# Average CEO now makes $10.7 million



## shesulsa (Feb 18, 2005)

> By Reuters
> 
> Chief executives at many of the biggest U.S. companies got an average 5% raise last year to $10.7 million, and more corporate boards concluded that pay for performance is the way to go in the executive suite.
> 
> ...


 
 http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P110043.asp?GT1=6110


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 18, 2005)

We are SO in the wrong business.


----------



## Ray (Feb 21, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> We are SO in the wrong business.


Yikes, it's more like we're on the wrong level of the business we're in.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 23, 2005)

Think about the incredible gap there is between CEOs and other workers.  Do they deserve that kind of compensation?  Why are they so much more important?  Thirty years ago, people didn't feel like they were so much more important.  The gap was much much less.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 23, 2005)

I'd say the CEO of a profitable company is more entitled to this level of compensation than a professional sports player.


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 23, 2005)

Who makes a successful company? THE EMPLOYEES. No employees, no successful business. The CEO of a company is surely important because of decisions making, supervising, controling, etc. but I don't think the CEO should be paid millions of dollars a year, and the employees paid at normal salary level, when they work hard also, after all, to make that company what it is.

And sport players getting MILLIONS to play a sport? Don't even get me started on that one! While millions of people are starving and living in misery, they live in luxury, decadence, for playing a sport for christ sake. Do they save lifes like doctors do? Nope. Are they smart enough or have the education to find a cure for cancer? Nope. (or very few of them...) Many people have jobs that help people, they save lifes everyday, they do something concrete. They don't get paid millions of dollars. Sport players do nothing more than just entertained people, by just having fun on a field. I don't believe it justify them having a 5 car garage, a mantion, maids, clothes and shoes to dress a whole village and so on. Makes me sick. Money should be used to have everyone eat 3 meals a day, have a roof over their head, and be comfortable. I think this world is so screwed up, you have the poor, and you have the rich.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Think about the incredible gap there is between CEOs and other workers. Do they deserve that kind of compensation? Why are they so much more important? Thirty years ago, people didn't feel like they were so much more important. The gap was much much less.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 23, 2005)

MissTwisties said:
			
		

> Who makes a successful company? THE EMPLOYEES. No employees, no successful business. The CEO of a company is surely important because of decisions making, supervising, controling, etc. but I don't think the CEO should be paid millions of dollars a year, and the employees paid at normal salary level, when they work hard also, after all, to make that company what it is.


IMO, employees are a dime a dozen.  A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.

Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money.  Mind you, I'm no CEO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 23, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> IMO, employees are a dime a dozen.  A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.
> 
> Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money.  Mind you, I'm no CEO.



I can't imagine that, in a day with the proliferation of higher education, competition would drive salaries up that high.  People should get paid appropriately for what they do, but is 400 times the amount of the average worker appropriate?  30 years ago, the figure was 40 times.  Some would even say _that _ is excessive...


----------



## Kreth (Feb 23, 2005)

MissTwisties said:
			
		

> And sport players getting MILLIONS to play a sport? Don't even get me started on that one! While millions of people are starving and living in misery, they live in luxury, decadence, for playing a sport for christ sake.


I agree completely. I gave up watching baseball after the last major strike. I know there were other issues regarding player compensation vs. owner compensation, but it irks me when a group of coddled athletes whines about not making enough money, when they're getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to play a *game*.
In contrast, we have teachers who are struggling to pay bills. If not for the teachers, we wouldn't have doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc...

Jeff


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 23, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can't imagine that, in a day with the proliferation of higher education, competition would drive salaries up that high. People should get paid appropriately for what they do, but is 400 times the amount of the average worker appropriate? 30 years ago, the figure was 40 times. Some would even say _that _is excessive...


True, but in the past thirty years, there has been one significant change which has changed the entire marketplace.  Globalization.  Because of the commoditization of nearly everything as a result of ever changing and dynamic global markets, its no longer about national company A competing against national company B.  Now its all about who is going to take the biggest slice of the _global_ pie.  There can only be one winner; everyone else is going to be runner up, and investors are rewarded accordingly.  The leader of that global champion will be worth a pretty penny.


