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'm just going by what other people post. Someone else posted about how some higher ups in the workplace spend the day golfing while putting the work burden on their subordinates
This explains it then. You have no real thought of your own on any of this. So if I say some CEO's dress up like elves and pretend to help santa at christmas you would take it as truth because someone posted it.
What proof or verifiable eveidence do you have or could produce to back up the claims you are making in this post? I would be happy to debate the issue. But I can't debate something with someone who doesn't think for themselves and has no arguement except in their own head.
What does it say? The only thing it says to people like you is "its not fair".
I have no problem with CEO's making millions of dollars providing the company they are running is doing well. When it is run poorly I would expect the CEO to be held accountable and fired. Which they usually are.
40 years ago when the ratio was different, were the CEO's any less capable? Are the CEO's more capable today? Is that why the proportion is different today?
This explains it then. You have no real thought of your own on any of this. So if I say some CEO's dress up like elves and pretend to help santa at christmas you would take it as truth because someone posted it.
What proof or verifiable eveidence do you have or could produce to back up the claims you are making in this post? I would be happy to debate the issue. But I can't debate something with someone who doesn't think for themselves and has no arguement except in their own head.
I forget the context, but it sounded like the other poster was speaking from personal experience.
I've also heard other stories that were apparently from other people's personal experience. As long as they're telling the truth, I think it's valid to go by what other people say.
I think you made a post saying there are incompetent CEO's that get fired and deserve it. That's true. And if they're incompetent, they should get fired. But if they're so incompetent, how did they work their way up to CEO in the first place? I just wonder why someone didn't notice their incompetence when they had a lower down job
I see some of the opposing posters are taking the cheap shots and not really addressing some of the major points I have brought up. That shows some intellectual lazyness or even intellectual dishonesty.
I see some of the opposing posters are taking the cheap shots and not really addressing some of the major points I have brought up. That shows some intellectual lazyness or even intellectual dishonesty.
As opposed to bringing god in to the discussion. Good call.
I forget the context, but it sounded like the other poster was speaking from personal experience.
I've also heard other stories that were apparently from other people's personal experience. As long as they're telling the truth, I think it's valid to go by what other people say.
I think you made a post saying there are incompetent CEO's that get fired and deserve it. That's true. And if they're incompetent, they should get fired. But if they're so incompetent, how did they work their way up to CEO in the first place? I just wonder why someone didn't notice their incompetence when they had a lower down job
I did not say at all in any of my posts the word "incompetent".
I did not say at all in any of my posts the word "incompetent".
Maybe I'm thinking of someone else's post, but I'm pretty sure it was your post.
If it was your post that I'm thinking of, the main point you were saying is some CEO's don't do much for the company and those CEO's typically get fired
I found the post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleelvis
You have no clue how business works do you. The CEO is an EMPLOYEE of the company just like the janitor. The company could be making very little real profit and the CEO would still get his million(s) dollar salary because thats what they agreed to be paid when they took over. If they do a poor job they still get paid but they will probably be fired.
If so many companies were making millions in profits the stock market would be through the roof.
So take the latest info from Ford. They made a Q1 profit of 33 billion dollars yet they only have about 6 billion in cash. They just made it out of the red. You can make profit and still not make any money.
40 years ago when the ratio was different, were the CEO's any less capable? Are the CEO's more capable today? Is that why the proportion is different today?
Are CEO's more capable today? Maybe I don't know. I would assume they are because 40 years ago you didn't have to deal with some of the things you do today.
I can't answer as to why the proportion is different. I am not sure. If I had to give an opinion it would be I think that 40 years ago you didn't have as money companies making as much money as you do today. During the internet boom is when the salaries really shot up due to all the overnight millionaire companies.
Also the CEO's you are referring to are in the minority. They don't study the CEO's of many smaller companies.
Maybe I'm thinking of someone else's post, but I'm pretty sure it was your post.
If it was your post that I'm thinking of, the main point you were saying is some CEO's don't do much for the company and those CEO's typically get fired
I found the post:
That is my post. In some cases CEO's do poorly at a company only to go on to another and do really well. Its not due to incompetance. Many factors can play into why a CEO was not able to help the company. I am sure there are a few that are not worthy of CEO title.
Are CEO's more capable today? Maybe I don't know. I would assume they are because 40 years ago you didn't have to deal with some of the things you do today.
I can't answer as to why the proportion is different. I am not sure. If I had to give an opinion it would be I think that 40 years ago you didn't have as money companies making as much money as you do today. During the internet boom is when the salaries really shot up due to all the overnight millionaire companies.
Also the CEO's you are referring to are in the minority. They don't study the CEO's of many smaller companies.
Like I said on an earlier post, a CEO deserves their high salary if they're truly making millions in revenue for the company.
But just because a company makes a lot of money, who's to say the CEO is mainly responsible for their success? If the CEO is the main reason for the success, why does he need so many workers? The workers played a role in making the company successful. The workers are a part of the reason why a successful company is where it is. If an average worker played a significant role in making the company successful, they deserve a piece of the pie.
And I'm well aware that CEO's at smaller companies don't make as much. But small businesses and big corporations operate completely different. There's no way to compare the two.
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.
