|
Occupy Movement (support or against?) (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
The life of a CEO is not fun and games. To have the success or failure of an entire company on your shoulders is a heavy burden to carry.
I can't say I have any issue with CEOs making large coin....they have worked harder then 99% of the people to gain the knowledge and skills to be able to run these large companies. You have to remember most CEOs were at one time peons too.
People complain about CEO and them firing people so they can make profit margins. How many people here would let themselves get fired to save the jobs or 100 people? |
|
|
| love_child |
All the reasons given are valid. Yes, the CEO is very important and should earn more, especially good company performance, but that doesn't mean 1000 times more than the rest of the company employees. This is a blatant sign of the hubris these people have. They think they did it all by themselves.
The fact is, the company did so good because everyone (or most) did their jobs expediently. If that customer service rep does a poor job, customers are not going to come back and the company will suffer. If that IT guy doesn't keep the network or website up, the company will suffer. Yet, these people aren't getting million dollar bonuses. I find it funny how leaders always talk about teamwork, how important it is and how 'we couldn't have done it without the diligent work of all of you' well, then why does the CEO alone enjoy the fruits of the labor of all?
The empire of the wealthy is built on the back of the common laborer. No individual deserves such an unfair share. That leads to short sighted decision making that doesn't benefit the well being of all.
Global warming pollution, poverty, excessive debt, no health care, water pollution, environmental pollution, air pollution, quality of life dimensioned. The list goes on, but let's not let it. Reality check please.
Lastly, why do they still get their bonuses and exorbitant pay when the company does not do good? If I don't do a good job, I don't get a good raise. Can you imagine what would happen to the little guy/gal if they lose the company a million dollars? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
All the reasons given are valid. Yes, the CEO is very important and should earn more, especially good company performance, but that doesn't mean 1000 times more than the rest of the company employees. This is a blatant sign of the hubris these people have. They think they did it all by themselves.
|
Your argument falls flat when confronted with the reality that CEO compensation is not decided upon by CEOs; rather, by boards of directors.... directors of course being elected by a corporation's shareholders... those shareholders being people just like you and I. Ultimately, it is we the shareholders that control CEO compensation.
| quote: | | The empire of the wealthy is built on the back of the common laborer. |
Try to keep in mind that our poor are also the world's wealthy... our empire is built on the back of the truely unfortunate.
| quote: | | No individual deserves such an unfair share. |
"unfair" is incredibly subjective, no? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
you need to know what bonus programs are in their contracts.
Here is what the CEO of my company made last year.
Salary - $730,000.00
Bonus - $0.00
Restricted stock awards - $214,167.00
All other compensation - $111,852.00
Option awards - $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation - $507,871.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings - $2,677.00
Total Compensation - $1,566,567.00
That is about 12 times what I make a year. I don't think 1.5 million dollars is a lot to pay a CEO of a company that employs thousands of people across north america. |
|
|
| feelgood |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
All the reasons given are valid. Yes, the CEO is very important and should earn more, especially good company performance, but that doesn't mean 1000 times more than the rest of the company employees. This is a blatant sign of the hubris these people have. They think they did it all by themselves.
The fact is, the company did so good because everyone (or most) did their jobs expediently. If that customer service rep does a poor job, customers are not going to come back and the company will suffer. If that IT guy doesn't keep the network or website up, the company will suffer. Yet, these people aren't getting million dollar bonuses. I find it funny how leaders always talk about teamwork, how important it is and how 'we couldn't have done it without the diligent work of all of you' well, then why does the CEO alone enjoy the fruits of the labor of all?
The empire of the wealthy is built on the back of the common laborer. No individual deserves such an unfair share. That leads to short sighted decision making that doesn't benefit the well being of all.
Global warming pollution, poverty, excessive debt, no health care, water pollution, environmental pollution, air pollution, quality of life dimensioned. The list goes on, but let's not let it. Reality check please.
Lastly, why do they still get their bonuses and exorbitant pay when the company does not do good? If I don't do a good job, I don't get a good raise. Can you imagine what would happen to the little guy/gal if they lose the company a million dollars? |
Boil it down to simple logic, and not emotions.
Why it is that these CEO's make this money? These exorbitant figures arent arbitrary. They are a function of the incentives required to keep the person in that position and the value assigned to the position. If the company didn't feel the value was there, the CEO would be fired.. it happens all the time. Whether or not they deserve those figures is entirely moot. Quantifying 'Work' in financial terms is subjective. Quantifying 'Value' is objective.
