ceo payouts are an outrage?

[smegmage]

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$?

Thanks for proving you don't have a concise argument and that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills. If you can't spot the hypocrisy in your posts you should just walk away now.

[Deleted]

Thanks for proving you don't have a concise argument and that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills. If you can't spot the hypocrisy in your posts you should just walk away now.

Why are you dodging the question?Give me an answer.Or it's obvious you're trying to attack me and not my arguments.
You're on the offensive,did I offend you?
You also dodged another question,in what ratio would you divide the 100 000$?

[yurano]

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.

First off, artists and painters don't really get paid jack.

Second, you're not comparing like to like. The actors and athletes you're talking about are top of the line. These highly paid actors and athletes are selected out at odds of some 1 to 100K (or worse). There are educators of equivalent odds and pay, they're called Ivy League professors.

Your thought process clearly has a long way to go before it can even be considered legit.

[smegmage]

Why are you dodging the question?Give me an answer.Or it's obvious you're trying to attack me and not my arguments.
You're on the offensive,did I offend you?
You also dodged another question,in what ratio would you divide the 100 000$?

Compensation based on performance is precisely the opposite of your complaint that CEO's do not do a job which warrants such high salaries, but you rejected it. If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that, nowhere to really go from here. To be fair it was quite predictable, your types are rather inconsistent with your views other than bitching about anyone who makes millions.

[Deleted]

Its a myth that people able to do CEO duties are rare. We as a society tend to play importance on that role as a way of justifying the high salaries, and the low ones other people get. Whereas in reality its almost impossible to place a value on CEO's contribution as studies have shown that almost all of the change in value of companies happens for reasons beyond CEO's control.

We are creating a class system again, concentrating the wealth in a few small sections of society and eroding workers rights which were fought hard for.

A CEO may have an arguement for a higher wage, but do they really work 300+ times harder than someone at the bottom of the ladder? I think not. And in my experience, an organisation tends to miss decent people at the bottom far more than it misses people at the top.

But from a more philosophical point of view, why pay a CEO, whos purpose in life is greed, more than say a nurse of fireman who contributes more to society at a practical level? We reward people who focus on greed, and try to pay people who take risk or sacrifice for the good of society as little as possible. You have to ask what that says about the values of our society as a whole/

[kleinlax21]

Why are you dodging the question?Give me an answer.Or it's obvious you're trying to attack me and not my arguments.
You're on the offensive,did I offend you?
You also dodged another question,in what ratio would you divide the 100 000$?

It depends on the size of the company tbh. If it was a company of 3 people, I'd pay the electrician 50-60k, doctor 100-120k, and CEO 150-500k, all depending on profits.

If its a company of 10,000 people, I'd pay the electrician 50-60k, doctor 100-120k, and CEO probably anywhere above a million. I think 10 is a realistic number for a company of this size, but tbh I have no idea.

Following your kind of odd, nonsensical and badly scaling cap of 100k:

Small Company: 64/24/12

Large Company: 98.5/1/.5

It all depends on the size of the company. If its a 3 person business ran out of the "CEO"'s garage, you can hardly expect him to take home more than even 500k really. On the other hand, the CEO of a company like Microsoft who employs a metric fuck ton of people will make a shit ton more money than a garage-based entrepreneur time after time.

Your question is really poorly worded and weirdly makes it seem like because you pay a CEO x amount of money, some electrician gets a salary that has something to do with how much the top dog CEO brings in. The electrician and doctor are paid what they are worth to the company; none criteria that decide their value to a company have anything to do with how much anyone at the top makes.

Also, people are hired/fired based on a lack of supply and demand, or if they don't provide sufficient value to a company's operations to keep. Look at the movie Office Space; thousands of companies across America during this time period were slowly finding out that a script written by a computer whiz that can be purchased for a one time fee can do the work of 20 hourly employees. So, big fucking surprise, companies laid off workers in favor of computers. These employees didn't get fired because the CEO refused to take a pay cut, but because their job could be done by a computer prompted by a single enter keystroke at the start of each workday.

In the economic downturn of 2008, the housing market was one of the first markets to crash. Hundreds of thousands of people working in the construction industry lost their jobs. Did they lose their jobs because their boss refused to take a pay cut? On the contrary, it was because they had fuck all houses to build and were overstaffed for the level of demand the downturn resulted in. Thousands of real estate agents lost their jobs too. But that was because next to zero properties were getting bought and there were no commissions to be had. There was not enough demand for new houses/properties in order to satisfy the then-current level of real estate agents. Hundreds of thousands of real estate agents and construction workers lose their jobs? Hard hats, steel-toed boots, lumber, power tools, steel, and nails all now are at a reduced demand because less construction projects are happening across the country. Steel smiths, lumber mill workers, and shoemakers all get laid off due to reduced demand. Make sense?

