Maybe I'm Missing Something... Corporate raises?

[Imran Siddiqui]

i personally, however, would like to see more of them take the step of making their company their livelihood by tying their financial fate to the fate of their company.

A lot of them do... mostly by taking stock options instead of high salary.

Do you have any reason to think that CEOs are doing a vastly better job now and are far more important to the success of their corporations than they used to be, while the workers are no better and no more important than they used to be?

The thing to look at is supply and demand. Good CEOs are in greater demand because of the crap CEOs which have tanked companies in the 90s. You want a great one and to do so, you have to pay a lot for it.

[DanS]

Hmmm... Picked up this conversation late.

isn't the economy supposedly in bad to stagnant shape right now and the job market is overall bad?

No, the economy is growing at a very healthy clip. The job market is perking up. 625,000 jobs added in the last two months.

In any event, corporate profits are going up as fast as those CEO pay packages. Mind you, profits were at historic lows versus sales before and during the recession. So it's more a matter of them coming back into the reasonable range.

[Colon™]

And either how, overall wages and benefits appear to have been growing at a healthy pace too, even during the recession. (in case no one mentioned it before - didn't really bother to read the thread - data: http://bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm )

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And looking for their interest, like anybody does in a capitalist system. Is it any surprise that unaccountable people, who decide of their salaries, raise their salaries? Well, it doesn't surprise me. I don't even think they are evil to do so. I happen to think, however, that they need to be held accountable, so that it is not possible for them to (rationally) abuse their power.

There is scum among execs, but they aren't all scum. However, save for a few business-monks, they are self serving and look for their interests first. Hence the importance of making them accountable.

[/QUOTE]

Everyone looks after their interests first. And you suck at quoting posts.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes, corporate profits have nothing to do with individual earnings...

OK, in fact they do... for CEO's and other officers. Their packages are tied largely to corporate profitability. Since CP has increased since Q4 2001 (your cite), then CEO pay should be expected to rise accordingly. So what's your beef? These people are doing their jobs and are getting paid for doing their jobs.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


He put the capital up for the movies he made, he took the risk on himself and the community payed him the money through sales of the movie. The money he received is in direct proportion to the sales made.

For starters, 20th Century Fox put up most of the financing on the Phantom Penis. Granted, Lucasfilms did finance Attack of the Clones, but George's biggest year came when he was sucking off the teat of 20th Century.

Regardless, the community pays the CEO of McDonalds through sales of hamburgers. If hamburger sales goes up, with a corresponding increase in profitability, the CEO gets a raise (granted by the board - it's not like Officers of public companies control their own salaries and benefits as so many people erroneously believe).

Linked is a list of all the people involved in the making of TPM: There are over 600 people involved in the creation of the film to the point where they earn a credit, plus the janitors and the like. Why are we not hearing how they got robbed by GL when he grabbed all the profits ($400 million worth!) for himself? By my calculations GL could've paid himself a comfy $10 million and given an addition $630,000 per crew member.

Who's crying for them?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

the few that stand out in my mind for doing this were iacocca (chrysler, 80's) and jobs (apple, 90's) who both took minimal compensation while their companies were tanked. iacocca took $1, while jobs i believe took nothing.

Your examples are flawed in the fact that both Iacocca and Jobs took deferred salaries. Not only did they get paid their back salary once they turned the companies around, they loaded up on the stock options when their companies were in the most critical conditions.

Hell, for three years running in the late 1980's Iacoccoa was in the top 3 of "most highly paid CEO's"... one year he earned near $30,000,000 (I'll have to verify that figure when I get home but it sounds about right).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And looking for their interest, like anybody does in a capitalist system. Is it any surprise that unaccountable people, who decide of their salaries, raise their salaries? Well, it doesn't surprise me.

