The $145 Million CEO

[Michael]

Let's see, I moved from Canada to the USA, across the USA several times (East to West to Midwest to West). Then to Singapore then back to the USA and now I live in China. The willingness and ability to move is one of the keys to more rapid career advancement. Blaming India and acting like all jobs moved there is a weak position to take.

Michael

 

[RFE]

Let's see, I moved from Canada to the USA, across the USA several times (East to West to Midwest to West). Then to Singapore then back to the USA and now I live in China. The willingness and ability to move is one of the keys to more rapid career advancement. Blaming India and acting like all jobs moved there is a weak position to take.

Michael

Nice way to twist it. India wasn't being blamed. Outsourcing/offshoring is a significant problem for the US on several levels. But, you are a CFO and board member, so who cares, right? Living in a society, where we're supposed to work together to achieve end goals, one would think that there would be some semblance of a plan in place for replacing lost jobs as not everybody has the mental aptitude or ability to be a project manager, engineer, medical professional, accountant, etc. So, what is to become of those people who were former factory workers? Or is your approach that the upper echelon is only to use the system for their own benefit while impoverishing large numbers of fellow citizens? And if its all about money, then what of the eroding tax base, shifting large numbers of citizens away from productive roles into situations where they become an "expense" to the government? And are there other implications such as increased crime?

So, because you moved all over the planet means we all should, too? I had a job that required a high percentage of travel time, did that for four years.....kinda gets old after awhile. Fortunately, I was able to move into another industry, but not everybody has that good fortune.

One more question: Are Japanese execs compensated to the same levels as US CEO's are?

 

[rchiu]

Nice way to twist it. India wasn't being blamed. Outsourcing/offshoring is a significant problem for the US on several levels. But, you are a CFO and board member, so who cares, right? Living in a society, where we're supposed to work together to achieve end goals, one would think that there would be some semblance of a plan in place for replacing lost jobs as not everybody has the mental aptitude or ability to be a project manager, engineer, medical professional, accountant, etc. So, what is to become of those people who were former factory workers? Or is your approach that the upper echelon is only to use the system for their own benefit while impoverishing large numbers of fellow citizens? And if its all about money, then what of the eroding tax base, shifting large numbers of citizens away from productive roles into situations where they become an "expense" to the government? And are there other implications such as increased crime?

So, because you moved all over the planet means we all should, too? I had a job that required a high percentage of travel time, did that for four years.....kinda gets old after awhile. Fortunately, I was able to move into another industry, but not everybody has that good fortune.

One more question: Are Japanese execs compensated to the same levels as US CEO's are?

So why is Michael and CEO out there tasked to solve your problems? They got their degrees, professional experience, network and find opportunities in the US and around the world, take risks to get to where they are today. Why is it their job to worry about the rest of people who don't want to change profession, learn new things, and change as the US economy shifts?

It's not CEO's fault that the US average income increased drastically as the US becomes more developed and advanced. And sorry to bring the bad news, if you don't become professionals, project managers, engineers, medical professionals, bankers...etc, if you don't add value in your job to justify the rising income level, you just cannot keep up with everyone else. And sorry CEOs cannot do stuff for you. If you refuse to change, refuse to learn new skills, refuse to get new career, you are going to become the expense to the government or join the service industry to serve those who "gets it".

Any why is Japanese exec income relevant to US exec income? They have their own unique culture, way of doing business, US have ours. As long as Japanese shareholders are happy with Japanese exec pay, US shareholders are happy with US exec pay, why does one have to do with the other. Are you saying because Japanese eat raw fish and all American should do too?

 

[Throckmorton]

What would be sweet is to sit on each others boards.

That sounds a little gay.