Rarely is somebody's getting fired the direct result of the CEO refusing to take a pay cut. It's much more likely that the loss of their job was either due to some on the job event (meltdown, which doesn't even matter for this discussion) or some shift in market dynamics that results in a need for less employees, be it smaller demand/supply(economic recession layoffs), or a reduction in marginal productivity due to technological advancements (laying off factory workers in favor of welding robots).

[Deleted]

Assuming it's a weekly salary, I'd give the electrician $1000, the doctor $5000 and $94000 goes to the CEO. If it's yearly, then I'm in trouble.. no competent, charismatic and hard-working CEO would work for $100000 a year. I may have to fire the other two and give it all to the CEO and hope to get more money soon and that he doesn't get a more lucrative job offer meanwhile in that case.

[Djuntas]

They are the frontman, the guy who ultimately takes the big decisions. They can also be blaimed for there decisions harder.

I do think its redicously stupid with the golden hand shakes, witch seems to common.

[Deleted]

First off, artists and painters don't really get paid jack.

Second, you're not comparing like to like. The actors and athletes you're talking about are top of the line. These highly paid actors and athletes are selected out at odds of some 1 to 100K (or worse). There are educators of equivalent odds and pay, they're called Ivy League professors.

Your thought process clearly has a long way to go before it can even be considered legit.

We were talking about the ones that were very successful,the ''top'' that you mention.So hold your horses.

[Trakanonn]

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.

yikes, the future scares me with thoughts like this.

[Deleted]

Assuming it's a weekly salary, I'd give the electrician $1000, the doctor $5000 and $94000 goes to the CEO. If it's yearly, then I'm in trouble.. no competent, charismatic and hard-working CEO would work for $100000 a year. I may have to fire the other two and give it all to the CEO and hope to get more money soon and that he doesn't get a more lucrative job offer meanwhile in that case.

so, how does the CEO generate money if there is no one else working there?

In terms of added value to the company, I'd give the CEO very little, and if you cant get a "decent" CEO, fine.

CEO's dont take responsibility anymore, thats just a fallacy nowadays, it very rarely happens, they get bous;s for failure, and masisve payouts when they leave, even when fired. There is generally no like between CEO performance and stock price changes.

I'd focus on rewarding the people who actually make companies work, the people much lower down the chain who contribute to the core functions of the business.

[Deleted]

Compensation based on performance is precisely the opposite of your complaint that CEO's do not do a job which warrants such high salaries, but you rejected it. If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that, nowhere to really go from here. To be fair it was quite predictable, your types are rather inconsistent with your views other than bitching about anyone who makes millions.

It's not the opposite it's the same.It's simple.The job should pay what's it's worth.Whether it's the performance of a top athlete or the job a CEO they do not warrant such high salary.
You're deluded in your own misconceptions,or tell me again where I am a hypocrite.
You're the one that is 'bitching',in every post you just can't refrain from attacking me,you can't limit it to simply discussing my arguments.
I hope you do get it now though.

You also didn't manage to again answer a simple question.How would you divide,by your personal opinion, the 100 000$ between the ceo,the medic and the electrician?

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 10:11 AM ----------

yikes, the future scares me with thoughts like this.

What's actually scary about a ceo not making millions?

[kleinlax21]

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.

I can explain to you why such a disparity exists between an actor like Will Smith, with an income in the millions, and a nurse who makes $35,000 per year. It completely is caused by 4 things: the incredibly small supply of Will Smith, the incredibly massive demand for his presence in movies that make billions, the relatively large supply of non-MD'ed nurses, and the relatively average demand for nurses. Now, translate all of that into dollars and cents, and you have one incredibly wealthy actor and hundreds of thousands of people who make a decent living as nurses.

The word important, to you, evidently does not mean what it does to the marketplace. According to the marketplace, Will Smith is more important than your average Nurse by a factor of around a hundred thousand, because Will's average movie/celeb presence on an annual basis is worth the one hundred thousand times the baby-delivering, IV-sticking, and pulse-taking wealth creation potential of your average nurse. Obviously, it's easily argued that, excluding Will's monetary donations to charity, a nurse does more "good" for society at her workplace than Will does at his. But, given my explanation of supply and demand, it's easy to see why he makes incredibly more money than your average nurse. Also, if there was a shortage of nurses, wouldn't they be paid more in order to attract more potential nurses to the field?A doctor is actually the highest in demand profession in the medicinal industry, and surprise surprise, they are paid the most due to a very high demand and a relatively low supply.

