Executive pay

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

krunchykrome

Lifer
Dec 28, 2003
13,413
1
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I personally like the idea of simply capping executive pay at some multiple of what the median income for the company is. That way the execs can get compensated properly, and they have an incentive to make sure everyone else in the company benefits as well. The way things are now, those at the top see their pay and benefits increasing at a much more rapid pace than the rest of the world.

The problem is the best CEO's will go to the company that pays more. That is a fact.

The thing is, is a $100,000,000 CEO really 50,000% more effective than a $200,000 CEO?

If the $200,000 CEO was as effective, dont you think he'd have the job that pays the CEO $100,000,000.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?

Obviously not, but if you're implying inflation explains the difference, that's incorrect. Adjusting for the cost of living would mean CEO salaries should have increased 2.7x since 1980, not 20x. That points out how wildly their salaries have increased.

I wasn't implying that inflation was the reason for the increase in executive compensation. But it's not something to disregard either. Another point to mention is that executives today face much tougher regulations, penalties, and consequences for their actions today than they did 30 years ago. Top management and executive positions require them to manage and oversee a much more convoluted business envrionment today than what was in 1980. Also, keep in mind that today, it's very common for executives to receive much of their compensation package in non-salary items such as options. This wasn't as common 30 years ago.

What penalties and consequences do they face? They get a golden parachute regardless.
 

krunchykrome

Lifer
Dec 28, 2003
13,413
1
0
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?

Obviously not, but if you're implying inflation explains the difference, that's incorrect. Adjusting for the cost of living would mean CEO salaries should have increased 2.7x since 1980, not 20x. That points out how wildly their salaries have increased.

I wasn't implying that inflation was the reason for the increase in executive compensation. But it's not something to disregard either. Another point to mention is that executives today face much tougher regulations, penalties, and consequences for their actions today than they did 30 years ago. Top management and executive positions require them to manage and oversee a much more convoluted business envrionment today than what was in 1980. Also, keep in mind that today, it's very common for executives to receive much of their compensation package in non-salary items such as options. This wasn't as common 30 years ago.

What penalties and consequences do they face? They get a golden parachute regardless.

ever heard of SOX?
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?


Ahh yes... because ALL CEO's should be able to afford 2 homes, 6 cars, a yaght, and retirement for life without ever having to work again...


:disgust:



I for one am in favor of a worldwide salary cap.

Yes, they should be able to afford all of that. They've paid their dues, and accomplished more than what we have. While we're posting on this off-topic forum, they're running billion dollar businesses. I'm not bitter.


you and me definately have a different view of CEOs... because when I think of CEO's, I think of the idiot president in the movie armageddon, who attempts to make informed calls on decisions from miles away about things which he is clueless and never should have been given the power to decide.
CEO's dont contribute, dont make a difference, and basically are leeches on the system.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Josh
Psssh you all know that none of you would be saying shit if you were the ones collecting that $1,000,000 per week paycheck

Sure I would. I'd laugh about it all the way to the bank that I was being paid such a ridiculous amount essentially for going to meetings.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?

Obviously not, but if you're implying inflation explains the difference, that's incorrect. Adjusting for the cost of living would mean CEO salaries should have increased 2.7x since 1980, not 20x. That points out how wildly their salaries have increased.

I wasn't implying that inflation was the reason for the increase in executive compensation. But it's not something to disregard either. Another point to mention is that executives today face much tougher regulations, penalties, and consequences for their actions today than they did 30 years ago. Top management and executive positions require them to manage and oversee a much more convoluted business envrionment today than what was in 1980. Also, keep in mind that today, it's very common for executives to receive much of their compensation package in non-salary items such as options. This wasn't as common 30 years ago.

What penalties and consequences do they face? They get a golden parachute regardless.

ever heard of SOX?

So what CEOs have actually been punished under SOX, and also did not receive their golden parachute?
 

krunchykrome

Lifer
Dec 28, 2003
13,413
1
0
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?

Obviously not, but if you're implying inflation explains the difference, that's incorrect. Adjusting for the cost of living would mean CEO salaries should have increased 2.7x since 1980, not 20x. That points out how wildly their salaries have increased.

I wasn't implying that inflation was the reason for the increase in executive compensation. But it's not something to disregard either. Another point to mention is that executives today face much tougher regulations, penalties, and consequences for their actions today than they did 30 years ago. Top management and executive positions require them to manage and oversee a much more convoluted business envrionment today than what was in 1980. Also, keep in mind that today, it's very common for executives to receive much of their compensation package in non-salary items such as options. This wasn't as common 30 years ago.

What penalties and consequences do they face? They get a golden parachute regardless.

ever heard of SOX?