 

[JSt0rm]

That sounds a little gay.

only when gay is at the forefront of your mind. :sneaky:

 

[Michael]

Rchiu summed up what I basically would say. I am not sure what I am supposed to do to help you. I pay my taxes and my kids both went to US public schools while we were living in the USA (my wife did as well - she's from a smaller town in Kansas and worked and eventually became an MD - not working now, we move too much). Neither me nor my wife came from a rich family and neither or us was "handed" anything. My dad is the youngest of 10 and one of three that made it to college. My parents gave me a good upbringing and taught me the value of hard work and using my brains. I was willing to sacrifice to get where I am, why do I owe other people? I pay my taxes (my income is mainly salary asked, so I am pretty much paying full freight), I participate in my community (coaching, teaching, etc.). Do I owe you more?

Michael

Ps JSt0rm - maybe you can do sound effects for me while I am presenting or something

 

[JSt0rm]

Rchiu summed up what I basically would say. I am not sure what I am supposed to do to help you. I pay my taxes and my kids both went to US public schools while we were living in the USA (my wife did as well - she's from a smaller town in Kansas and worked and eventually became an MD - not working now, we move too much). Neither me nor my wife came from a rich family and neither or us was "handed" anything. My dad is the youngest of 10 and one of three that made it to college. My parents gave me a good upbringing and taught me the value of hard work and using my brains. I was willing to sacrifice to get where I am, why do I owe other people? I pay my taxes (my income is mainly salary asked, so I am pretty much paying full freight), I participate in my community (coaching, teaching, etc.). Do I owe you more?

Michael

Ps JSt0rm - maybe you can do sound effects for me while I am presenting or something

Absolutely man. pm me when ever you need. No charge for the 1%

 

[dmcowen674]

Let's see, I moved from Canada to the USA, across the USA several times (East to West to Midwest to West). Then to Singapore then back to the USA and now I live in China. The willingness and ability to move is one of the keys to more rapid career advancement. Blaming India and acting like all jobs moved there is a weak position to take.

Michael

Do you still consider yourself to be a Canadian?

 

[Michael]

Yes, I am a Canadian, why? I have lived in the USA for close to 20 years, but still am Canadian.

Michael

 

[zsdersw]

Logic fail. The two are not related and the argument does not apply in any relevant sense.

That's your opinion. You're not an authority on either logic or relevance.

You also have about 5 posts which effectively say "read my other posts", and one where you address CEO pay directly. Other than that most of your posts are shots at OWS or unions where you try to buttress your argument that unions negotiating as a block and CEOs who stack the board are appropriate to compare.

Yes, CEOs who stack the deck are a problem. It is also a fact that OWS is not really interested in fixing that... they're just whining because they don't make as much money as "the 1%" and sprinkle on some blather about the middle class.

If they simply wanted to fix the actual problem, they'd be advocating pragmatic solutions to CEOs abusing their power.

It remains, though, that both unions and CEOs can abuse their power to their own advantage. The differences in the mechanics of how they do that are beside the point because the end result is the same: companies suffer financially because abuses of power have been committed. I never claimed unions and CEOs have the same levers available to them to pull or that they accomplish their goals in the same way. I simply said that they both can abuse their power to the detriment of the company. If we're going to fix CEOs we must also fix unions.

 

[blackangst1]

So why is Michael and CEO out there tasked to solve your problems? They got their degrees, professional experience, network and find opportunities in the US and around the world, take risks to get to where they are today. Why is it their job to worry about the rest of people who don't want to change profession, learn new things, and change as the US economy shifts?

It's not CEO's fault that the US average income increased drastically as the US becomes more developed and advanced. And sorry to bring the bad news, if you don't become professionals, project managers, engineers, medical professionals, bankers...etc, if you don't add value in your job to justify the rising income level, you just cannot keep up with everyone else. And sorry CEOs cannot do stuff for you. If you refuse to change, refuse to learn new skills, refuse to get new career, you are going to become the expense to the government or join the service industry to serve those who "gets it".

Any why is Japanese exec income relevant to US exec income? They have their own unique culture, way of doing business, US have ours. As long as Japanese shareholders are happy with Japanese exec pay, US shareholders are happy with US exec pay, why does one have to do with the other. Are you saying because Japanese eat raw fish and all American should do too?

Well said.

