bol316 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_CEO-Compensation_Rank.html Theres a list of the top 25 paid CEOs of 2008. Does anyone in their right mind think anyone has ever done 46 million dollars worth of work in their whole lifetime? Much less one year? That 46 million number is #25 on the list. Boy, I know life and economy are unbalanced naturally but holy crapola. Isn't this a bit out of hand? Again I ask, does anyone in their right mind think anyone has ever done 46 million dollars worth of work in their whole lifetime? Much less one year? How about 2 million a year? Think you can live on that? Phewee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Nobody deserves that kind of money, not even (particularily...) as owner/shareholder. It's quite out of hand. Nothing wrong with being rich, but sums like that are beyond any kind of morality - these people did not make this money, others did. Personal earnings ought to top out at say few hundred thousand dollars a year, provided you do something exceptionally important and do it extremely well with full dedication. And nobody come and say "but they just made it good". They didn't "make" anything better than most people. DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If what they do makes the company successful enough that the pay is justified, why not? Say the CEO who was paid $46 mil made decisions that directly effected bringing in four or five times that amount in bottom line revenue; in that case, I'd say the pay was more than justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Not only that, but Mr. 46 Mil also happens to be John Hess, the CEO of Hess: Mr. Hess has been with the company for 31 years. The 54 year old executive ranks 4 within Oil & Gas Operations http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_John-B-Hess_7YAE.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin365 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 How about 2 million a year? Think you can live on that? Phewee. That'd be a bearable salary I suppose.. :)) what the he77 do you mean were down 276 billion dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin365 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 $5yr millions 1 Lawrence J Ellison Oracle 192.92 428.59 23,733.7 63 101 Im in the wrong job!!!!!! :)( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin365 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 1 Lawrence J Ellison Oracle 428.59 million dollars every 5yrs Im in the wrong job!!!!!! :)( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 If what they do makes the company successful enough that the pay is justified' date=' why not? Say the CEO who was paid $46 mil made decisions that directly effected bringing in four or five times that amount in bottom line revenue; in that case, I'd say the pay was more than justified. [/quote'] When those decisions lead to a loss do they share in that cost too? So, because they are the decision makers, perhaps from just being gifted with great intelligence from birth, perhaps from a great education (maybe both), and not the "grunts" they should get overwhelmingly more money (150 times and more) then the "grunts" who produce the products and/or services do? If they make more money then the "grunts" thats fine, only a completely ridiculous person would argue with that, but the scale of this is insanely high sided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Just to be clear, I don't agree with the idea of "golden parachutes" for when CEOs and other officers get canned for poor performance. However, the jobs those people do require a level of skill and talent that most people do not possess while the grunts tend to be more limited in their skill sets and talents. I look at what they do as being similar to highly paid actors and rock stars - if it were easy and anyone could do it, it probably wouldn't pay so well - Jonas Brothers aside... :) Additionally, the job of a CEO involves and enormous amount of pressure and very long hours; these guys don't just work 9-5. Not only are they responsible for keeping people - the grunts - in work, but they also have to show a profit to board members and stockholders. That's a LOT of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Scroll down to view the CEO vs workers salaries graph for the last 100 years. There's a steady upward trend which can't go on forever. And yes, by all means reward good work, but CEO rewards are given by position more than by good work. Amazingly good CEOs are far and few between. Most of the really amazing work by the most skilled and intelligent people that leads to the biggest benefits for mankind has normal pay. As I said, being very well paid OK, but at some point it just turns absurd. I don't expect any of it to change, though. Neither am I too bothered, but absurd it is. DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Additionally' date=' the job of a CEO involves and enormous amount of pressure and very long hours; these guys don't just work 9-5.[/quote']That's also true for many 'grunts', as you call them. Some of the them are directly responsible for making the monetary success possible to a greater degree than the CEOs. In fact in most places I've worked the key grunts have worked a lot harder and showed better general judgement than the CEOs - just an observation. Not only are they responsible for keeping people - the grunts - in work, but they also have to show a profit to board members and stockholders. That's a LOT of responsibility. Well, the grunts are likewise responsible for keeping the CEO salary and shareholders profits ticking in. The success of a company is seldom a one way thing. I recognise the value of good leadership, and that should include some moderation and distribution of the fruits of success. DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRom Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Nope, ridiculous. I think professional sports players are way over paid too but the difference is that is what the market will bear. CEO's and their ilk get to make their own rules. What bugs me more is their perks. 