I don't know how it works in France, but here in the US it is the Board of Directors who determine not only CEO pay, but the pay scales of all corporate officers for publicly traded companies. So CEO's are not:

1. Unaccountable to anybody
2. Capable of deciding their own salaries

[Colon™]

Of course, a lot of CEO's also are chairman of the board though.

[JohnT]

So? Doesn't give them absolute power... the board still has to vote on any proposals offered by the chairman.

[Colon™]

Not absolute, but often dominant never the less.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well, I wouldn't care if their "outrage" was equally distributed... but it's not. It isn't the amount of money that these people make that bothers the Left, its the "type" of person who makes it that bothers them.

I think I've seen quite a bit of opposition in the OT to athletes whining that they don't get enough money. And I rarely read the OT. A rather unfair and baseless stereotype you are pushing JohnT.

No one needs that much money. I don't care who it is, or how they get the money. When people keep more than they or their families need, or can use without being decadent, that's what bothers me.

My Dad has a PHD in horticulture (not sure what area the exact degree he holds is in). His education level is such that it puts him in a category with ~20 other people world wide in his feild of expertise. He has been gainfully employed for close to 40 years, working 16 hour days harvest season, and not much less the rest of the year. Even with his education level he gets right in and does the manual labor too. When he retires he will have made roughly 3 million dollars in lifetime.

He could have demanded salaries several times what he worked for, and even given himself raises in some positions. But, he choose to work the majority of his life for friends he made and the LDS agricultural holdings which support the LDS welfare system along with tithing and fast offerings. 10% of his earnings have gone to the LDS Church as tithing even. Much of which ends up going to charitable causes. More has gone directly to charity, and not just giving of money, but his free time as well.

With that, we've always lived well, 2-3 cars, owning nice houses, food to eat, even luxuries like a ski boat, hot tub, electronics, and he's helped or helping all his 8 children go to college and get on their feet.

He's done all that on less than one of these CEO's, stars, whatever, will make in a single year. There are countless other hard working people who live similar lives, doing their jobs which need to be done every day, and yet because of our screwed up sense of what's valuable, many of them barely eek out livings. I have no doubt that most people making a ton of money work hard doing a job which is necessary for our economy to function well. I doubt they work harder than the rest who aren't making much money, and who's jobs are just as important.

You can make a lot of money, and still use it well. There are those who do, and good for them. The "outrage" here (from me at least) is directed towards those who live decadently off salaries that no one needs to make, keeping it to themselves (and in some cases going so far as using that money or power to keep others down or further increase their own decadence).

Originally posted by Ming
And heck, isn't the number one capitalist, Bill Gates, the LARGEST giver to charity. Your broad sweeping generalizations are just that... but I guess they sound good to you

Charity is always a good thing, and Bill Gates should be congratulated for giving. Having billions of dollars to give away makes it possible to give some of those billions away though. He still has billions, so there is still a lot of room for improvement in that area. (widow's mote)

That's not to say I think he should give away everything he has. Someone who builds a company should be able to keep their interest in it regardless of how much it's worth. I don't see any problem with that. Spending hundreds of millions on a house that represents possible housing for thousands of families isn't very charitable though. Some of the business practices his company used to amass that fortune weren't very charitable either.

That's the way our economy works, but it's not the way that worthwhile people or companies approach business IMO.

[Q Classic]

Your examples are flawed in the fact that both Iacocca and Jobs took deferred salaries. Not only did they get paid their back salary once they turned the companies around, they loaded up on the stock options when their companies were in the most critical conditions.

Hell, for three years running in the late 1980's Iacoccoa was in the top 3 of "most highly paid CEO's"... one year he earned near $30,000,000 (I'll have to verify that figure when I get home but it sounds about right).

i don't mind deferred salaries so much. if you can turn around a company...

[Aeson]

n/t

[Imran Siddiqui]

When people keep more than they or their families need, or can use without being decadent, that's what bothers me.

Why? Because you don't get the same amount of money? Why should we care that those people who we've decided are worth that much money bothers you? They make millions a year.... more power to 'em.