Now, let's look at Ryan Reynolds in the start of his career. He drove a car with no doors once because he was so poor he couldn't afford to get replacements after they got stolen. I think it is fair to assume that his income was around $30k, if not far less. This is the evonomy stating that a pre-discovered Ryan Reynolds is approximately as "important" as a Nurse is, purely from a perspective of wealth-adding potential and marginal productivity.

Keep in mind, I only use the word important in this context because it is my opinion you do not share the marketplace's criteria for pegging somebody's salary, and that you hold the somewhat standard idea that teachers and nurses should be paid more, because they save people's lives and/or work with kids all day. Unfortunately (or fortunately, what have you) the marketplace does not work this way, and these abstract ideas rooted in morality don't really have an impact on somebody's salary, especially in the private sector, which is driven (in areas of low/moderate government regulation) by the concepts of supply and demand.

[Deleted]

It depends on the size of the company tbh. If it was a company of 3 people, I'd pay the electrician 50-60k, doctor 100-120k, and CEO 150-500k, all depending on profits.

If its a company of 10,000 people, I'd pay the electrician 50-60k, doctor 100-120k, and CEO probably anywhere above a million. I think 10 is a realistic number for a company of this size, but tbh I have no idea.

Following your kind of odd, nonsensical and badly scaling cap of 100k:

Small Company: 64/24/12

Large Company: 98.5/1/.5

It all depends on the size of the company. If its a 3 person business ran out of the "CEO"'s garage, you can hardly expect him to take home more than even 500k really. On the other hand, the CEO of a company like Microsoft who employs a metric fuck ton of people will make a shit ton more money than a garage-based entrepreneur time after time.

Your question is really poorly worded and weirdly makes it seem like because you pay a CEO x amount of money, some electrician gets a salary that has something to do with how much the top dog CEO brings in. The electrician and doctor are paid what they are worth to the company; none criteria that decide their value to a company have anything to do with how much anyone at the top makes.

Also, people are hired/fired based on a lack of supply and demand, or if they don't provide sufficient value to a company's operations to keep. Look at the movie Office Space; thousands of companies across America during this time period were slowly finding out that a script written by a computer whiz that can be purchased for a one time fee can do the work of 20 hourly employees. So, big fucking surprise, companies laid off workers in favor of computers. These employees didn't get fired because the CEO refused to take a pay cut, but because their job could be done by a computer prompted by a single enter keystroke at the start of each workday.

In the economic downturn of 2008, the housing market was one of the first markets to crash. Hundreds of thousands of people working in the construction industry lost their jobs. Did they lose their jobs because their boss refused to take a pay cut? On the contrary, it was because they had fuck all houses to build and were overstaffed for the level of demand the downturn resulted in. Thousands of real estate agents lost their jobs too. But that was because next to zero properties were getting bought and there were no commissions to be had. There was not enough demand for new houses/properties in order to satisfy the then-current level of real estate agents. Hundreds of thousands of real estate agents and construction workers lose their jobs? Hard hats, steel-toed boots, lumber, power tools, steel, and nails all now are at a reduced demand because less construction projects are happening across the country. Steel smiths, lumber mill workers, and shoemakers all get laid off due to reduced demand. Make sense?

Rarely is somebody's getting fired the direct result of the CEO refusing to take a pay cut. It's much more likely that the loss of their job was either due to some on the job event (meltdown, which doesn't even matter for this discussion) or some shift in market dynamics that results in a need for less employees, be it smaller demand/supply(economic recession layoffs), or a reduction in marginal productivity due to technological advancements (laying off factory workers in favor of welding robots).

I already said the question shouldn't follow any logic,only personal opinion.I think people like you who rush to defend their ratio by attacking the question or blatantly ignore the question (like smegmage) should take a second and realise if you don't have any feelings of guilt.It's just a guess.

The topic is not about why people are fired or hired.I'm not gonna comment this part.

Now your last part.
Where did I imply firings are a direct result of a payout?In this topic I implied the payout money can be used to save jobs.That is a fact.A few millions less in company costs each year definitely saves a bunch of jobs.
This is not the main reason why CEO salary needs to be reduced,but it's a supporting argument.

[Deleted]

what exactly do CEOs do? make deals? file papers? organize people? those are honestly not "difficult" or "straining" duties.

I seriously hope you're joking.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 11:30 AM ----------

What's actually scary about a ceo not making millions?

If CEO salaries would be in line with others, nobody would want to be one. So much more responsibility and long hours. Your ass is also on the line, if the company fails, it means CEO fails. Often they get fired if the company isn't making big bucks. And they also often make easily 60 hour work weeks with no overtime pay.

[kleinlax21]

It's not the opposite it's the same.It's simple.The job should pay what's it's worth.Whether it's the performance of a top athlete or the job a CEO they do not warrant such high salary.