 

[Acanthus]

So corporations/companies should receive no tax breaks or refunds? Fine... then all the tax breaks and refunds built in the tax code for single and married people should be eliminated too.



Never said or suggested there should be a minimum wage.



Complete fail. Everyone's pay is determined by their boss, whether it's a manager/supervisor/owner for ordinary employees or shareholders for CEOs. The Occupy movement argues that CEO pay should be determined by someone else. That is a fundamental change in the nature of accountability, responsibility, and governance.

But you can also argue that the philosophy of "maximum shareholder value" makes companies enact policies to minimize the cost of labor all the way down the management/worker food chain. As the executives, they exempt themselves from this process.

 

[senseamp]

This is why we need highly progressive taxation. Let them rape and pillage their worst, at least the country benefits from it.

 

[zsdersw]

But you can also argue that the philosophy of "maximum shareholder value" makes companies enact policies to minimize the cost of labor all the way down the management/worker food chain. As the executives, they exempt themselves from this process.

That's where the board steps in.

 

[RFE]

So why is Michael and CEO out there tasked to solve your problems? They got their degrees, professional experience, network and find opportunities in the US and around the world, take risks to get to where they are today. Why is it their job to worry about the rest of people who don't want to change profession, learn new things, and change as the US economy shifts?

It's not CEO's fault that the US average income increased drastically as the US becomes more developed and advanced. And sorry to bring the bad news, if you don't become professionals, project managers, engineers, medical professionals, bankers...etc, if you don't add value in your job to justify the rising income level, you just cannot keep up with everyone else. And sorry CEOs cannot do stuff for you. If you refuse to change, refuse to learn new skills, refuse to get new career, you are going to become the expense to the government or join the service industry to serve those who "gets it".

Any why is Japanese exec income relevant to US exec income? They have their own unique culture, way of doing business, US have ours. As long as Japanese shareholders are happy with Japanese exec pay, US shareholders are happy with US exec pay, why does one have to do with the other. Are you saying because Japanese eat raw fish and all American should do too?

Nobody is tasked with solving my problems, both my wife and I are educated professionals and have been gainfully employed pretty much all our adult lives. And, I did start at the bottom and worked up into a moderately respective role while obtaining additional creditionals. My concern isn't with myself, in case you, Michael, Black Angst, JStorm misread the post. The concern is with the number of available opportunities to most individuals. Seems like many people are concerned with the unemployment rate, but is the unemployment rate high because people are lazy or because the pool of available jobs here in the US is shrinking due to work going overseas?
Also, do we have an underemployed problem?
I do not like having people dependent on the government, whether through unemployment compensation or welfare. Seems like a significant contributor to the increased dependents on these programs is lack of work. Not sure how we go about improving this situation without keeping work here.
Should we all not be concerned with the growing number of people on these programs?

 

[crownjules]

So why is Michael and CEO out there tasked to solve your problems? They got their degrees, professional experience, network and find opportunities in the US and around the world, take risks to get to where they are today. Why is it their job to worry about the rest of people who don't want to change profession, learn new things, and change as the US economy shifts?

No man is an island. We are part of a society and the problems that face one segment of it will eventually be realized by the other parts if those problems are drastic enough. In the case of large portions becoming impoverished while a select few become opulently rich, that scenario has been played out many times throughout the course of human history. It's not been a good one and people might want to try and avert such a circumstance.

It's not CEO's fault that the US average income increased drastically as the US becomes more developed and advanced. And sorry to bring the bad news, if you don't become professionals, project managers, engineers, medical professionals, bankers...etc, if you don't add value in your job to justify the rising income level, you just cannot keep up with everyone else. And sorry CEOs cannot do stuff for you. If you refuse to change, refuse to learn new skills, refuse to get new career, you are going to become the expense to the government or join the service industry to serve those who "gets it".