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 23, 2005)

Have you ever watched "Crib" or something like that, I believe it plays on MTV? Stars showing off their houses, cars, collections of whatever, etc. etc.?  I just want to vomit when I see that show...lol  I've seen one of the basketball player, showing off his huge house, and he had a huge underground basketball court in his basement!! I couldn't believe it! I believe it was on the lower level of his basement (the basement had two levels...). That is crazy...just crazy. Some of those people's bedroom is once/twice/three times the size of my house! :whip:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Feb 23, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> IMO, employees are a dime a dozen. A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.
> 
> Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money. Mind you, I'm no CEO.




Well, I think one of the problems is that CEOs seem to be making a hefty chunk of change (so to speak) - even when companies go into decline/lay off hundreds or thousands of workers, move the company overseas, etc.  If only successful CEOs who created good working environments and profitable companies got this much money, that would be one thing.  But all the "golden parachutes" make me ill.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 23, 2005)

> If only successful CEOs who created good working environments and profitable companies got this much money, that would be one thing. But all the "golden parachutes" make me ill.


 Yes, that's certainly a major difficulty. Hopefully, with financial reporting transparency, coupled with an honest and rigorous regulatory environment, shareholders will begin to reward the companies who do well, and punish those who take advantage. When stock prices decline, boards make changes.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 23, 2005)

I fail to understand why a CEO who makes $10 million per year refuses to raise the minimum wage above $5.15.  If the greedy SOB dropped his salary to "only" $9 million per year, he could raise the wages of nearly a million workers to $6.00/hr--still not a living wage.

I'd suggest you all read "Fast Food Nation."


----------



## stephen (Feb 23, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I
> I'd suggest you all read "Fast Food Nation."




I'd suggest you all learn some Economics...

/steve


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 23, 2005)

This is the reason why I'm back to school... 


Rynocerous,


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 23, 2005)

SO WHAT??!!! Basic economics my friends. A person is worth however much someone else is willing to pay them. Corporations are not individuals. They are companies with many partners. That CEO must answer to a Board of Directors. That Board must answer to the Shareholders who exercise their control by voting not only with a ballot but with their ability to SELL the stock. Thus pushing down the price, reflecting poorly on the CEO and his pay. Yes, some CEO's can negotiate great packages, but they have no more ability than workers unions do.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Feb 24, 2005)

stephen said:
			
		

> I'd suggest you all learn some Economics...
> 
> /steve


We are talking about both economics, AND politics/social structure.  How does "learning economics" equate to CEOs necessarily making millions - even when, oh, say, the State of California is being ripped off, or stock value is collapsing and stockholders are left stiffed?  

Our government exists, in part, to set up rules about what is and is not OK for corporations - who *are* treated like individuals, with the rights of individuals, sadly, under our laws right now - to do, and not to do.

One corporation making huge profits may be good for their bottom line, but that does not necessarily equate to greater wages, benefits, or employment for citizens - nor protecting the environment that we, the citizens, inhabit.  Corporations that are profitable may be poisoning the neighborhoods they inhabit.  Good for profits?  Maybe.  Good for our communities?  Not at all.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 24, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> Yes, some CEO's can negotiate great packages, but they have no more ability than workers unions do.


 ... which explains why CEO salaries have increased on a massive scale over the past two to three decades, while workers unions have been broken up, restricted, and their jobs have been shipped overseas?

 Understanding economics means more than just parroting capitalist doctrine.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 24, 2005)

Indeed.  These are the people who decide to fire people from their organizations in the final fiscal quarter in order to make budget just so they can get their bonuses.  Ruining the lives of others and compromising the integrity of a company for a few people's material reward alone is moral corruption at it's most basic definition and is fueled by nothing more than greed.

 The bottom line isn't always the bottom, nor are riches the final destination.

 Am I saying it's wrong to be rich?  No.  What I am saying is the actions some CEOs take so that they can pay off the yacht and buy that island regardless of the integrity of the company or lives of those who make the CEO's magic happen is corruption and is wrong. 

