ceo payouts are an outrage?

[Grizzly Willy]

quick answer, do you have a particular situation in mind? as OP clearly mentioned no particular company and from the pages previous to this it appears that he and others think they are entitled to interfere in business decisions of any and all companies.

to give you an example... when the Feds bailed out GM and Chrysler... then yes... they probably should have had a hand in determining salaries... when the board of directors of ABC Widget company wants to pay their CEO 15B dollars and they've not been bailed out by the US taxpayers then no, the government has no business trying to determine how much he's to be compensated.

Just in general. After the government collects taxes, is that money still technically your money?

[Wiyld]

If it wasn't for strict governmental control we would still be in an age where people get worked to death like slaves in companies.
The only reason companies aren't corrupted is thanks to that.Strict economical laws.Alone they don't have a shred of goodness in them.
Companies have proven to be malicious again and again,still to this day.
We need the government to make decisions for them.CEO payouts are an outrage and a major disrespect to the middle class.
Shamelessly firing people but giving the CEO phat bonus checks need to stop for one.

So bascilly this entire thread was you setting people up for you to attack them with ultra liberal babble? Nice, that will get people to really want to have an intelligent conversation with them.

What a load of garbage.

[Karrmer]

a CEO's top person under him that actually does work has to work a full month to make what a CEO makes in an hour. think about it. NOBODY is worth that much EVER.

Random numbers based on one random situation, and by no means correct regardless. It isn't about "work" it is about valuation. If I were Apple, I would have paid Steve Jobs *billions* to keep doing what he was doing. Many CEO's aren't worth anything close to that, and they're paid accordingly.

Lots of people here amusingly think that being a CEO is just so simple and easy, but surprise surprise they're typical closet nerds with no concept of reality or business or economics in general.

[obdigore]

Random numbers based on one random situation, and by no means correct regardless. It isn't about "work" it is about valuation. If I were Apple, I would have paid Steve Jobs *billions* to keep doing what he was doing. Many CEO's aren't worth anything close to that, and they're paid accordingly.

Lots of people here amusingly think that being a CEO is just so simple and easy, but surprise surprise they're typical closet nerds with no concept of reality or business or economics in general.

Apple wouldn't have been around if Microsoft didn't keep them solvent multiple times for their own selfish reasons due to Jobs and other peoples absolute mismanagement.

[Deleted]

Well, to answer that, you used 100k as the standard, you never stated millions, you are bunching numbers to manipulate an argument. Also, thats called being a bad show.

Secondly, the argument of the economy is foolish and stupid. That would mean that everyone is accountable to everyone else for what is in their bank account and how they spend it. This assumption also makes the claim that these systems in place are paid alone by you. Im fairly certain that I pay my taxes. Which at that point is once again an issue that you have nothing to complain about as the base floor is equal. Also, alone, I still would be just fine where I am if not better off. I happen to excel at what I do and honestly, the laws limit much of what I do as opposed to assist it.

Also, what do you even know about half the things you just went off on.

Economic climate, in Michigan, is shit. So it was of no help what so ever. Also, the most profitable areas in the world right now are parts of Africa and China. Both of these come with risks that cannot be prevented by government.

Police and military actually do not help much in business and if they weren't there, businesses would just hire their own security at points of transaction. Those costs would be forwarded to you. If you think Im joking, just look at the pricing in other parts of the world or specific industries. Unless you handle military contracts, your assistance is little to none. Freeways are also maintained federally for military usage, not civilian (contrary to popular belief).

The only trade agreement that helps is NAFTA and if only that. Otherwise none of the agreements help me. All of our agreements actually encourage sales here and hinder US sales overseas per transaction. I have to make agreements personally with all locations.

Patents are handled differently in all nations. Atop that, there is no promise that they will actually be honored. So that doesn't help much either.

Working forces are easy found, easily replaced. Worker turnover is actually very high regardless of the industry. And its because people never show up upon hire or they quit. Not because they were fired. Additionally, we have to re-educate most employees in standard practice.

Ultimately, the only thing Im grateful for is that you find my product enjoyable and useful. But thats because I found a way to help you, not the other way around. So no, I don't owe you or anyone else a thing. And honestly, this post wont mean a thing as its clear you just want to demonize something you will never accomplish yourself.

On the ratio,let's agree to disagree.

