Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, no you are not. You may think you are, but your work output may say otherwise. Especially in places like retail where there is no real required downtime for emergency staffing events (like EMS for hospitals may be on the clock and inactive, but they are required because of a possible emergency). A cashier isn't worth $15/hr, the guy who knows how to rig the lighting fixtures and work a forklift however may produce a profit for the company at $15/hr (hypothetically speaking, not factual data for arguing). An employee who runs numbers may be found to be worth $30/hr, but John from accounting figured out a way to operate at a different pace so he can clear 50% more work. Same job, but done better and so the worth of John to the company increases.
So my current job is studying hospital readmission's for certain patients. We don't get paid if it is within a 30 day readmit (stupid stupid stupid federal laws), so if I save the hospital more then 2 readmits a year I save the hospital my salary in costs incurred. If I save more then 2 readmits the hospital nets a profit, until I find out how much I save them and then I can renegotiate my salary (say for instance I was saving 4 redamits and now I save 8). I can now ask for double my salary and both the hospital and myself profit from the exchange.
No, no you are not. You may think you are, but your work output may say otherwise. Especially in places like retail where there is no real required downtime for emergency staffing events (like EMS for hospitals may be on the clock and inactive, but they are required because of a possible emergency). A cashier isn't worth $15/hr, the guy who knows how to rig the lighting fixtures and work a forklift however may produce a profit for the company at $15/hr (hypothetically speaking, not factual data for arguing). An employee who runs numbers may be found to be worth $30/hr, but John from accounting figured out a way to operate at a different pace so he can clear 50% more work. Same job, but done better and so the worth of John to the company increases.
So my current job is studying hospital readmission's for certain patients. We don't get paid if it is within a 30 day readmit (stupid stupid stupid federal laws), so if I save the hospital more then 2 readmits a year I save the hospital my salary in costs incurred. If I save more then 2 readmits the hospital nets a profit, until I find out how much I save them and then I can renegotiate my salary (say for instance I was saving 4 redamits and now I save 8). I can now ask for double my salary and both the hospital and myself profit from the exchange.
His compensation is determined by the labor market, just like the employees. It just so happens that there is more demand for an executive than a stocker.
No there isn't. CEOs are few and far between but plenty of other highly qualified people would like to be CEOs. If you can pay a few million per year, you can have your pick of CEOs, but you need a few million bucks because that is what they demand. Nobody, even if there is major competition for the job, will take a CEO position with a large corporation for $100,000/year. The CEO of a local carpet cleaning company may settle for $100,000 but not anyone working for a large corporation.
Easy for you to say. You already live in Texas, so Arkansas isn't much of a drop-off for you. LMAO:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode
No there isn't. CEOs are few and far between but plenty of other highly qualified people would like to be CEOs. If you can pay a few million per year, you can have your pick of CEOs, but you need a few million bucks because that is what they demand. Nobody, even if there is major competition for the job, will take a CEO position with a large corporation for $100,000/year. The CEO of a local carpet cleaning company may settle for $100,000 but not anyone working for a large corporation.
Yeah, but executive pay in this country goes WAY beyond what the market would ordinarily call for. Sure, no one would run Walmart for 100K a year, but plenty would do it for 10 million. Executive pay is incredibly overinflated in this country, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
The NFL pays its commissioner 30 million a year to run a league that an orangutan can run successfully. He's not even competent enough to hand out punishment properly, and that doesn't even require a brain to perform.
I think in general companies should pay CEOs and shareholders whatever they want. I don't necessarily agree with how they do. But they shouldn't be allowed to rig the market against labor and to a lessor extent consumers, with monopolies, barriers to entry, outsourcing, offshoring, mass legal and illegal immigration and foreign worker visas.
I think in general companies should pay CEOs and shareholders whatever they want. I don't necessarily agree with how they do. But they shouldn't be allowed to rig the market against labor and to a lessor extent consumers, with monopolies, barriers to entry, outsourcing, offshoring, mass legal and illegal immigration and foreign worker visas.
We certainly agree on this issue. People don't seem to get that somehow, the market is depressing wages for Tom and Harry, but for some reason, executive pay isn't facing the same downward pressure. I'm sorry, but no one can convince me that they're on average, 800 times more valuable than his or her laborer is. This nonsense is s recent phenomenon. If it had always been this way, it'd be different. But it wasn't. This from the American Banker:
Quote:
Thirty years ago, in 1983, the average pay of the leaders of the six largest banks was 40 times the average of all U.S. workers, while the multiple for the executives of the nonbank Fortune 50 companies was only slightly less at 38 times. Since then, large-bank CEO compensation has grown geometrically compared with that of the average worker and now stands at 208 times, while the nonbankers average 224 times. Put another way, the average pay for all American workers has grown 2.9 times over the past 30 years, while that of the bank executives grew 15.4 times and the nonbankers by 17.4 times.
I mean...come on. Folks who defend this crap need to get real.
There are 2.1 million Walmart employees. If they work on average 1219 hours a year the CEO could forego his compensation so all other Walmart employees could make an extra penny an hour.
SO WHAT! Tim Cook made 11M last year... $9M as a bonus! Maybe he should just stop taking his bonuses to pay employees.... WAIT! Since he took over he has sent 35K jobs to Asia sweat shops! Never mind, he can keep his bonus!
SO WHAT! Tim Cook made 11M last year... $9M as a bonus! Maybe he should just stop taking his bonuses to pay employees.... WAIT! Since he took over he has sent 35K jobs to Asia sweat shops! Never mind, he can keep his bonus!
Total BS "How much they pay shareholders is a little bit trickier". No, the purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value.
"There’s something unbearably sad about a great financial journal like The Economist defending shareholder value theory, which even Jack Welch has called “the dumbest idea in the world.” Like many unbearably sad things, it involves clever people who should know better struggling to defend something that is economically, socially and morally ugly. ..."
In today’s paradoxical world of maximizing shareholder value, which Jack Welch himself has called “the dumbest idea in the world”, the situation is the reverse. CEOs and their top managers have massive incentives to focus most of their attentions on the expectations market, rather than the real job of running the company producing real products and services.
The “real market,” Martin explains, is the world in which factories are built, products are designed and produced, real products and services are bought and sold, revenues are earned, expenses are paid, and real dollars of profit show up on the bottom line. That is the world that executives control—at least to some extent.
The expectations market is the world in which shares in companies are traded between investors—in other words, the stock market. In this market, investors assess the real market activities of a company today and, on the basis of that assessment, form expectations as to how the company is likely to perform in the future. The consensus view of all investors and potential investors as to expectations of future performance shapes the stock price of the company.
“What would lead [a CEO],” asks Martin, “to do the hard, long-term work of substantially improving real-market performance when she can choose to work on simply raising expectations instead? Even if she has a performance bonus tied to real-market metrics, the size of that bonus now typically pales in comparison with the size of her stock-based incentives. Expectations are where the money is. And of course, improving real-market performance is the hardest and slowest way to increase expectations from the existing level.” ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