 There is no honey, no royal jelly, no hive security, no future without the worker bee.  The queen must have her workers or she will die, one way or the other.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 25, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> We are talking about both economics, AND politics/social structure. How does "learning economics" equate to CEOs necessarily making millions - even when, oh, say, the State of California is being ripped off, or stock value is collapsing and stockholders are left stiffed?
> 
> Our government exists, in part, to set up rules about what is and is not OK for corporations - who *are* treated like individuals, with the rights of individuals, sadly, under our laws right now - to do, and not to do.
> 
> One corporation making huge profits may be good for their bottom line, but that does not necessarily equate to greater wages, benefits, or employment for citizens - nor protecting the environment that we, the citizens, inhabit. Corporations that are profitable may be poisoning the neighborhoods they inhabit. Good for profits? Maybe. Good for our communities? Not at all.


There seems to be the assumption that if you earn lots of money this is because your ripping people off.  There are always bad apples. Some go to jail, while others get away with it. States tend to get ripped off more than people and businesses simply because politicians tend not to have the altruistic approach to governing we might wish they had.

Our government does not exist to set up rules for business. Our government exists to protect our freedoms. Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> ... which explains why CEO salaries have increased on a massive scale over the past two to three decades, while workers unions have been broken up, restricted, and their jobs have been shipped overseas?
> 
> Understanding economics means more than just parroting capitalist doctrine.


Yes, I agree, CEO salaries have increased. The average income has also increased. I was making a comparison of negotiating power, nothing more. 

However, since you brought it up, unions have been on the decline because they restrict people who can do better. Unions exist to make sure that the guy who works really hard is treated the same as the slacker. The proletariat has recognized this and done away with the archaic system.



As far as "parroting" capitalist doctrine :soapbox: , I'm a proud capitalist, but dont think for a minute that I haven't given my personal philosophies a whole lot of thought. Including studying the "Long Wave" theories of Nikolai Kondratyev, a Russian economist employed by Lenin to prove that capitalism would fail. When he proved the opposite would come true, he had the terrible misfortune of finding Stalin in power. 

Our founding fathers were capitalists. Our countries freedoms are maintained by capitalists. Our capitalist economy supports the world economy. One can argue that we prevent others from succeeding, but they can do the same thing our country has done (once they run out of excuses). Remember, on the world clock, our land is young, our ideas are young, but in that short time we have moved humanity out of the trees and into outerspace using capitalism.


I'll refrain from returning your insults and only ask that you not assume my incompetence and spout old communistic platitudes just because we may disagree.:asian:


----------



## digitalronin (Feb 25, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I fail to understand why a CEO who makes $10 million per year refuses to raise the minimum wage above $5.15. If the greedy SOB dropped his salary to "only" $9 million per year, he could raise the wages of nearly a million workers to $6.00/hr--still not a living wage.
> 
> I'd suggest you all read "Fast Food Nation."


 
 Some one please define a living wage in a dollar rate.  Every time i hear the term its this group is not making a living wage, so what is it $8/hr, $9, $10, ...

 peace


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 25, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> However, since you brought it up, unions have been on the decline because they restrict people who can do better. Unions exist to make sure that the guy who works really hard is treated the same as the slacker. The proletariat has recognized this and done away with the archaic system.




Unions exist to bring you the eight hour day.  Unions exist to make sure your kids are working in sweatshops.  Unions exist to bring you the weekend.  Unions exist to bring you fair compensation and benifits.  

Every luxury you have as a worker, every "right" or expectation was first set by a Union.  

And people paid in blood for these rights...why?  Because families were important.  More important then work.

The bottom line is that Unions are democracy in action.  Without them we slip into totalitarianism...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 25, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> Some one please define a living wage in a dollar rate.  Every time i hear the term its this group is not making a living wage, so what is it $8/hr, $9, $10, ...
> 
> peace



$9.58 dollars an hour will make roughly 19,500 in one year.  That is the poverty line and that is what is considered _living_, by _progressives_.


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 25, 2005)

Well lets see...if you need to pay an average of $500/month for an ordinary apartment, $100/week grocery, gaz, car payments, utilities, insurances for the car and health (if not provided by your employer), medical expenses (visits copays and such), clothing, etc...$10/hour is not even enough let's say for a single parent to make a normal living with their children. But at this hourly rate, they're not even allowed on MassHealth (free medical insurance in Massachusetts), no food stamps, no programs to help the single parent. So your life is lived in hardship, you're poor, and it's hard for you and your children. 

Thank God, I'm not in that situation. But I've been thinking about it sometimes, what if I end up alone with my 2 children? I know I couldn't live with a $10/hour wage. I would be struggling big time. Specially knowing that most jobs around here don't even pay you that $10....it's more like $7/$8 for an ordinary job. And you have to find that job.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2005)

$500 per month?  That is a steal.

  The minimum wage varies from state to state.  Here is a link to the Departnemt of Labor's listing of minimum wage rates in the US. I think the map colors are very telling. Washington State's minimum wage is $7.35 per hour. An "average" two-bedroom apartment here goes for about $800 per month. The cost of living here is lower than other places I've lived. Gross pay for 30 days on that wage is approximately $1200. After taxes, that's about $900. So that's $100 per month left to pay all other expenses. That's not enough, of course, so one must have a second job (at least). So let's say spouse also has a minimum wage job. That doubles the income and leaves $1,000 per month to pay for expenses - that's more like it. But then out of that comes utilities, food, car insurance / payments, child care (of course, because both parents have to work) leaving no wiggle room for education so that one may better oneself to get a better job.

  Can you say economic suppression?  Sure, I knew you could.


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 25, 2005)

oh yeah....I forgot childcare expenses! Average of $150/week for ONE child...who can afford that living on minimum wage?? ANd if you have to get a second job, you need a babysitter at night? When do you see your kids???  Life sucks for a lot of people...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 25, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> SO WHAT??!!! Basic economics my friends. A person is worth however much someone else is willing to pay them. Corporations are not individuals. They are companies with many partners. That CEO must answer to a Board of Directors. That Board must answer to the Shareholders who exercise their control by voting not only with a ballot but with their ability to SELL the stock. Thus pushing down the price, reflecting poorly on the CEO and his pay. Yes, some CEO's can negotiate great packages, but they have no more ability than workers unions do.


That would apply to publicly-held companies and in part to non-profit organizations (minus the shareholders, of course).  

I work for a non-profit.  Granted, mine is a very secondary income in our home, but according to our industry standard I am compensated adequately for what I do.  If my family had to live on my income alone, we'd starve.  I love what I do despite the long hours, aggravation, and responsibility (even though I'm a worker and not a queen.)  

I come in contact daily with CEOs, CFOs and other *big shots* of corporations, and owners of private companies as well.  Most of them are quite philanthropic.  It behooves them to be because of their tax brackets.  Same for corporations.  They have to give away a certain percentage (at least here) to charities in order to fulfill certain company mandates.  Besides, it looks great for them to be able to say they support the arts or a children's hospital or cancer research.  People _love_ that and are more willing to buy that company's product or use that bank's services.

As to the CEO of a public company making tens of millions, one thing I'd like to point out:  if there's a problem (see Tyco), who's held accountable?  The workers?  Nope -- not even when they may have made mistakes which lead to said problem.  It's the officers and directors of the corporation who are liable.  That's why they are paid the big bucks.  Frequently, the CEO/President/COO is the one who is the 'rainmaker' -- the guy who brings in new clients or new business.

Is all that worth $10 million?  In my opinion,*one's* compensation *should be* commensurate with *one's* risk.  Not $10 million, but a few hundred thousand should suffice.:shrug:


----------



## stephen (Feb 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> ... which explains why CEO salaries have increased on a massive scale over the past two to three decades, while workers unions have been broken up, restricted, and their jobs have been shipped overseas?
> 
> Understanding economics means more than just parroting capitalist doctrine.



Understanding economics means more than just parroting socialist doctrine. Where is YOUR economics degree from? I don't parrot capitalist doctrine, I've  done the math.  

Last I heard no company was going around with guns forcing people to quit their unions.  But I do know that companies don't have rights reciprocal to those of the employees of the companies.... 

The main problem with all of this talk is that there is an artifical barrier erected between "employers" and "employees" (read: "Those who own the means of production" and "workers") There is no such barrier. As others previously have pointed out, the CEOs are simply employees of the shareholders. 

