Let the Good Times Roll: Another Lousy CEO Gets $140 Million for Getting FIRED

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though are any of those CEOs, pchang, running companies the size of Disney? And would you want that job?

[General Ludd]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Isn't he also the founder, though?

[q=General Ludd]There's many people who do alot more for alot less.[/q]

Oh? I'm sure that list is very, very few.

I'm sure it isn't.

The old fallacy that CEOs don't do any work (skewered by "The Simpsons" in that great episode where Homer becomes CEO of the Nuke Plant).

It's not that they don't do any work, it's that the work they do is essentially the same as anyone who is in a managerial position. The only difference is that the CEO happens to of been put in charge of a buisness which is making obscene amounts of money, while on the other hand, the executive of a non-profit organization, for instance, is doing the same work for a fraction of the pay.

However, while I do sympathize with the guy that works 3 jobs, he also isn't responsible for thousands or millions of jobs

Do you remember what the subject of the opening post was about?

and doesn't need anywhere near the training or skills that a CEO would need.

Now that sounds like a fallacy.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though are any of those CEOs, pchang, running companies the size of Disney? And would you want that job?

The bigger the company, the more delegation.

[Sava]

I'm sorry Imran, this whole "well if we didn't pay CEO's hundreds of millions, nobody would be a CEO" argument of your's is just ridiculous

[Kontiki]

I think you're really overstating the tasks of a CEO, Imran. I work for and with multi-billion dollar companies and I can guarantee you that there are many people in each of them who work alot harder and with just as much riding on them than the CEO who make a fraction of the salary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it's that the work they do is essentially the same as anyone who is in a top managerial position. The only difference is that the CEO happens to of been put in charge of a buisness which is making obscene amounts of money, while on the other hand, the executive of a non-profit organization, for example, is doing the same work for a fraction of the pay.

Um... wouldn't the non-profit not have enough money to pay for a super highly qualified CEO and relies instead on people's causes. Ie, a large salary is needed to entice a CEO to run a corporation which can be just like any other, but part of the enticement of a non-profit is you believe in the mission of that non-profit.

Do you remember what the subject of the opening post was about?

Yep, and I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.

Now that sounds like a fallacy.

What, you think middle management acquired the same education and skill set of the top executives of a company?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sorry Imran, this whole "well if we didn't pay CEO's hundreds of millions, nobody would be a CEO" argument of your's is just ridiculous

Look at what happened to Ovtiz (if you knew his history at Disney) and ask why would anyone want to be put through that when you could make a little bit less as a executive at another company.

Why do you think CEOs make so much Sava? Especially since they don't actually own the company... do you think the Board of Directors just likes giving away money?

[Sava]

Imran: probably lots of different reasons:

ceo's abilities are overrated

boards are often a collection of "good old boys" who are helping out their buddies

corporations are out of control and are making too much money and they don't know what to do with it

and probably scarcity of talent... while I won't agree with you when you say CEO's work so much harder than anyone else, I do think that the people qualified enough to be CEO's are few in number... it's not that CEO's are so talented like professional athletes, it's that they're the people who SUCK the least

[Imran Siddiqui]

ceo's abilities are overrated

I think for most people, they are underrated. People sit around and think they do nothing. They are required to do a good deal of work relying on a specialized set of skills that have taken years to develop.

It ain't as easy as it looks. Ask Ovitz for one.

boards are often a collection of "good old boys" who are helping out their buddies

Oh, come on, Sava... since when are the CEO the 'buddies' of the Board of Directors these days. Maybe in the past, but not in the current economy.

corporations are out of control and are making too much money and they don't know what to do with it

Um... no. If corporations are making a ton of money, they realize the they can sink it into R&D or issue a lot of dividends, etc. There is never having too much money so you don't know what to do with it.

and probably scarcity of talent... while I won't agree with you when you say CEO's work so much harder than anyone else, I do think that the people qualified enough to be CEO's are few in number... it's not that CEO's are so talented like professional athletes, it's that they're the people who SUCK the least

So everyone else sucks harder, Sava? I'll agree with the scarcity, but you also have to realize the CEOs of the major Fortune 500 companies work hard, because if they don't, they are done. Shareholders are a very, very fickle group. Your small Mom & Pop CEOs may slack a bit, but they aren't under anywhere near the same pressures.