46 mill a year and you can't afford to buy your own car, plane, plane ticket, choffuer, house, whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If the company is making billions for it's stakeholders and shareholders and the CEO's business plan is working, then they should be allowed to make as much money as they can...no limit. If the company is faltering, losing market share, not making money for the stakeholders and shareholders, then the CEO should quit or be fired. Some CEO's don't make their money from salary, they make their money from stock options and bonuses based on achieving certain goals...seems like a good idea to me...you grow the company and make money for the people who capitalize the company and you get to share in the profits. I DO NOT believe that the government should be involved in setting, recommending or capping executive pay. My .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm with KSG 100% Scroll down to view the CEO vs workers salaries graph for the last 100 years. I don't expect any of it to change' date=' though. Neither am I too bothered, but absurd it is. [/quote'] Jealousy becomes class envy, don't let that deform your thinking, guys.... It IS absurd, but I have no problem with it. As soon as taxpayer (my) money is involved, NOW we have a problem. If I don't like the way a company is run, I don't buy from them and I will not own their stock. Sports? I couldn't care less. Overpayed idiots, I've only bought tickets to a single baseball game in my life. (Watched Randy Johnson and the Diamondbacks throw a perfect game against Atlanta...) I've gone to many pro football and baseball games for free and still spent a fortune. Then, taxpayer money is used to build new stadiums.... Using MY money, but do I see any of the profits? I own a small business in addition to my day job. I'll pay myself what I can and employ others if I need to - paying them what it takes to keep them. I expect nothing from anybody else, and my customers come to me willingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 If the company is making billions for it's stakeholders and shareholders and the CEO's business plan is working' date=' then they should be allowed to make as much money as they can...no limit. If the company is faltering, losing market share, not making money for the stakeholders and shareholders, then the CEO should quit or be fired. Some CEO's don't make their money from salary, they make their money from stock options and bonuses based on achieving certain goals...seems like a good idea to me...you grow the company and make money for the people who capitalize the company and you get to share in the profits. I DO NOT believe that the government should be involved in setting, recommending or capping executive pay. My .02[/quote'] Thanks dude. Don't agree but I think I was a bit wrong about you in the past (Probably works both ways in our case). Anyways, glad to see you participating in keeping the posts non-inflammatory like many others are. As someone said in another topic, truce? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Thanks dude. Don't agree but that I think I was a bit wrong about you in the past (Probably works both ways in our case). Anyways' date=' glad to see you participating in keeping the posts non-inflammatory like many others are. As someone said in another topic, truce? [/quote'] Most of us probably have the wrong ideas about each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Yeah... I mean, all this time I thought that was you playing the cowbell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I look at what they do as being similar to highly paid actors and rock stars - if it were easy and anyone could do it' date=' it probably wouldn't pay so well - Jonas Brothers aside... [/quote'] I bet the Jonas Bro's work their *** off. They're just trying to make a living. Just because the jealous teeny boppers here don't like em', means squat. I'm old, but I know it's a hard life. And another thing. Axe was their fan club manager for a while..... Just sayin'. Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I DO NOT believe that the government should be involved in setting' date=' recommending or capping executive pay.[/quote']Neither do I. Conscience, decency, ethics and empathy ought to be enough to see when you should stop hoarding and share with your next of kin. To my knowledge that's a central part of the life teachings of all cultures, i.e. to not fall for excesses, greed and opportunism - that's the theory anyway. DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Remember, sharing is voluntary.... The ideas put forth by most people nowadays is politely called redistribution of wealth - big difference. Like your signature line by the way. Col. Jeff Cooper had one similar to that, included flying an airplane too. Few people do that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Remember' date=' sharing is voluntary.... The ideas put forth by most people nowadays is politely called redistribution of wealth - big difference. Like your signature line by the way. Col. Jeff Cooper had one similar to that, included flying an airplane too. Few people do that anymore.[/quote'] I knew it Neo you are nothing more but a Communist. You are a mockery to all those that communism has killed. Spinning stuff around can also work both ways, Keep up the satire by the way it is quite enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Like your signature line by the way.Col. Jeff Cooper had one similar to that' date=' included flying an airplane too. Few people do that anymore.[/quote'] Yep, one should be able to fly as well - I think that's implicit in the message, it's probably just that the list had to stop at some point :-) I notice from your signature that you're a pilot. I have a glider license, and have flown a few single engine light aircraft - actually I'm a bit of an aviation enthusiast. But flying is quite expensive and extremely regulated around here, it's not like in the US. Someday I'll get back into it, though! DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.