest of people in power to grant themselves unfair amounts of resources, and you always need to have people in power to maintain societal structure. Of course, we know that the same thing happens in a corrupt capitalist society as well.
One easy solution would be to have a maximum salary cap, maybe even just on publicly-traded corporations. It will never happen. The very first realization would have to be that almost nobody performs services worth so much money, certainly not CEOs.
One easy solution would be to have a maximum salary cap, maybe even just on publicly-traded corporations. It will never happen. The very first realization would have to be that almost nobody performs services worth so much money, certainly not CEOs.
How could the pie be infinite if their piece of the pie is growing? Are you trying to say that a high tide raises all boats so therefore they are somehow justified? Unfortunately, that certainly isn't the case, especially considering the yachts they are floating on, which are just getting larger and larger.
I don't think that $11 million is too much for a successful CEO. The report also claims that the average in 2000 was over 300x.
I guess people only want athletes and movie stars to be the only people to achieve megabucks.
I guess people only want athletes and movie stars to be the only people to achieve megabucks.
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.
It was only that high in 2000 due to tech ceos.
Again, the mere acceptance of the situation is what causes it.
It also dropped to something like 143 after 9/11.
I can accept the situation as long as it's not my duty to pay them. I don't care what movie stars or atheletes make. If you want a greater ratio than 300, you just need to look at movie stars. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio was over 1000 for the people working on a film.
I think that people view CEOs as one of them, not someone they read about in the tabloids. Movie stars and athletes = heros living on another world, everyone else = peon.
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.
Is that an appropriate measure? Shouldn't they also be including bonuses, stocks, and other incentives for average workers? What do they mean by hourly wage of production and non-supervisory work? Does this mean that they don't include some types of workers or their pay for some types of work?
I still expect the ratio to be high, but I'm wondering.
Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?
No.
Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?
No.
I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.
I'm a 2nd year college student, econ major, working at a financial advisor's office for the summer.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
You seem to be missing the point, knucklehead. CEO is not a job in the traditional sense of the word. When's the last time you saw Disney put an ad in the Sunday classified for CEO? Do you think GM gets a stack of resumes daily that start off "Desired position: CEO, Desired Compensation: 80 bajillion dollars?"
Fact is, these overpaid positions are filled by friends of the board of directors. There are many people who likely be qualified to fill the position, but they don't know the right people. At least Bill Gates started Microsoft. It's more than you can say for some of these goons who get paid exorbitant salaries and then drive the company into the ground, only to be fired and given millions of dollars just to go away. I can't remember the last time I quit my job, and was handed several years worth of salary just to clear out my desk.
Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.
It matters a lot.
Take for example my previous job. In two years of working there and with the significant guidance of my boss, I created something which will save the company about 15 million dollars within the next 5 years. Now, how could a CEO be worth 262 times that?
From my perspective, if you lost 262 analysts just as effective as I was, the company would die. If you lost 1 CEO that is as effective as 20 analysts but paid as well as 262, then the company wouldn't have any trouble living. It happens all of the time, great companies are gutted when talent flees stupidity and lack of innovation and the company dies, despite having a CEO that is high flying, or was.
Of course, if one were simple minded, they could call me bitter, but considering that I have tripled my salary in the same number of years, that doesn't apply too well.
Perspective tells me everything. A 2nd year college student is a laughable excuse for somebody who knows something about the business world. He can think now that what he knows is applicable and that a CEO is worth 262 times an average worker, but if Zendari is a good worker, he will soon realize that no normal CEO could ever be worth 262 times himself.
Therein lies the hubris of the CEO position, they think they possess skills that justify their existence and salary. What they forget is how they maintain that salary, it isn't through justification of skills, it is through justification of failures and cronism.
Soon Zendari will learn the bitter truth of this just as I learned, or not.
It will be interesting to see what emerges in the next 5 years, a whipped corporate yes-boy tool or a grizzled veteren that believes that the world isn't as black and white as he onced believed.
It only took me 3 years to realize this, I am only 27.
Ohh, you just *HAD* to mention one of my favorite cases of corporate greed, stupidity, and the ruining of a great company.
Disney probably presents the best example of this. In the past 15 years Eisner *DESTROYED* more investor wealth than any company I have studied. His profits languished, his goodwill ruined, and his utter ineptitude in leadership caused a once thriving business to be muddled in apathy. Yet, he got tens of millions from them.
Why? Buddies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter