Post #298,555
10/29/08 11:18:49 AM
|
whackonomics
Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.
:-)
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79312
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #298,562
10/29/08 12:58:07 PM
|
Re: whackonomics
The difference is that the performers are getting that kind of money not because of greed but because they're making a lot more money for others.
The CEOs, a semi-hereditary aristocracy, are getting theirs despite destroying the company and the economy.
The celeb group needs to perform to be rewarded. The CEO group does not.
|
Post #298,571
10/29/08 4:46:47 PM
|
+4.6 Concision
|
Post #298,578
10/29/08 5:27:52 PM
|
Lesse
under Neutron Jacks leadership, GE's value to its owners increased 386 BILLION dollars. GE had operated for many years under other leaders that did not have the same impact...so clearly he had something to do with this increase in value.
His $4m salary looks like a pretty good investment by the shareholders.
But no matter, we should have some regulatory agency tell us what a fair days wage is. To each according to their needs...
|
Post #298,594
10/29/08 9:58:59 PM
|
Now about the planned $70B 'bonuses' on Wall St. ... ...
You are soo-oo immersed in the happy-Freedom talk "Leave it All ... to Us Bizness Pros" Ayn-al mantra of pre-September 2008.
You cherry-pick an instance with extremely modest 'pay' (other perks??) versus the Obscene levels of today/yesterday: which seems to be a decent ROI.
Nary a peep, Beep re the slash/burn ones whose Parachutes were locked in with No Required Performance == Merit specified. And the retirement funds raided during the massacree. Yep, wallow in those outliers -- the remaining few, the despised, the atypical: who do their jobs well and make so many others look like what they Are.
Doesn't matter about the inviolability of your fav Formulas (or mine) in an enviroment as financially-fucked as this one is (nor is this more than the beginning, given all those unregistered derivatives: making an actual bottom of it all -??- unguessable.)
I suspect that there Shall be some unprecedented New RulesÂ; never mind the -isms and alarums and crocodile tears of the Free Market chimera and its acolytes.
Let us prey; sometimes it is satisfying.
Keep the Faith.
Baby.
|
Post #298,599
10/29/08 10:52:25 PM
|
The point is
who decides? You? Some inside the beltway "scholar"? A democrat? A republican? Who, exactly, decides what is "fair" and what is not?
About the best you can hope for is some mechanism where the shareholders vote to approve.
You are also cherry picking and creating generalizations...so fair is fair.
|
Post #298,600
10/29/08 11:23:07 PM
|
Presently, the CEO decides.
In olden days, I think the Board of Directors decided. These days, they mostly seem to be rubber-stamps for the CEO and his/her Compensation Committee, so there's little wonder that CEO pay has exploded.
Who decides? Maybe someone other than the CEOs for a change?
But more than that, I reject the premise that companies have to pay CEOs millions or tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year in salary and other compensation. The largest industrial organization in the world is the US Department of Defense. ($515B+ in FY09). The head of the DOD - the Secretary of Defense - makes something like $191k a year.
"Oh, but that's different..." Sure. But it shows that qualified people can be found to do complicated jobs that involve millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars for salaries much less than $1M per year. Companies who paid their executives more weren't looking out for the owners and the health of the company as a whole.
BTW, Jack Welch seems to finally agree:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95038679
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #298,614
10/30/08 9:51:00 AM
|
so, should YOU decide? Collective you?
ceo pay shall never exceed $formulae
put hb1ceo.com contractors in all the slots
not sure it would make a difference to be honest with you.
In our company it wouldnt work. Dunno what the boss's pay is, but he earns it.
thanx,
bill
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #298,672
10/31/08 8:01:43 AM
|
Well, there's the rub
Some CEOs are worth big $.
But the current system pays the worthless CEO who drives a decent company into the ground (esp. if he does it one great quarter at a time) the same tens or hundreds of millions as it pays a dedicated genius who pulls a dying company from its death spiral into thriving profitability. Actually, I suspect the good ones make less than the looters. And even that dedicated genius - can't she get by on $10M or so per year? Does anybody really work harder for the second hundred mill? Is there an effective market where the best CEOs go to the highest bidder? I don't see it.
|
Post #298,603
10/30/08 12:31:42 AM
|
Those celebrities are on an actual free market
People with serious math skills and carefully derived data determine how much the general public is paying (mostly via ads) to be entertained by them. If people get tired of watching Tiger Woods, his pay goes down fast. These people are paid for closely performance performance.
CEO pay is determined by boards of directors, and a CEO in one company is a director in a bunch of others, to use incest as a metaphor here would require half of the population to be both of their own parents. What we have is the European royal family (there was only one, really) of the 17/18th Century except that instead of killing each other they give each other raises. CEO pay does not go down with poor performance.
Spielberg gets his $130M from profitable movies, not from bailout money.
Granted, there are probably a thousand people with more vision and talent than Spielberg who won't get more than a few compliments on YouTube. Never said it was completely fair.
And one other thing: none of those celebrities is drawing enough salary to sink their empires. There is a difference between even an absurd harvest and pillaging.
|
Post #298,615
10/30/08 9:52:01 AM
|
no spielberg makes a ton from tax breaks to the rich
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