So what CEOs have actually been punished under SOX, and also did not receive their golden parachute?

sentenced to 24 years in prision

found guilty

Convicted of fraud and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards

These are some of the popular cases. Whether or not they keep their compensation (which in many cases, they are required to pay a portion of it back) is irrelevant. You're suggesting that CEO compensation has gone up for no logical reason. I'm saying that although some of the compensation packages are excessive, generally speaking, I dont have a problem with most of them. The penalties/consequences that executives face today were unheard of 30 years ago in the white-collar arena.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
you and me definately have a different view of CEOs... because when I think of CEO's, I think of the idiot president in the movie armageddon, who attempts to make informed calls on decisions from miles away about things which he is clueless and never should have been given the power to decide.
CEO's dont contribute, dont make a difference, and basically are leeches on the system.

You srsly have no idea. if it was so fucking easy we'd all be doing it.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Ns1
you and me definately have a different view of CEOs... because when I think of CEO's, I think of the idiot president in the movie armageddon, who attempts to make informed calls on decisions from miles away about things which he is clueless and never should have been given the power to decide.
CEO's dont contribute, dont make a difference, and basically are leeches on the system.

You srsly have no idea. if it was so fucking easy we'd all be doing it.

Really. Most all of these guys have worked their way up frequently being in the leadership position in many different areas of a business - finance, operations, sales, marketing. They didn't get those positions based on luck or being an idiot. They are extremely smart and talented.

 

FeuerFrei

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2005
9,144
929
126
Market decides how much their skills are worth. If a company is willing to shell out big bucks, they must be pretty valuable.
If the candidate pool was larger, salaries would decline.
If salaries were fixed, there'd be a shortage of CEOs.

I think you'd have more of a case if you'd made this thread about pro athletes.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: krunchykrome

sentenced to 24 years in prision

found guilty

Convicted of fraud and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards

These are some of the popular cases. Whether or not they keep their compensation (which in many cases, they are required to pay a portion of it back) is irrelevant. You're suggesting that CEO compensation has gone up for no logical reason. I'm saying that although some of the compensation packages are excessive, generally speaking, I dont have a problem with most of them. The penalties/consequences that executives face today were unheard of 30 years ago in the white-collar arena.

Only a portion of it? It's not like those guys didn't know that what they were doing was illegal. Were it not for their excessive greed, they wouldn't be in prison
and Enron might have still been around today. My point is that they knowingly broke the law in the name of greed, and it wasn't necessary for them to do that. Many other companies do just fine without breaking the law like Enron did.

So basically were paying them more because the risks of breaking the law in the name of greed have increased?

 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome

sentenced to 24 years in prision

found guilty

Convicted of fraud and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards

These are some of the popular cases. Whether or not they keep their compensation (which in many cases, they are required to pay a portion of it back) is irrelevant. You're suggesting that CEO compensation has gone up for no logical reason. I'm saying that although some of the compensation packages are excessive, generally speaking, I dont have a problem with most of them. The penalties/consequences that executives face today were unheard of 30 years ago in the white-collar arena.

Only a portion of it? It's not like those guys didn't know that what they were doing was illegal. Were it not for their excessive greed, they wouldn't be in prison
and Enron might have still been around today. My point is that they knowingly broke the law in the name of greed, and it wasn't necessary for them to do that. Many other companies do just fine without breaking the law like Enron did.

So basically were paying them more because the risks of breaking the law in the name of greed have increased?

If you don't want to pay, then don't buy the damn products/services from those companies. Its not as if these CEO's are holding companies ransom, the CO's approve the salary.
 

krunchykrome

Lifer
Dec 28, 2003
13,413
1
0
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome

sentenced to 24 years in prision

found guilty

Convicted of fraud and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards

These are some of the popular cases. Whether or not they keep their compensation (which in many cases, they are required to pay a portion of it back) is irrelevant. You're suggesting that CEO compensation has gone up for no logical reason. I'm saying that although some of the compensation packages are excessive, generally speaking, I dont have a problem with most of them. The penalties/consequences that executives face today were unheard of 30 years ago in the white-collar arena.

Only a portion of it? It's not like those guys didn't know that what they were doing was illegal. Were it not for their excessive greed, they wouldn't be in prison
and Enron might have still been around today. My point is that they knowingly broke the law in the name of greed, and it wasn't necessary for them to do that. Many other companies do just fine without breaking the law like Enron did.

So basically were paying them more because the risks of breaking the law in the name of greed have increased?

sure, thats one reason why we're paying them more :)

The risk of prision time....a risk that was not in the job description 30 years ago. Consider the increase in executive compensation to be hazard pay.
 

Killerme33

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
399
0
0
Someone already said this, but I'd like to reemphasize it. The high pay of CEOs is also meant to motivate those under them. If top execs are making $200k/yr and the CEO makes $4mil/yr, you bet your ass those execs are gonna work extra hard to try to get that CEO position. If the CEO is only making $300k/yr, those execs aren't gonna be working as hard to get the promotion.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh athletes are the over paid ones

Not when you consider that most athletes are only able to do their "job" for a decade before worth starts decreasing rapidly.