The second problem is one of MORALITY. You see, everyone wants to be most happy they can be, and they want to pay the least for it. Please don't understand this previous sentence is some inane simply way. Happy = whatever that means to the individual whether that means being the richest person on earth or living with cockroaches helping the poor. Pay = effort = work. The morality problem comes in when some people think it is okay to substitute theft for effort, and stealing for paying. 

To take from me, what I earn for my work, given WILLINGLY to me in OPEN and FREE exchange by another, and to take it for yourself IS THEFT. It is no different then going into a store and waliking out without paying, stealing from your mother's purse, and swindling your shareholders through fraudulent accounting. All are illegal, immoral, and reprehensible. 

But, just because someone steals money from their mother dosen't mean that all children should be considered theives. But, as with Enron, the mothers should also learn that they can't leave the wallet sitting on the counter anymore. Shareholders have learned that they will need to pay more attention in the future. 

It's funny, whenever the issue of taxes come up, a lot of people want to tax "the rich" but the definition of who is actually "rich" tends to vary with the respondant's income. TNSTAAFL.

/steve


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Mar 1, 2005)

Having reread the posts on this thread I think its interesting to note a wide hled belief that entry level/low pay jobs should be enough to support a family. 

Does this mean (in all seriousness), that I should be able to have children (as many as I can), be able to to work as little as I choose (or as the situation dictates) and live "well" according to American standards. 

Is this not Karl Marx, and has his theories not been proven to fail  when tested on large scale?

Maybe I am as dumb as some of you think I am, but I just cant seem to understand a socialistic mentality. :idunno:


----------



## Nergul (Jul 18, 2005)

The reality is that we live in a society that has plenty of skilled workers. Yes the CEO needs workers and yes they are the foundation a company is built upon. However, they are a resource that can be renewable. There are plenty of people with BA's who can learn what they need to get the job done. Simple econ. is just that, supply and demand. There are relatively few people who can actually function in a CEO position correctly and a bunch of people who can do the normal daily work. Furthermore, the worker would be useless without the direction and power of the CEO. The worker's job is solely based upon what industry a CEO and company can carve out. Supply and demand. The worker can be replaced....thats the reality of it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 18, 2005)

Nergul said:
			
		

> The reality is that we live in a society that has plenty of skilled workers. Yes the CEO needs workers and yes they are the foundation a company is built upon. However, they are a resource that can be renewable. There are plenty of people with BA's who can learn what they need to get the job done. Simple econ. is just that, supply and demand. There are relatively few people who can actually function in a CEO position correctly and a bunch of people who can do the normal daily work. Furthermore, the worker would be useless without the direction and power of the CEO. The worker's job is solely based upon what industry a CEO and company can carve out. Supply and demand. The worker can be replaced....thats the reality of it.


 Much as many people wish otherwise, that is the reality of it.


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 18, 2005)

With robotics, pretty much all we need are janitors. Oops! No one has any money to buy my products.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 18, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> With robotics, pretty much all we need are janitors. Oops! No one has any money to buy my products.


 THAT is the reality also!
 With all this "down sizing" garbage and the advancement of things like robotics to replace workers,just exactly how long can they maintain?
  It also seems to me that the more money these corperate types make,the more some lowly worker has to lose.
  Hence the technology side,you replace workers,the CEO's make more money and the worker loses his job,home,life(the CEO is still ok though,which is all that really matters,right?) all be cause of a recycled edsel!
  And on the other side......
 I believe 90% of the population could do the CEO thing if given the chance.
  What do the CEO's know that can't be learned by anybody else?
 Nothing. It's not exactly an "ancient chinese secret".(remember that commercial?!)
  It's IS,however,a matter of being in the right place at the right time.
 For most of these corperate types,it's not what you know...it's who you know.
  Besides....who says a CEO is uncapable of navigating his way around a shovel?!


----------



## Adept (Jul 18, 2005)

While I understand the situation, I dislike the fact that a CEO can get a $17,000,000 retirement package without working proprtionately that much harder to get it. He hasn't really _earned_ it, and that gets on my goat.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2005)

Same here. Just because I get the economics of it doesn't mean that  I don't find it unpalatable.