The base floor is equal is.No.That's terribly naive.But it is something close to equal.Still who do you have this base floor to thank for?Society.
You think because you pay taxes your free and you own nothing to society?
And yes everyone is accountables to everyone else for what is in their bank account,that's why yes you pay taxes.
You said '''This assumption also makes the claim that these systems in place are paid alone by you.''
Well I clearly talked about society so you're not making sense here.

About the economic climate,since when is it limited to a state?No it's in terms of country.It's shit in Michigan but it's good in America no?
You say it's profitable in Africa and China.Maybe for companies,we're talking about individuals in society.Would it have been easier for you to start a succesful company if you were born in Africa or China,probably in poverty?No.
You can thank your country for that.

You say police and military can be replaced by hired security.I'm too tired to even discuss this.I don't agree.
'Patents don't help much either.' Sorry but your own words illustrate your ignorance.
'Working forces are easy found, easily replaced.' I almost can't believe you run a business.What kind of business do you run?I don't agree with this of course.

Your final argument is that I shouldn't talk because I'm not an entrepreneur.Ok.Maybe you shouldn't vote because you're not a politician?Terrible argument.

[Karrmer]

Apple wouldn't have been around if Microsoft didn't keep them solvent multiple times for their own selfish reasons due to Jobs and other peoples absolute mismanagement.

He's definitely not the first person to face failure before success.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 06:47 AM ----------

Your final argument is that I shouldn't talk because I'm not an entrepreneur.Ok.Maybe you shouldn't vote because you're not a politician?Terrible argument.

Probably the least intelligent person I've ever seen post.

[Cirque]

It should be based on how much value CEOs actually bring to the performance of the company. The outrage is over the perception that they are rewarded far beyond their actual value.


It's really not anywhere close to any actual information that would be needed to give an assessment that's simply based on emotions.

This, really. The outrage is not the salaray: CEOs (and other top people) are usually given a salary, and on top of that a bonus based on performance. The bonus has become standard, no matter the performance. Look at the banks that have toppled over, the bonuses those people have received is beyond belief.

Your question is a bit weird too. I'd give them what they're due in their contract, as I expect I will receive what I'm due in my contract.

[obdigore]

He's definitely not the first person to face failure before success.

I didn't say he was. I just think its funny that Apple needed two stimuluses before they were successful, and one of those failures can be put directly upon Jobs' shoulders. He stopped trying new things and changed his M.O. to copying what other people are doing and claiming it is 'hip' to do it and that is how he made Apple actually work.

[Deleted]

No, you don't know what you need to know. The scenario you're painting is stupid and makes no sense. You're clearly uneducated and ignorant.

What do you think Steve Jobs was worth? He almost single handedly turned Apple into a company worth billions, and just from 2008 they went from making $4.8 billion in net profit to $41 billion in 2012 - and that is a decade after he actually started bringing them out of their hole of being forgotten and pointless.

So let's ask ourselves, what is Steve Jobs worth? Is it an outrage to pay him billions, when he is making the company hundreds of billions?

The scenario serves it's purpose.If you can't get it,fine,it's not the main subject of the topic.But how would you divide the 100 000$?

Steve Jobs made the profit from Apple jump all alone?The education he received from society doesn't count?A stable place to live and grow as a human?
He also had a $4.8 billion company at his disposal,or no it's just that he's so awesome it's all him?No employee ever contributed to the success of the company because Steve Jobs was there?He put all the laptops himself into the shelves?But no all these people and money at his disposal were just meaningless tools?They're just enough to change ''single handedly'' to ''almost single handedly''?

He did something great.But he certainly did not do it alone.People trusted him with the lead of the company.They allowed him to maneuver.The people who put him in charge are directly the first that can be thanked for this success in a long long row.

It is absolutely an outrage to pay him billions.That would be fine if he ran the company entirely alone,he did not.He completely needed the help of everyone in the company to achieve what he did.It's as simple as that.

[Karrmer]

The scenario serves it's purpose.If you can't get it,fine,it's not the main subject of the topic.But how would you divide the 100 000$?