[General Ludd]

Um... wouldn't the non-profit not have enough money to pay for a super highly qualified CEO and relies instead on people's causes. Ie, a large salary is needed to entice a CEO to run a corporation which can be just like any other,

That was my whole point, that a non-profit doesn't have enough money to pay their executives more than $100,000 tops, while corporate CEOs can make more than $10,000,000. yet they are both doing the same job - the only difference is the organization they're doing it for.

but part of the enticement of a non-profit is you believe in the mission of that non-profit.

You just answered your own question - that's why someone would be a CEO without being paid an obscene amount of money.

If the mission of a multi-billion dollar corporation can not be believed in without excessive bribery, then it shouldn't exist - Because, obviously, it's only mission in that case is to be a multi-billion dollar corporatio , and not to actually benefit anyone else or do anything good for society.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What, you think middle management acquired the same education and skill set of the top executives of a company?

The fallacy was that a person who holds three jobs doesn't need signifigant training or skill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You just answered your own question - that's why someone would be a CEO without being paid an obscene amount of money.

Because they believed in cause? Not every business is a 'cause', nor should it be. And not every person will take a pay cut for a 'cause' either.

If the mission of a multi-billion dollar corporation can not be believed in without excessive bribery, then it shouldn't exist - Because, obviously, it's only mission in that case is to be a multi-billion dollar corporatio , and not to actually benefit anyone else or do anything good for society.

Yes, just tear down all the businesses who don't have a 'cause'. Guess that means you'll never be able to buy a computer again, or cook on a stove... .

The benefit to society comes from the results of the business, not the mission of the business. Society most definetly benefits from stoves being made and computers being made.

The fallacy was that a person who holds three jobs doesn't need signifigant training or skill.

Unless we are talking 3 corporate executive jobs or 3 law jobs or 3 medical jobs, they don't. Most people who do have 3 jobs haven't gone to grad school. They may not have even completed college (they probably haven't).

[rah]

I find myself mostly in agreement with Imran. People that think it's not hard work are delusional.

Do I think the top compensation is too high. YES
But it needs to be quite high to attract the best. Some salaries may be a bit silly, but paying someone 10 million to hit a baseball is equally silly and being a succesfull CEO requires more skill and effort.

[Sava]

elitist scum

[Az]

But it needs to be quite high to attract the best.

or the best will do what? take up their old pottery habit?
Of course it needs to be high. But not astronomical. Not like this.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You just answered your own question - that's why someone would be a CEO without being paid an obscene amount of money.

Because they believed in cause? Not every business is a 'cause', nor should it be. And not every person will take a pay cut for a 'cause' either.

Every buisness should have a cause beyond greed, without one they are nothing more than swindlers and scam artists.

If the mission of a multi-billion dollar corporation can not be believed in without excessive bribery, then it shouldn't exist - Because, obviously, it's only mission in that case is to be a multi-billion dollar corporatio , and not to actually benefit anyone else or do anything good for society.

Yes, just tear down all the businesses who don't have a 'cause'. Guess that means you'll never be able to buy a computer again, or cook on a stove... .

Not buy a computer? Bad example. Technology is something that alot of CEO-types can really believe in. Likewise, providing quality and affordable appliances for people to use is something that a person could easily believe in. (and, indeed, I'm sure that's how they all began)

The fallacy was that a person who holds three jobs doesn't need signifigant training or skill.

Unless we are talking 3 corporate executive jobs or 3 law jobs or 3 medical jobs, they don't. Most people who do have 3 jobs haven't gone to grad school. They may not have even completed college (they probably haven't).

There are CEOs who haven't completed college, too... that's hardly any measure of the difficulty of the job(s) they are doing today.