• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Executive pay

KingGheedora

Diamond Member
What's the justification for the amount of pay these top guys make, in salary, bonus, and even severance packages? Are they actually worth it?
 
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
What's the justification for the amount of pay these top guys make, in salary, bonus, and even severance packages? Are they actually worth it?

Based on what other CEOs or comparables make. Yes they are generally worth it. But a lot of times they set goals that are nearly impossible to miss.
 
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
What's the justification for the amount of pay these top guys make, in salary, bonus, and even severance packages? Are they actually worth it?

You get what you pay for.
 
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.
 
Key people are paid based on their worth to their company, not by their perceived worth in the public eye.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
What's the justification for the amount of pay these top guys make, in salary, bonus, and even severance packages? Are they actually worth it?

You get what you pay for.

Yep. For the most part they are worth it. That's why a good portion of their total compensation (if not majority) is in stock options and awards - if the company does good and the market like then he's doing the right thing.

The justification for their compensation is simply supply and demand and a little bit of good ole boy network.
 
I don't think they ARE worth it in most cases. Sometimes, yes, but not as often as they would like to think. There are plenty of talented people out there who could do just as well as many of these CEOs and executives. I've been in the workforce long enough to see how chummy things get at the highest levels. I honestly believe they fully realize they aren't massively superior to the rest of the world, but they are in the club and they aren't going to blow it.

Why is it that when times are good, they claim they need to pay a lot to reward performance, but when times are bad, they claim they need to pay a lot to keep people from leaving? There are no circumstances where they ever think a cut in executive pay is justified. How does that make sense?

They hire a new CEO and pay a huge "signing bonus", guarantee a huge severance, and guarantee a huge salary and yearly bonus and stock options. He/she hasn't even worked a day! Yet other employees have to actually perform on the job before they get increases and bonuses.

It is very rare where a CEO can make or break a company IMHO. A talented staff of managers and dedicated employees can make a lot more difference than one CEO can in almost all cases.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
What's the justification for the amount of pay these top guys make, in salary, bonus, and even severance packages? Are they actually worth it?

You get what you pay for.

Yep. For the most part they are worth it. That's why a good portion of their total compensation (if not majority) is in stock options - if the company does good and the market like then he's doing the right thing.

The justification for their compensation is simply supply and demand and a little bit of good ole boy network.

That works in theory, but in practice it seems the companies just issue more options to compensate for situations where the stock didn't go up. They claim they have to, otherwise their beloved executives might leave!
 
Originally posted by: kranky
I don't think they ARE worth it in most cases. Sometimes, yes, but not as often as they would like to think. There are plenty of talented people out there who could do just as well as many of these CEOs and executives. I've been in the workforce long enough to see how chummy things get at the highest levels. I honestly believe they fully realize they aren't massively superior to the rest of the world, but they are in the club and they aren't going to blow it.

Why is it that when times are good, they claim they need to pay a lot to reward performance, but when times are bad, they claim they need to pay a lot to keep people from leaving? There are no circumstances where they ever think a cut in executive pay is justified. How does that make sense?

They hire a new CEO and pay a huge "signing bonus", guarantee a huge severance, and guarantee a huge salary and yearly bonus and stock options. He/she hasn't even worked a day! Yet other employees have to actually perform on the job before they get increases and bonuses.

It is very rare where a CEO can make or break a company IMHO. A talented staff of managers and dedicated employees can make a lot more difference than one CEO can in almost all cases.

It works because if you want to cut pay, they will just jump ship. If the CEO is capable but is having a bad year or two, it is better to keep paying him vs hiring a new CEO and dealing with that mess.
 
Originally posted by: kranky
That works in theory, but in practice it seems the companies just issue more options to compensate for situations where the stock didn't go up. They claim they have to, otherwise their beloved executives might leave!

I can bring up HP's psycho CEO as a perfect example of why a mistake here or there is noted, but the outcome is always the same - you're out. The severance is there to encourage risky behavior because risk = reward. But too many mistakes and they're out, kinda like all employment.

Let the market decide and not let jealousy cloud judgment.

And to the comments about "regular employees", officers aren't regular employees nor do regular employees have the decision making power that officers do. Point blank, the reason why they are paid so well is because that's what the market for their skills and experience and past will pay them.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: kranky
That works in theory, but in practice it seems the companies just issue more options to compensate for situations where the stock didn't go up. They claim they have to, otherwise their beloved executives might leave!
I can bring up HP's psycho CEO as a perfect example of why a mistake here or there is noted, but the outcome is always the same - you're out. The severance is there to encourage risky behavior because risk = reward. But too many mistakes and they're out, kinda like all employment.

Let the market decide and not let jealousy cloud judgment.