People often argue that this income inequality affects the quality of their life. But put it in this perspective... In reality it costs nothing to live a simple life. You can get a beautiful house in Thunder Bay, on a big property on a river, with all the amenities for 200,000$. There's no reason you can't live a happy life with even the most modest of salaries up there. BUT.. people like to play the consumption game, tack on a big house right in the GTA with 47" TV, a couple cars bla bla bla.. and suddenly this 'inequality' is present because someone with a modest salary decided to play the money game. |
|
|
| feelgood |
| lol.. shoulda hit submit before i went to the washroom. |
|
|
| timmyboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
you need to know what bonus programs are in their contracts.
Here is what the CEO of my company made last year.
Salary - $730,000.00
Bonus - $0.00
Restricted stock awards - $214,167.00
All other compensation - $111,852.00
Option awards - $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation - $507,871.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings - $2,677.00
Total Compensation - $1,566,567.00
That is about 12 times what I make a year. I don't think 1.5 million dollars is a lot to pay a CEO of a company that employs thousands of people across north america. |
actually putting that compensation vs minimum wage makes it just 75 times greater. In that case the CEO is underpaid |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
you need to know what bonus programs are in their contracts.
Here is what the CEO of my company made last year.
Salary - $730,000.00
Bonus - $0.00
Restricted stock awards - $214,167.00
All other compensation - $111,852.00
Option awards - $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation - $507,871.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings - $2,677.00
Total Compensation - $1,566,567.00
That is about 12 times what I make a year. I don't think 1.5 million dollars is a lot to pay a CEO of a company that employs thousands of people across north america. |
And if that CEO really s up. That could be thousands of UNEMPLOYED people across North America in 6 months.
Although I'd like to believe there are checks and balances in place to avoid situations like that occurring. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
And if that CEO really s up. That could be thousands of UNEMPLOYED people across North America in 6 months.
Although I'd like to believe there are checks and balances in place to avoid situations like that occurring. |
exactly, so shouldn't someone with that kind of responsibility be paid accordingly. I kinda agree with timmyboy that our CEO is extremely underpaid. I wouldn't even think twice about it if he made 10 million last year. |
|
|
| love_child |
How can anyone argue that CEOs take more risk when they have golden parachutes? In fact, that creates a situation where they're willing to take more unnecessary risk because they have the least skin in the game. If their new direction is not adopted by the market, it's others who pay the price not the CEO. If the shareholder value plummets, the CEO still gets his bonus. Where is the risk the CEO is taking?
The risk is absorbed by the business rather than the executive in practice. When the company suffers because of the market place or bad management the first to suffer are the employees via wadge/salary reductions and layoffs. How often is it that executives reduce thier salaries in the face of financial troubles?
If the reward is greater for the executive then should not it be that the executive suffers the greater loss for the risk? If the worker is just a part of the profit making machinery then why should the worker suffer for the mismanagement of the executive.
(i.e. you don't throw away the printing press because the editor decided to print news the public does not want to read. You get rid of the editor.) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
you need to know what bonus programs are in their contracts.
Here is what the CEO of my company made last year.
Salary - $730,000.00
Bonus - $0.00
Restricted stock awards - $214,167.00
All other compensation - $111,852.00
Option awards - $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation - $507,871.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings - $2,677.00
Total Compensation - $1,566,567.00
That is about 12 times what I make a year. I don't think 1.5 million dollars is a lot to pay a CEO of a company that employs thousands of people across north america. |
approx 8,600 employees globally
Revenue 1.1 billion
Profit 28.3 million
growth 6%
As an employee and shareholder I would suggest that I'm willing to keep Jeff employed at 1.5m US |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
How can anyone argue that CEOs take more risk when they have golden parachutes? In fact, that creates a situation where they're willing to take more unnecessary risk because they have the least skin in the game. If their new direction is not adopted by the market, it's others who pay the price not the CEO. If the shareholder value plummets, the CEO still gets his bonus. Where is the risk the CEO is taking?
The risk is absorbed by the business rather than the executive in practice. When the company suffers because of the market place or bad management the first to suffer are the employees via wadge/salary reductions and layoffs. How often is it that executives reduce thier salaries in the face of financial troubles?
If the reward is greater for the executive then should not it be that the executive suffers the greater loss for the risk? If the worker is just a part of the profit making machinery then why should the worker suffer for the mismanagement of the executive.
(i.e. you don't throw away the printing press because the editor decided to print news the public does not want to read. You get rid of the editor.) |
The average life span of a CEO at a company is less then three years. Most CEOs do have their income reduced while in financial troubles. Considering most CEOs are heavily compensated through stocks or bonus programs if the company fails their income becomes less....their base salary may not change but the amount the make in bonuses sure do.
It is rare that the fist people to suffer are the employees when the company does bad. |
|
|
|
|