Steve Jobs made the profit from Apple jump all alone?The education he received from society doesn't count?A stable place to live and grow as a human?
He also had a $4.8 billion company at his disposal,or no it's just that he's so awesome it's all him?No employee ever contributed to the success of the company because Steve Jobs was there?He put all the laptops himself into the shelves?But no all these people and money at his disposal were just meaningless tools?They're just enough to change ''single handedly'' to ''almost single handedly''?

He did something great.But he certainly did not do it alone.People trusted him with the lead of the company.They allowed him to maneuver.The people who put him in charge are directly the first that can be thanked for this success in a long long row.

It is absolutely an outrage to pay him billions.That would be fine if he ran the company entirely alone,he did not.He completely needed the help of everyone in the company to achieve what he did.It's as simple as that.

He didn't have a company worth $4b originally, it was worth nothing.

The person putting the laptops on the shelf is not doing a job worthy of much pay. Anyone could do it.

It's foolish to pretend anyone could have taken Apple and turned it into the most valuable company in history, though. You're naive, ignorant, and just about everything you say is worthy of nothing more than a giggle.

Let me ask you a question: if you had the option to pay someone $100 million dollars knowing that doing so would give you billions, would you?

Because that is the basic idea behind most CEOs. Sorry, but the guys stocking the shelves won't give you that return. CEOs have the power to make decisions that can bring in millions of dollars or more, and can also make decisions that lose millions or completely bankrupt companies. You want to pay for the guy that won't do the latter.

[Tradewind]

The scenario serves it's purpose.If you can't get it,fine,it's not the main subject of the topic.But how would you divide the 100 000$?

Steve Jobs made the profit from Apple jump all alone?The education he received from society doesn't count?A stable place to live and grow as a human?
He also had a $4.8 billion company at his disposal,or no it's just that he's so awesome it's all him?No employee ever contributed to the success of the company because Steve Jobs was there?He put all the laptops himself into the shelves?But no all these people and money at his disposal were just meaningless tools?They're just enough to change ''single handedly'' to ''almost single handedly''?

He did something great.But he certainly did not do it alone.People trusted him with the lead of the company.They allowed him to maneuver.The people who put him in charge are directly the first that can be thanked for this success in a long long row.

It is absolutely an outrage to pay him billions.That would be fine if he ran the company entirely alone,he did not.He completely needed the help of everyone in the company to achieve what he did.It's as simple as that.

Steve Jobs, for all intents and purposes, didn't receive a salary from Apple. His wealth was accumulated through dividends, stock sales and stock ownership, while he did receive some executive benefits and gifts most of his wealth was in assets. Between the initial sale of $14M in Apple stock following its IPO, to owning $1.4B in Apple stock before his death and $4.4B in Disney stock.

[smegmage]

this also ignorant as not every 'starts' in the same position, yes some overcome not having a silver spoon but such is not the norm. The only thing that is truely accurate in your post is "life isn't fair"

Look up millionaire and billionaire rags-to-riches stories, there are more than enough to show that hard work and motivation can overcome starting from a less fortunate position.

Excuses are easy to make, money is not. It's your choice and everyone else's which they prefer to work towards.

[obdigore]

Look up millionaire and billionaire rags-to-riches stories, there are more than enough to show that hard work and motivation can overcome starting from a less fortunate position.

Excuses are easy to make, money is not. It's your choice and everyone else's which they prefer to work towards.

We already had this conversation, there are extremely few actual rags to riches stories, and most of them require an extreme change in the market, such as the rise of computing or the printing press.

[Deleted]

He didn't have a company worth $4b originally, it was worth nothing.

The person putting the laptops on the shelf is not doing a job worthy of much pay. Anyone could do it.

It's foolish to pretend anyone could have taken Apple and turned it into the most valuable company in history, though. You're naive, ignorant, and just about everything you say is worthy of nothing more than a giggle.

Let me ask you a question: if you had the option to pay someone $100 million dollars knowing that doing so would give you billions, would you?

Because that is the basic idea behind most CEOs. Sorry, but the guys stocking the shelves won't give you that return. CEOs have the power to make decisions that can bring in millions of dollars or more, and can also make decisions that lose millions or completely bankrupt companies. You want to pay for the guy that won't do the latter.

You find me naive and ignorant.I find you ironic.

First,do not put words into my mouth.I specifically said the success of Apple's rise can be assigned to the people who trusted Steve Jobs with the lead of the company.Obviously implying not anyone could have just taken Apple to where it is.