And to the comments about "regular employees", officers aren't regular employees nor do regular employees have the decision making power that officers do. Point blank, the reason why they are paid so well is because that's what the market for their skills and experience and past will pay them.
Hey now! I offer the same poor decision making abilities but for only 1/10th of the salary.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: kranky
That works in theory, but in practice it seems the companies just issue more options to compensate for situations where the stock didn't go up. They claim they have to, otherwise their beloved executives might leave!
I can bring up HP's psycho CEO as a perfect example of why a mistake here or there is noted, but the outcome is always the same - you're out. The severance is there to encourage risky behavior because risk = reward. But too many mistakes and they're out, kinda like all employment.

Let the market decide and not let jealousy cloud judgment.

And to the comments about "regular employees", officers aren't regular employees nor do regular employees have the decision making power that officers do. Point blank, the reason why they are paid so well is because that's what the market for their skills and experience and past will pay them.
Hey now! I offer the same poor decision making abilities but for only 1/10th of the salary.

*chuckle*
Of course, we all do.

But the impact of their good or bad decisions impacts a lot more than the regular employee. One of the basics of compensation that the impact of your decisions/power directly impacts your compensation.
 
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are they actually worth it?

Most of the time, yes.
Bullshit.

Interesting how the CEO of Toyota (and most any other Japanese corporation for that matter) makes a fraction of what American CEOs do, yet his company is eating the American automakers' lunch, so to speak. Executive compensation in this country is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are they actually worth it?

Most of the time, yes.
Bullshit.

Interesting how the CEO of Toyota (and most any other Japanese corporation for that matter) makes a fraction of what American CEOs do, yet his company is eating the American automakers' lunch, so to speak. Executive compensation in this country is ridiculous.

yep, this article is a good read:

"CEO Pay Soared in 2004 as U.S. Economy Stumbled
By MARC MCDONALD

CEO pay continues to soar into the stratosphere, while wages for the average American worker stagnate.
Forbes magazine reports that the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54 percent pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation totaled $5.1 billion (compared with $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003).

Conservatives, no doubt, would argue that under America's free market system, these chief executives "earned" their pay. But did they?

Forbes, a publication not exactly considered to be in the progressive camp, seems to think otherwise.
The magazine says some CEOs "did so bad they should have paid their shareholders."......


........If you want to get an idea of how out-of-control soaring CEO pay has gotten, it's important to look at the CEO pay of America's automakers. To me, Detroit sums up many of the major problems that America's economy as a whole faces these days.

Detroit's CEOs have long pocketed by far the highest compensation levels of any auto executives in the world.

This shouldn't really be surprising: American CEOs in general have long raked in vastly higher pay packages than their overseas counterparts. U.S. CEOs make, on average, 22 times what their counterparts make in Japan and 17 times what their counterparts earn in Europe."

http://www.beggarscanbechooser...004-as-us-economy.html
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are they actually worth it?

Most of the time, yes.
Bullshit.

Interesting how the CEO of Toyota (and most any other Japanese corporation for that matter) makes a fraction of what American CEOs do, yet his company is eating the American automakers' lunch, so to speak. Executive compensation in this country is ridiculous.

Yeah, and japenese cultures/companies actually have a word for working yourself to death and it happens all the time. Karoshi.

do not want. Now kaizen that into your nemiwashi mudda.
 
No one is going to convince me that the job one person does is worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I can see a CEO making a few million a year, but that's it. Now as far as stock options go, that's different, give them stock options as an incentive to have the company do well. If the company doesn't do well, their stock options aren't worth nearly as much. American CEO's are extremely overpaid, as are professional athletes. But that's how our society is now and until something is done about it, it will continue working that way, it's all politics and who you know.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are they actually worth it?

Most of the time, yes.
Bullshit.

Interesting how the CEO of Toyota (and most any other Japanese corporation for that matter) makes a fraction of what American CEOs do, yet his company is eating the American automakers' lunch, so to speak. Executive compensation in this country is ridiculous.

Yeah, and japenese cultures/companies actually have a word for working yourself to death and it happens all the time. Karoshi.

do not want. Now kaizen that into your nemiwashi mudda.
So the Japanese get paid less but work harder? Not exactly helping the argument for high executive compensation spidey. That means American CEOs should be getting paid less than the Japanese (whose average compensation is about $400k/year, I believe), not more, much less 22 times more according to the article idiotekniQues posted.
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are they actually worth it?

Most of the time, yes.
Bullshit.

Interesting how the CEO of Toyota (and most any other Japanese corporation for that matter) makes a fraction of what American CEOs do, yet his company is eating the American automakers' lunch, so to speak. Executive compensation in this country is ridiculous.

Right, because American automakers = most of the CEOs in the county. Give me a break.
 
Back
Top