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.
I tried to stay away from sports and salaries. But you got me thinkin. I do dispise what pro sports people make. I try very hard to overlook that when Im watching a game and the team I love.
Do you remember way back in 94 when MLB players went on strike and most of the season was canceled? That was all over more money. Greedy players. Baseball lost so very many of their loyal fans due to this strike which made way for football becoming Americas sport over taking baseball which has been Americas sport prior
I cant use movie stars as an example because I dont go to movies nor do I rent videos. Partly due to my protest to their grotesque salaries and greed.
Since you brought it up, I find it amazing how many people (including probably many socialists) flocked back to MLB in 1995, and especially after that home run hitting contest (with a juiced ball, by the way, approved by owners, to help fan interest) between McGuire and Sosa in 1998.
I think part of the reason why so many on the left don't object to these salaries is that there is a perception out there that they are employed by the owners of these teams, who they perceive as overwhelmingly white, overprivileged, overindulged, etc, and think it's just fine when a player is able to shave some of the owner's bank account off for themselves. In fact, if there was a way that MLB could be taken over by the government, and those owner's fortunes be liquidated into a new federal government agency, let's call it the Department of Sports and Entertainment, that socialists would be having orgasms.
I know I am probably jumping into the science fiction future by invoking this scenario, but given the devolving political climate in this country over the past 15-20 years, I no longer consider the scenario as far-fetched as it once was.
I don't think you will make CEO either because you apparently believe the qualifications are connections and butt kissing. I can guarantee that boards are looking for people that know how to add value to the company from that position.
I find it amusing that all these people who don't know how a CEO adds value to a company think they can do a better job, when the job ultimately is to add value to a company.
Having worked for 4 MNCs now including a couple Fortune 500 companies, I have a fairly good idea what CEOs do. As mentioned, a minority do have some significant positive impact. I worked for one. You could perhaps argue in those cases they deserve the compensation. More often than not, the CEO's actual impact on a company is negligible or worse is negative. In my experience, having now worked for several, each CEO is anxious to make broad and significant change in the organization, so they can put their stamp on the company. The long term ramifications of that change are not always clearly thought through. Strategic mistakes cost employees their jobs and mid level professionals have to clean up the mess.
A recent study of "superstar CEOs" by Ulrike Malmendier of the University of California at Berkeley and Geoffrey Tate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School found that companies run by top executives who won awards handed out by the business press between 1975 and 2002 consistently underperformed the market after being honored. (Malmendier and Tate argue, in part, that CEOs who have been anointed as superstars neglect their jobs.) An earlier examination of auto industry productivity found big impacts from changing CEOs - except at the best-run car company, Toyota (Charts).
"Good leaders can make a small positive difference; bad leaders can make a huge negative difference - because they drive people out," says Stanford Business School professor and organizational expert Jeffrey Pfeffer. "If you said to me, 'Who can fix GM?' I don't know. But there's no question that someone could make an enormous difference on the downside."
The ultimate lesson here may be that there are limited rewards to identifying the very best CEOs. Same with paying CEOs like superstars - Collins found no clear link between executive pay and success at the "good to great" companies he studied.
Hey Greatday, long time no hear. I dont call you a CEO. You are a small business man and I so greatly admire the position. I sit in the same desk as you in my own business but I cant bring myself to call myself a CEO.
The point of this discussion is the big fat clowns who suck millions from the economy and give nothing back. The vast majority of CEOs in charge of mega corporations have no job, just a title. They attend a few meetings and flirt with all the pretty girls and collect a salary each day that is greater to what most normal people make in their entire working career.
It's not fair. And even though I P { MARGIN: 0px } UL { MARGIN-TOP: 5px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px } OL { MARGIN-TOP: 5px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px } reluctantly admit that life is not fair, I dispise those who have it and brag about it.
Actually, the point of this thread was not to talk about the "fat cats". We are not talking about them. YOU are talking about them. I am talking about general CEO's that run all kinds of businesses all over the USA and the fact that people dispise them because of their title. YOU dispise them even though you ARE ONE! You may not give yourself the title but make no mistake, if you own your own business, your a CEO! Greedy bastard!
I do have a serious question for those who seemed just disgusted about what CEO's of companies make. Do you feel the same about actor/actresses and sports people? I mean, some of these people are making 20 million PER FILM.
Kristine
Actually you started out asking if people are disgusted about what CEOs make, not about their title. If you are talking about small business owners then I doubt you will find too many people raising an argument. If you are talking about "fat cats" then that is a different topic, and legitimate arguments can be made that in many cases their compensation is completely out of line with their value add to a company.
Having worked for 4 MNCs now including a couple Fortune 500 companies, I have a fairly good idea what CEOs do. As mentioned, a minority do have some significant positive impact. I worked for one. You could perhaps argue in those cases they deserve the compensation. More often than not, the CEO's actual impact on a company is negligible or worse is negative. In my experience, having now worked for several, each CEO is anxious to make broad and significant change in the organization, so they can put their stamp on the company. The long term ramifications of that change are not always clearly thought through. Strategic mistakes cost employees their jobs and mid level professionals have to clean up the mess.
A recent study of "superstar CEOs" by Ulrike Malmendier of the University of California at Berkeley and Geoffrey Tate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School found that companies run by top executives who won awards handed out by the business press between 1975 and 2002 consistently underperformed the market after being honored. (Malmendier and Tate argue, in part, that CEOs who have been anointed as superstars neglect their jobs.) An earlier examination of auto industry productivity found big impacts from changing CEOs - except at the best-run car company, Toyota (Charts).