Of course I would.Basic math.Completely irrelevant though.The subject of the topic is the morality of such payments.And it's wrong.
(I hope you're not going to say this is contradictory so I won't have to talk to you about how capitalism works?)

CEO's have that kind of power.Yes.But that kind of power doesn't justify such a salary.
These CEO's are not special human beings that deserve stellar salaries.With proper training I logically guess a big chunk of the middle class could be decent CEO's.
Because that's what CEO's are,normal people.
The thing is,only one person can be a CEO.So of course not everyone can be one.That's the simple reason.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 08:23 AM ----------

Look up millionaire and billionaire rags-to-riches stories, there are more than enough to show that hard work and motivation can overcome starting from a less fortunate position.

Excuses are easy to make, money is not. It's your choice and everyone else's which they prefer to work towards.

For every hard working and motivated person that makes it from an unfair position,how much hard working and motivated persons don't make it?Do your stories specify that?

[smegmage]

ZRebellion, do you also believe that top athletes do not deserve their astronomical salaries?

For every hard working and motivated person that makes it from an unfair position,how much hard working and motivated persons don't make it?Do your stories specify that?

Refer to my life isn't fair explanation. This isn't elementary school, not everyone gets a ribbon for trying.

[Deleted]

ZRebellion, do you also believe that top athletes do not deserve their astronomical salaries?

Yep.It's complete insanity.While actors,artists,painters,athletes get overpaid so,so,so much.
There is a serious shortage of people in important fields like nursery or education.These jobs that are so important have such a low salary while entertainers have money thrown at them?Complete insanity.This world has a long way to go.

[Tradewind]

Your spacebar probably gets paid too much as well and it barely does it's job either...what a shame.

[smegmage]

Yep.It's complete insanity.While actors,artists,painters,athletes get overpaid so,so,so much.
There is a serious shortage of people in important fields like nursery or education.These jobs that are so important have such a low salary while entertainers have money thrown at them?Complete insanity.This world has a long way to go.

But why? Your argument against ceo's earning such a salary was that they don't perform a task which warrants such a salary, however in professional sports compensation is 100% proportionate to performance. There are billions coming in, so where should that money go? Should tickets be free and merchandise next to nothing so that we can distribute that wealth elsewhere too?

You seem to be more focused on no one becoming wealthy rather than forming logical arguments as to why it's wrong, because you've proven yourself to be a hypocrite on this one.

Carry on with your nonsensical idealistic ramblings.

[Klingers]

Note here: Despite the tone of this post, I think CEO salaries should be capped and bonuses/renumeration should be taxed upwards of 60%, just to discourage ugly money shifting tactics.

In an ideal world, CEOs are paid as much as they are because (the good ones) they are entrusted with a level of responsibility that comes with the seniority. They have ultimate responsibility and duty of care over the companies they are in charge of, and in a perfect world they're held accountable for fuck-ups.

The point of the big salaries is partly to attract the best candidates to the job (and keep them), and offset the responsibility aspect.

The reason why it's in the public consciousness right now is because "the rules" are being ignored more blantantly than they used to. Most times rubbish CEOs still get their obscene bonuses for throwing companies and workers under a bus.

An example of "the rules" working as they should was the current Nokia CEO, who basically had his bonuses reduced to nothing for his company's shit performance last fiscal year. If he does better next year, he gets his cookie back. Sadly it doesn't work this well in most instances anymore.

[Deleted]

But why? Your argument against ceo's earning such a salary was that they don't perform a task which warrants such a salary, however in professional sports compensation is 100% proportionate to performance. There are billions coming in, so where should that money go? Should tickets be free and merchandise next to nothing so that we can distribute that wealth elsewhere too?

You seem to be more focused on no one becoming wealthy rather than forming logical arguments as to why it's wrong, because you've proven yourself to be a hypocrite on this one.

Carry on with your nonsensical idealistic ramblings.

You answer your own question in your very next sentence...such performance doesn't warrant such a salary.

Where should the money go?The topic is not about how such salary would be reduced,it's about whether it needs reduction or not.I have enough on my plate with the main subject.

I just explained you why it's wrong for ''entertainers'' to receive such salary.Try to read my posts decently.
Also I'd like to know why you think I'm an hypocrite.
And what ratio would you divide the 100 000$?