But, there's no sense in complaining. There always has to be a noble/royal class at the top of the social pyramid.


----------



## Nergul (Jul 18, 2005)

Well I mean there is the fact that education and job choices are the only real means to escape a middle or low income. Very few/nobody gets rich working for someone else.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 19, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> THAT is the reality also!
> With all this "down sizing" garbage and the advancement of things like robotics to replace workers,just exactly how long can they maintain?
> It also seems to me that the more money these corperate types make,the more some lowly worker has to lose.
> Hence the technology side,you replace workers,the CEO's make more money and the worker loses his job,home,life(the CEO is still ok though,which is all that really matters,right?) all be cause of a recycled edsel!
> ...


 It's not a matter of everyone being able to potentially do the job of a CEO.  It's a lot like saying everyone can play football.  Sure, everyone might be able to go through the motions of football, but that doesn't mean they all play it equally well.  Some people can do the job of CEO far better than others.  We call those people.....CEO's.


----------



## shinbushi (Jul 19, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> I believe 90% of the population could do the CEO thing if given the chance.


 WRONG.  Most people who try to startup a business fail like over 95%.  Let's see you try to do what Bill Gates or his like did. As a small Business owner, I think you employees should thank your lucky stars someone is WILLING to hire you at all.  If you socialists hate the CEO s so much start your OWN business and see how you do.  Running a business is to to provide for one self and ones family not the community.(Which I think communities are a myth BTW, there are only self-centered individuals living near each other).


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 20, 2005)

> Some one please define a living wage in a dollar rate. Every time i hear the term its this group is not making a living wage, so what is it $8/hr, $9, $10, ...


This is an interesting question, and I think the answer is relative.  Let's suppose for argument's sake that half your salary should be spent on rent/mortgage--I've heard that figure quoted.  In this part of the country, the average monthly mortgage payment is $2,200 (2002 figures).  That would mean to fit this scenario, the relative salary would be $52,800.  But average per capita income is only $49,500.  You MAY be able to live here, but with gasoline prices at $2.59/gallon, and utility rates the highest in the country, even with a lower rent or mortgage, you're going to hurt.

Now at $8/hr, 40 hr weeks, 52 weeks/year, you'd earn less than $17,000.  Well, even with TWO incomes in the household, that's not a living wage in this part of the country.

The problem is that at the national minimum wage, $5.15/hr, you can't afford to live ANYWHERE in the United States of America.  So $5.15/hr is not a living wage in this country.

I agree that any worker is worth whatever someone is willing to pay him/her, but I really have to wonder why someone MUST earn $10 million/year while paying the workers $5.15/hr.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 20, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I agree that any worker is worth whatever someone is willing to pay him/her, but I really have to wonder why someone MUST earn $10 million/year while paying the workers $5.15/hr.



Cuz the board approved it.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 20, 2005)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> WRONG. Most people who try to startup a business fail like over 95%. Let's see you try to do what Bill Gates or his like did. As a small Business owner, I think you employees should thank your lucky stars someone is WILLING to hire you at all. If you socialists hate the CEO s so much start your OWN business and see how you do. Running a business is to to provide for one self and ones family not the community.(Which I think communities are a myth BTW, there are only self-centered individuals living near each other).


 Socialist?! if you don't like people who hate CEO's,quit your job.
 simple as.
 AND FYI.....
  I happen to be half owner of a painting business in columbus ohio,which I started with a friend almost 10 years ago;which may not sound like much,but my clients included people like Bobby Rahall,The columbus Zoo,the columbus city center mall.Circuit City... AND I run a martial arts club here in the UK AND I'm getting ready to open another!
 And I'm not a ceo,I'm just a guy who is willing to help other people get a break...at MINIMAL cost.
 Can't take it with ya! so why try?
  And for the majority of these littel ceo's out there in question,didn't start thier own business either.
 Bill Gates,Richard Branson,LARRY FLYNT,Hugh Heffner and "the like" are small number who got lucky.They are NOT the norm.
 And for you business owners out there,you should get on your knee's and give thanks that people are WILLING to ask YOU for a job!
 At the end of the day,we need each other to exsist.But it is because of these greedy twits that so many people are struggling JUST to make the poverty level so the others can have thier little "ceo" titles.
  Like it or not,that IS the truth of it!

  sgtmac...
 you are correct.Some people are better suited to do certain jobs.On this,I do agree and I should not generalise so much.
  You will have to excuse my disgust for most corperations.
 But even you must admit,there have plenty of people who have become ceo's,be it through appointment or personal achievement,drop an established company right through the toilet as soon as they got in the "big chair".