Executive pay was up 27% in 2010 as compared to just 2.1% for all other workers. These are people already in the workforce and have put in the requisite education, training, and hard work to get their position. Why is it fair for the top levels to take the largest portion of a company's profits? Why are workers not even getting enough wage growth to cover inflation while the fat cats get fatter? The CEO, CFO, etc. are not solely responsible for the success and growth of their company. Why do conservatives complain that the top earners pay higher income taxes when they clearly pocket the higher percentage of realized profits? Seems only fair to me.

And in the case of McKessen, it becomes a more egregious slight on the workers of one rule for the executives (we get pensions) and another rule for the workers (it costs too much so no pensions for you). Especially when those rules are set by the rule makers to their benefit.

Any why is Japanese exec income relevant to US exec income? They have their own unique culture, way of doing business, US have ours. As long as Japanese shareholders are happy with Japanese exec pay, US shareholders are happy with US exec pay, why does one have to do with the other. Are you saying because Japanese eat raw fish and all American should do too?

It's a valid comparison. We live in a global economy where investors and business alike are not bound by borders or distance. Business is universal. Traditions with how it's conducted may vary. Societal views on accepted practices will differ.

 

[Paul98]

this thread is long, how did the rest of the workers fare with their wages and benefits? Is the average worker who was with the company for a while get a large increase in compensation? If so then I don't mind getting very good compensation. If not, this guy should have a large portion of his compensation taken away from him and it should be given to the people who worked for him.

The problem isn't people making lots of money, I have no problem with that as long as you reward those who allowed you to make this kind of money. What I find absolutely sick is that you get people who end up taking huge pay increases while cutting jobs, making people work two jobs to cover the cuts while keeping them making the same amount of money.

The ONLY way you can defend this is if you are blind about reality and instead are blinded by ideology. But guess what that's no defense.

 

[halik]

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...1573&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:MCK&ntsp=0

It's a profitable company with a stable dividend, and the stock price has nearly quadrupled in the 13 years he's been CEO showing investor confidence.
If you don't like his compensation, sell his stock or avoid his product. Too simple?

End of thread.

 

[zsdersw]

this thread is long, how did the rest of the workers fare with their wages and benefits? Is the average worker who was with the company for a while get a large increase in compensation? If so then I don't mind getting very good compensation. If not, this guy should have a large portion of his compensation taken away from him and it should be given to the people who worked for him.

The problem isn't people making lots of money, I have no problem with that as long as you reward those who allowed you to make this kind of money. What I find absolutely sick is that you get people who end up taking huge pay increases while cutting jobs, making people work two jobs to cover the cuts while keeping them making the same amount of money.

The ONLY way you can defend this is if you are blind about reality and instead are blinded by ideology. But guess what that's no defense.

By whom? What gives them the right? How much, exactly, should be taken away?

 

[crownjules]

By whom? What gives them the right? How much, exactly, should be taken away?

The board since their function is to determine their executive's pay. But since he's Chairman of the Board in addition to President and CEO of the company...

 

[zsdersw]

The board since their function is to determine their executive's pay. But since he's Chairman of the Board in addition to President and CEO of the company...

Who should force the board to perform their function?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

This is why we need highly progressive taxation. Let them rape and pillage their worst, at least the country benefits from it.

That's exactly the wrong approach to these kinds of problems. Progressive taxation is indiscriminate punishment for high earners. We should be trying to improve corporate governance and deal with other issues that cause income inequality before resorting to that.

 

[Paul98]

By whom? What gives them the right? How much, exactly, should be taken away?

What gives him the right to take all the wealth that the workers worked to create?

 

[zsdersw]

What gives him the right to take all the wealth that the workers worked to create?

The board of the company with whom he has an agreement.

 

[senseamp]

That's exactly the wrong approach to these kinds of problems. Progressive taxation is indiscriminate punishment for high earners. We should be trying to improve corporate governance and deal with other issues that cause income inequality before resorting to that.

It's not a punishment. It's targeting tax policy where it will raise most revenue while inflicting the least amount of pain. You can tax a guy making $145M extra 10%, and he'll still be more than fine, or you can tax 3000 families making $50K and barely making ends meet extra 10%, and it will hurt a lot more people a lot worse.