It's not the opposite it's the same.It's simple.The job should pay what's it's worth.Whether it's the performance of a top athlete or the job a CEO they do not warrant such high salary.

Well, as I stated earlier, it is not for any one person to decide what a CEO is worth; it's up to the marketplace. Let's say, for example, all the Fortune 500 companies' CEO's demand a 50% pay raise together in a coordinated effort (basically, lets pretend a company is stuck with their current CEO and are forced to pay him whatever he wishes). So, now let's look at one individual company, for example McDonald's. McDonald's, because of this extremely illicit and illegal agreement between top CEO's everywhere, is forced to pay their existing CEO the 50% raise, because (again, redonkulous scenario, but roll with me here) they cannot replace their CEO, which effectively means the supply of CEO's is one, or in other words, the current CEO holds a monopoly upon th e CEO position at McDonalds. The supply of this CEO, being in this (admittedly asinine) example nearly zero, translates into a relatively high demand for him to not quit his job and leave McDonalds CEO-less. Thus, McDonald's pays him what he asks because McDonald's doesn't have a choice.

Now, in themreal marketplace, lets say Mr. McDonald's CEO demands the same 50% pay raise or threatens to quit as in the previous scenario. However, this time, McDkonalds has the option to either: keep the CEO with the raise, or go find a new CEO for (presumanly) less cost than the current CEO with his demanded raise. Lets say they ditch the old CEO and go with new blood for their next CEO, paying this new dude the same amount that they paid their old CEO. Here, McDonald's decided that the new CEO provided the company with a higher wealth creating potential than the prior CEO did. Because the supply of able and willing CEO's was higher in this scenario, demand for the existing CEO was lowered as a result, meaning McDonalds now isn't forced into paying him his demanded raise.

This is basically how salaries are determined for positions of all natures in all industries in the private sector. It's a balancing act between two factors: the supply of people willing and able to fill a position for X pay, and the demand for people to fill a position at X pay. This equation is very easily modeled in graphical form, so here is a supply and demand curve for you to gander at:

http://www.geopolitics.us/wp-content...mand-Graph.png

It states that there will always be an optimal point somewhere where the two curves intersect. This point decided the current salary of the average employee of any given profession in the private sector.

[Deleted]

In terms of added value to the company, I'd give the CEO very little, and if you cant get a "decent" CEO, fine.

If you can't get a "decent" CEO, your company will be stuck, if not going downhill. In terms of added value to the company, CEO is the shit. His decisions and plans are what makes the company grow and prosper in the long run. You gotta be pretty fucking blind not to understand that. Or just some kid still in school with 0 knowledge of business.

[kleinlax21]

I already said the question shouldn't follow any logic,only personal opinion.I think people like you who rush to defend their ratio by attacking the question or blatantly ignore the question (like smegmage) should take a second and realise if you don't have any feelings of guilt.It's just a guess.

The topic is not about why people are fired or hired.I'm not gonna comment this part.

Now your last part.
Where did I imply firings are a direct result of a payout?In this topic I implied the payout money can be used to save jobs.That is a fact.A few millions less in company costs each year definitely saves a bunch of jobs.
This is not the main reason why CEO salary needs to be reduced,but it's a supporting argument.

I gave you my personal opinion, it's just the question doesn't make sense because it completely depends on the size of the company said CEO works for.

At one point, the discussion turned to why employees are fired, and I was only attempting to point out that its not, usually, because the CEO refused to take a pay cut.

Why would a company use profit money to pay an employee who, according to the marketplace (in the Office Space example I used) is basically a complete financial liability to keep employed? I fail to see any sense of good business practice or common sense in such an approach to business, regardless of how much money the top dogs are making.

[Deleted]

I seriously hope you're joking.

---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 11:30 AM ----------



If CEO salaries would be in line with others, nobody would want to be one. So much more responsibility and long hours. Your ass is also on the line, if the company fails, it means CEO fails. Often they get fired if the company isn't making big bucks. And they also often make easily 60 hour work weeks with no overtime pay.

So you think the job is so straining an incentive of several million dollars is needed?

What about surgeons.Their job can be very stressful too,they're responsible for human lives and it can happen that the patient dies even if the surgery went well.
The consequences of a mistake can be mentally and career-wise disastrous.Why is it fine for them,not to be payed millions?

[Deleted]

Really? Moronic, huh?
Let's see: There's millions of people living in poverty. Then there's a very wealthy elite. Fair distribution of wealth could literally save millions of lives, but someone hogging enough wealth to feed tens of thousands of people for themselves, and themselves alone, is somehow NOT a MASS MURDERER??

You're the moron.

This made me laugh, really dude. Just because you earn more money than someone else, doesn't make you a murderer.

For example, do you live with existential minimum & donate all your excess money? Because if not, you're a murderer by your logic.