----------



## stephen (Jul 20, 2005)

Bill Gates has given 17 BILLION to charity. 

I assure you - Microsoft products have created more wealth in the world than the few hundred billion Gates is worth. 

The problem here is that some people don't understand that the economy is not a zero-sum game. It is a positive sum game, this is why we're living in nice houses and talking on the internet. Were it zero-sum we'd still be in caves. Maybe Bill would own all of them - but they'd still be caves.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 20, 2005)

stephen said:
			
		

> Bill Gates has given 17 BILLION to charity.
> 
> I assure you - Microsoft products have created more wealth in the world than the few hundred billion Gates is worth.
> 
> The problem here is that some people don't understand that the economy is not a zero-sum game. It is a positive sum game, this is why we're living in nice houses and talking on the internet. Were it zero-sum we'd still be in caves. Maybe Bill would own all of them - but they'd still be caves.




I maybe wrong, but I thought it was the Gates Foundation that gave away most of the money to Charity. The Gates Foundation was not really a player in the Charity world until Mrs. Gates came along, and helped Bill out. I have noticed, Bil no longer makes rediculous claims in public anymore. 

So, I just thought I would give the credit where I thought it was do, which is to Mrs. Gates.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2005)

stephen said:
			
		

> Bill Gates has given 17 BILLION to charity.


 I know he's often been criticized for being a miserly philanthropist compared to his wealth, but I also know he's made a number of large gifts.



> I assure you - Microsoft products have created more wealth in the world than the few hundred billion Gates is worth.


 It's only tens of billions, no?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 20, 2005)

Having been a small business owner, as well as an employee, I've discovered that the better you treat your workers, the harder they work, the more dedicated they are to seeing the business succeed, and the more likely they are to dig in during a crisis. When you give your employees the bare minimum, that's what they give back.  If your employees are forced to work a second job, they're tired, and they're constantly looking at the clock.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 20, 2005)

WOHOO!!!
 I got me neg rep point!!!
 Let me see.....

 Neg rep+no reason=.....rhymes with H-O-W-A-R-D
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And while we're on the subject,
  If you give a negative point,could it be just because YOU are mad or maybe because someone has just "got it wrong"?
  If they just have it wrong,tell them why.They might not understand and that could be a preventive measure to keep them from making the same mistake twice.
  If it's because you're "thenthitive"......
 Grow up and get over it cause it ain't gonna change a thing:shrug:


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 20, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Having been a small business owner, as well as an employee, I've discovered that the better you treat your workers, the harder they work, the more dedicated they are to seeing the business succeed, and the more likely they are to dig in during a crisis. When you give your employees the bare minimum, that's what they give back. If your employees are forced to work a second job, they're tired, and they're constantly looking at the clock.


 Amen Brother!


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 20, 2005)

Glad they make that much money. Now they can afford those hookers they need so badly.
(Had to say something discusting to deserve those negative rep points I got for my last comment.)


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 20, 2005)

*Mod Note*:

Please direct Reputation point issues to the Member support forum.  They do not belong here, as they detract from the discussion at hand.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## stephen (Jul 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's only tens of billions, no?



My bad! Yes, you're right. Something like 50B and change. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I know he's often been criticized for being a miserly philanthropist compared to his wealth, but I also know he's made a number of large gifts.




So..if he's given away 17B. 17/(55+17) = 23.6%

That dosen't seem very miserly to me. Who here donates 20% + to charity. 

Also remember a lot of his wealth is in MSFT stock. If he were to sell it to get cash to donate or whatever he could lose a degree of control of the company.


----------