"Good leaders can make a small positive difference; bad leaders can make a huge negative difference - because they drive people out," says Stanford Business School professor and organizational expert Jeffrey Pfeffer. "If you said to me, 'Who can fix GM?' I don't know. But there's no question that someone could make an enormous difference on the downside."
The ultimate lesson here may be that there are limited rewards to identifying the very best CEOs. Same with paying CEOs like superstars - Collins found no clear link between executive pay and success at the "good to great" companies he studied.
These quotes prove my point. Finding a CEO that will not lose lots of money for the corporation is a very difficult proposition. At any one time there might be a handful of people in the entire world that can do that. The ability to do that is so precarious that taking an excellent CEO and making a small change in his thought process (like by giving him an award) could ruin the entire formula. It boils down to supply and demand. Since there are so few people that can do it, we should do what we can to keep the Trumps and Buffets in place to benefit all their employees, and yes they are worth it.
now imagine that you are on the board of directors elected by and with a responsibility to shareholders. Are you going to try to be cheap when hiring a CEO? Are you going to hire the best butt kisser with the most connections, or are you going to look at past performance with a fine tooth comb and try to find the best possible CEO.. even if that requires that you pay him a whopping 1/10th of 1 percent of your revenues. Remember that these guys are top notch negotiators so you might want to consider the golden parachute clause.
Right, what CEO's make. Not what fat cat CEO's make. There seems to be some confusion for people as to what a CEO is. I hear constantly how CEO are evil, greedy, pigs....you name it. But the people saying these things are not saying the "fat cat" CEO's, they are just saying CEO's. There is a disconnect with them that a CEO is a small business owner OR someone who is a CEO of a large corporation. They are so hell bent on being angry and hateful towards CEO's that they look ignorant.
I don't think anyone here hates the money they make.
It's just an awful lot. And It's the same with actors and ball players although I think certain ball players may deserve it because it is hard on their body. But no one can be worth that much including right wing mouth pieces such as Rush Limbaugh.
These quotes prove my point. Finding a CEO that will not lose lots of money for the corporation is a very difficult proposition. At any one time there might be a handful of people in the entire world that can do that. The ability to do that is so precarious that taking an excellent CEO and making a small change in his thought process (like by giving him an award) could ruin the entire formula. It boils down to supply and demand. Since there are so few people that can do it, we should do what we can to keep the Trumps and Buffets in place to benefit all their employees, and yes they are worth it.
now imagine that you are on the board of directors elected by and with a responsibility to shareholders. Are you going to try to be cheap when hiring a CEO? Are you going to hire the best butt kisser with the most connections, or are you going to look at past performance with a fine tooth comb and try to find the best possible CEO.. even if that requires that you pay him a whopping 1/10th of 1 percent of your revenues. Remember that these guys are top notch negotiators so you might want to consider the golden parachute clause.
You and I agree that CEOs that actually do make a significant positive impact on a company are few and far between. We also agree that those CEOs who do so are worth their compensation.
My point stands however that the majority of CEOs at large corporations do not make a significant positive impact and do not deserve the outlandish compensation they receive. If the Board of Directors wants to give them that compensation I do not fault them for accepting it. They just do not "earn" it.
You and I agree that CEOs that actually do make a significant positive impact on a company are few and far between. We also agree that those CEOs who do so are worth their compensation.
My point stands however that the majority of CEOs at large corporations do not make a significant positive impact and do not deserve the outlandish compensation they receive. If the Board of Directors wants to give them that compensation I do not fault them for accepting it. They just do not "earn" it.
I think we are getting very close to agreement here.
I also think they often do not earn it, but at the time they make the contracts with the board, I think they have to show appropriate past performance to get the high salaries and the final number they come up with is fair. They don't just accept what the board offers. What would stop a board from offering half if that was the case. The board is stuck in a position where very few people in the entire world can do the job and when you get someone interested that appears to have the skill to do it, there is negotiation and remember that the board members are often outmatched in this arena. So to say they are taking what the board is offering is a little backward. It is important as a stockholder to make sure your board has a good negotiator on it.
The largest compensation packages typically include incentives that might be 10 times the base pay. If I were on a board, the package would be laden with incentives and there would be no parachute in the case of failure - unless I wanted that person to take big risks. For example I might believe I have oil under my back yard. No one would drill unless they knew they were being paid even if they did not strike oil. I would still want the best driller available.
Actually, the point of this thread was not to talk about the "fat cats". We are not talking about them. YOU are talking about them. I am talking about general CEO's that run all kinds of businesses all over the USA and the fact that people dispise them because of their title. YOU dispise them even though you ARE ONE! You may not give yourself the title but make no mistake, if you own your own business, your a CEO! Greedy bastard!
Kristine
Yikes !! So I am a greedy bastard huh? I pay my installers more money then what you said you are paid. They make more then me. I dont even have to wear a phony suit and tie nor do I dress up. I chose my path.
I am a sole proprietor, I am not a CEO. I almost feel insulted by you calling me a CEO. That's ok though. I'm glad you love your job. I love mine too but I am not a CEO.
Last edited by desertsun41; 10-22-2008 at 06:01 PM..
Reason: sp
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.
I don't think anyone here hates the money they make.
