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.
If these people are doing good w/their money, such as giving to charity, then no. However, how many of those CEO's do YOU think are charitable?
I know quite a few CEO's, CFO's, CCO's and a CMO and every one of them gives large amounts of monetary contributions to foundations in the community. The ones we are friends with give very generously but that does not spaek for all execs. There are exceptions in every field and positions.
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 P { MARGIN: 0px } UL { MARGIN-TOP: 5px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px } OL { MARGIN-TOP: 5px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px } 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.
It was just a little jab. It was not meant to be taken seriously.
CEOs are prosecuted for robbing a corporation. A vast majority never even consider robbing a corporation though some do. Think about it. It makes no sense. Why would someone making so much money and having such a fine lifestyle risk all that for a little more money. Also it generally takes years of proven integrety to rise to the ranks of a CEO.
A CEO should toss out benefits if that is what it takes to save jobs. If he tosses out too many benefits, he will lose his best workers first. That kills companies and his future earnings.
A CEO should be saving a buck in every instance where that buck is not earning a good rate of return for the shareholders. That is his job. etc. etc. etc.
In a perfect world where they have good work ethic you are right. However history shows that the first cost cutting is usually at the workers expense, if after cutting wages, benefits, quality & all else the CEO cant keep his fat check coming in or his share holders happy they move on.
I dissagree that the shareholders, often the CEO is a major one, should come first. What should come first are the men & woman on the bottom actually doing the work or building the product.
His job is to turn a profit, if cutbacks are needed they should be trimmed from the fat, the executives are the fat, the workers are the muscle.
I dissagree that the shareholders, often the CEO is a major one, should come first.
The shareholders are the owners of the company. They are the ones taking the risk (financial). Without the shareholders, and the shareholders getting a good rate of return on their investments - those workers will not have a job.
The shareholders are the owners of the company. They are the ones taking the risk (financial). Without the shareholders, and the shareholders getting a good rate of return on their investments - those workers will not have a job.
Granted,
But if those workers dont get a living wage they will find another job & the share holders are out of luck. The shareholders IMHO should hold the company officers responsible & if cutbacks are needed start as I said with the fat. I realize theres alot more to it than my simplification but I think they increase their risk if they dont take care of their greatest commodity, their work force.
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
Yes, I do, especially sports figures. However, these people, movie stars and sports people, don't earn much when they FAIL but CEOs DO.
Yes, I do, especially sports figures. However, these people, movie stars and sports people, don't earn much when they FAIL but CEOs DO.
Me too. It is nothing short of pillaging the companies they are supposed to be leading. With the movie stars and sports stars, I just think it is absurd how much we as a society value those poeple and how little we value poeple who do so much more for society (like teachers and librarians). But yes, at least when they fail, they fail instead of pillaging a company they ran into the ground with their millions in golden parachutes.
Jim Carrey for example got paid $20 million dollars for "The Cable Guy" despite it being considered by most critics as one of the worst movies of the 1990s. So even when Hollywood stars are putting out crap they are still getting grossly overpaid. So it's false to say that they only get paid the big bucks when they star in movies that are guaranteed to be huge blockbuster successes.
OP - Stars and CEOs' are overpaid. Simple solution is an all sources 90% income tax on income over one million per year with a 250k base deduction. I do not think that companies will fork over 100 million just to give the CEO bragging rights with 90 of it going to the Feds. Another thing that should be tried is to make the CEO and all the directors personally responsible without limit for the corporate debts left when the company fails.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
In a perfect world where they have good work ethic you are right. However history shows that the first cost cutting is usually at the workers expense, if after cutting wages, benefits, quality & all else the CEO cant keep his fat check coming in or his share holders happy they move on.
I dissagree that the shareholders, often the CEO is a major one, should come first. What should come first are the men & woman on the bottom actually doing the work or building the product.
His job is to turn a profit, if cutbacks are needed they should be trimmed from the fat, the executives are the fat, the workers are the muscle.
In a perfect world you are right, but in the real world, when sales drop and your largest expense is labor, labor will be cut in order to survive.
You are still not getting it so lets try to simplify it by bringing it down to a smaller scale. A lady builds a hamburger stand and hires 5 high school students. The town has summer tourism, so she hires a couple more. When the summer ends, she will fire 2. The lady is the source of the jobs and gets paid more. During the good times the extra profit goes to the lady. During the hard times the lady might get nothing. During the transition from good times to bad times the labor gets cut. The lady is creating the jobs. The lady is the muscle and in the winter, if she had 7 employees 2 of them are fat - regardless of their work ethic or productivity. If you don't like the way she runs her business, there is always an empty lot across the street and you can build your own.
To be fair, lets give more respect to the labor and change it to .... A high school kid wins the lottery and decides that his town needs a medical clinic. He invests a couple million into the best facilities. Same scenereo he needs 5 doctors in the slow times and 7 in the good times. When times are bad the doctors are free to open a clinic across the street, but they would rather make more money in the city. The kid produces the jobs in town with his investment and the doctors are the labor. As skilled as they are and as honorable as the profession is, when the demand for their labor drops, they are the fat. And the townspeople should be glad that this kid decided to invest his money in their town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Yes, I do, especially sports figures. However, these people, movie stars and sports people, don't earn much when they FAIL but CEOs DO.
I have addressed that point. read the whole thread and tell me where I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesaje
Me too. It is nothing short of pillaging the companies they are supposed to be leading. With the movie stars and sports stars, I just think it is absurd how much we as a society value those people and how little we value people who do so much more for society (like teachers and librarians). But yes, at least when they fail, they fail instead of pillaging a company they ran into the ground with their millions in golden parachutes.
If a movie star demands 50 million and they make a picture that costs 60 million and the gross is 40 million, how can you say that the movie star didn't pillage the company with a golden parachute? The same people suffer... the people that hired and overpaid the movie star or CEO. YOU don't suffer unless you bought stock and elected the board that hired the CEO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
OP - Stars and CEOs' are overpaid. Simple solution is an all sources 90% income tax on income over one million per year with a 250k base deduction. I do not think that companies will fork over 100 million just to give the CEO bragging rights with 90 of it going to the Feds. Another thing that should be tried is to make the CEO and all the directors personally responsible without limit for the corporate debts left when the company fails.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Stars and CEOs are not overpaid so there is no need to look for a solution. The only people with the authority to make such a ludicrous statement are the people who pay the stars and CEOs. A 90% tax on all income over 1 million will kill our economy. If it costs 100 million to make a movie, and you consider that you might lose 50 million on the project a reasonable rate of expected return is probably 50 million. under your tax structure, the max profit is 5.9 million. NO one would risk 100 million to make at most 5.9 million so the government can make 44.1 million. The movie will never be produced. Your plan just killed 100 million dollars worth of jobs in one venture. In fact your plan will kill all ventures over 4 million dollars. You will also remove all incentive for people who aspire to make it big. Way to go genius. Now go back and read the entire thread. you might learn something. and If I have made any errors feel free to point them out.
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.