Most athletes have to retire by their mid-thirties leaving them to live off what they've made for 40+ more years.

Most athletes never see a multi-million dollar contract.

The athletes are the ones that drive fans to the stadiums and help the team make big bucks. I mean, people aren't coming for those cutesy games on the jumbotron in between innings or the wacky sound effects the sound guy plays every now and again... the athletes are the ones that make the fans fall prey to $7 beers and $4 hot dogs.

Just because you'll never see the money that SOME of them make in a few seasons in your entire career doesn't mean they don't earn their keep.
 

EKKC

Diamond Member
May 31, 2005
5,895
0
0
why would you care what a private company wants to pay for one of its employees?

even if said company was public, the board has the right to get rid of the execs at any time, they voluntarily pay the bloated salary so they can fire him as the fall guy when things go down the crapper.
 

AccruedExpenditure

Diamond Member
May 12, 2001
6,960
7
81
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
I won't argue that most of them are worth a high price. There are two things I have issue with:

1. The average CEO pay as a multiple of the typical salary at the company has steadily increased over the years. Does a CEO of 2007 really do 20X the work of a CEO of 1980 to justify the 20X increase in pay? Does a CEO of 2007 do the work of 1000 average workers, but a CEO of 1980 only did the work of 100 workers? It's not the absolute number that concerns me, it's the rate of increase. If we take this CEO pay trend to the extreme, it seems that a single CEO will eventually be paid the sum of all other employees' salaries in the company. Can a CEO really do as much work as every other worker in the company combined?

Has the cost of living remained the same since 1980?


Ahh yes... because ALL CEO's should be able to afford 2 homes, 6 cars, a yaght, and retirement for life without ever having to work again...


:disgust:



I for one am in favor of a worldwide salary cap.

Yes, they should be able to afford all of that. They've paid their dues, and accomplished more than what we have. While we're posting on this off-topic forum, they're running billion dollar businesses. I'm not bitter.

:thumbsup:
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
It's none of your business what a company pays its executives unless you're a shareholder
-AE

and even that doesn't matter if you're not one of the big shareholders.

By the way, do you consider it stock ownership if it's in a mutual fund? Technically, you still own a part of the company (that would expand the number of owners). I know that you would not have a direct vote, but you're still an owner nonetheless.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: krunchykrome

sentenced to 24 years in prision

found guilty

Convicted of fraud and died of a heart attack shortly afterwards

These are some of the popular cases. Whether or not they keep their compensation (which in many cases, they are required to pay a portion of it back) is irrelevant. You're suggesting that CEO compensation has gone up for no logical reason. I'm saying that although some of the compensation packages are excessive, generally speaking, I dont have a problem with most of them. The penalties/consequences that executives face today were unheard of 30 years ago in the white-collar arena.

Only a portion of it? It's not like those guys didn't know that what they were doing was illegal. Were it not for their excessive greed, they wouldn't be in prison
and Enron might have still been around today. My point is that they knowingly broke the law in the name of greed, and it wasn't necessary for them to do that. Many other companies do just fine without breaking the law like Enron did.

So basically were paying them more because the risks of breaking the law in the name of greed have increased?

sure, thats one reason why we're paying them more :)

The risk of prision time....a risk that was not in the job description 30 years ago. Consider the increase in executive compensation to be hazard pay.
Risk of prison time? Here's an idea, don't do anything illegal or unethical and there's nothing to worry about. :confused:
 

Playmaker

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,584
0
0
Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
It's none of your business what a company pays its executives unless you're a shareholder
-AE

Ironically, most of these idiots complaining about executive pay probably have indirect financial interests through retirement plans in the same companies they bring up as examples.
 

EKKC

Diamond Member
May 31, 2005
5,895
0
0
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
It's none of your business what a company pays its executives unless you're a shareholder
-AE

Ironically, most of these idiots complaining about executive pay probably have indirect financial interests through retirement plans in the same companies they bring up as examples.

all i have to say is, if you dont like how the execs are paid compared to the normal worker drones. work elsewhere. remember: FREE WILL EMPLOYMENT.

or if you like, go work for a government agency or a unionized job. they let you retire at 55 and pay you till you die. Here in NYC if you are a subway conductor or man the token booth here in MTA, you get exactly that. And just look how effective the MTA is. :roll:
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
It's none of your business what a company pays its executives unless you're a shareholder
-AE

Ironically, most of these idiots complaining about executive pay probably have indirect financial interests through retirement plans in the same companies they bring up as examples.

And they probably don't read the annual reports or vote on their proxy statements. The complete compensation packages for officers are laid out in black and white.
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,017
147
106
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
It's none of your business what a company pays its executives unless you're a shareholder
-AE

Ironically, most of these idiots complaining about executive pay probably have indirect financial interests through retirement plans in the same companies they bring up as examples.

So how would that be ironic?