Oh yeah Right! Like An American CEO Would Do THIS!!

[Bill Mattocks]

To me a CEO shouldn't live in a sprawling 2.5 million dollar house while their employees live in 30 year old apartment buildings barely scraping by on their own hourly wages to make rent, car-payments or monthly bus-passes and food, utilities and maybe a movie twice a month if they're lucky.
I've been bottom man on the totem pole for a lot of companies and seen how the top dawg of the company lives and wonder and always wonder if he knows how this and other workers for him are living? Or if they even care? As long as we do our jobs, get to work on time, follow the anal-retentive rules of clocking in and clocking out and the times of our lunch breaks or mid work breaks be precisely or under the 30/15 minute limit. Never mind that for us "filthy smokers" having to walk 5 minutes across the factory floor to the exit where there's only one spot on the entire complex that allows smoking and having just 5 minutes to suck down our nasty weeds and then have 4 minutes to get back to our spots on the factory floor...
Do they know? Do they care?

Doesn't matter any much anyway. Company I work for now does inventory for a host of various stores. As I flip the merchandise over all I've seen are tags with Made in anywhere else in the world except USA. A 10 year old child in Taiwan has a better chance of finding a job than I do. That kid will earn in a month what I could earn in a day or two. The CEO after shipping all of it back to U.S. shores and paying the import fees and transport/distribution centers to get that product to the stores... just sits back and reaps the profits.

You did not answer my questions. That's just pissing and moaning about someone who lives a better life than you think they should. Answer the questions, then we can talk about the particulars.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The accepted ratio was about 20 to 30 times what one of his employees made. Now it is 300 times + that and even those who hold the positions, the ones that still have souls, recognise the dangers in that, utterly leaving aside the iniquities of it.

So, you would cap salaries in private companies at 30 times what a top-paid employee make, at the most, is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear on this, and I'm giving you the benefit of the 'top' amount.

If not, please tell me how much a CEO should be allowed to make.

How did we get there? By panels of those who hold those posts voting each other pay rises and guaranteed bonuses (hang on, isn't that salary then?) and share-holders not knowing enough or caring enough to say "That's far enough!". In martial arts circles it'd be McDojo rank inflation.

Again, you have to distinguish between businessmen/entrepreneurs and corporate leaches who perform no function except to be the Nominated Person in Charge (not to be confused with accepting responsibility). They can only mess things up, they can never make them better (other than by rolling several double-sixes in a row aka being lucky rather than good). They are not worth their hire and they take no consequences from what they do - even Mafia Dons take more personal responsibility.

It's about time share-holders woke up to their responsibilities and started saying "No!" to these guys. And it's not just little guys like me saying so; as I stated earlier, I listen to a lot of economics related material (it's almost like I'm actually qualified to talk about it ). Members of the fraternity that do know what they're doing and understand that 'success' does not mean fire-everyone-to-make-a-one-year-profit-and-then-go-bankrupt are starting to state publicly that the re-numeration packages are a joke voted for by the very pigs who are rooting in the trough.

So if we're not share-holders, then we have no input in it, is that correct?

So why all the complaining? Seems shareholders have the right to complain; and an avenue to do so. Non-share-holders would seem not to, in the case of publicly-held companies.

Still looking for answers to my questions, though.

And in case you're wondering, my point is that everyone likes to ***** about CEO pay and no one wants to say how much the law should permit them to earn and who decides how much that is to be. Tell me, please, I'm dying to know.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, yah ain't getting it.

See, if the CEO does his job and the company thrives, not a single soul usually bothers to look at the compensation he/she receives.

However, it has been a long time since then. We have been plagued with droves of people in the upper echelons who have ruined steady companies, effectively robbed the workers of their retirement funds while lining their pockets with company money and then accepting huge severance packages when they left. And that was even before the infamous bailout bonuses.
I am thinking as far back as K-mart and Enron. Many more where on the chopping block.

It still seems to be rare that the 'leadership' takes responsibility rather than letting the rats drown with the sinking ship while waving from shore.

Answer my questions and stop bellyaching. Tell me how much a CEO should make. Who decides? How much is 'too much'? What is 'OK' and what is 'greedy'?

General pissing and moaning doesn't tell me how YOU would solve this so-called problem.

 

[Sukerkin]

I thought I did (answer your questions), Bill .

Which bit was unclear? From your follow up remarks I think you understood just fine but don't want to agree.

On the off-chance that it's not 'Libertarian-ness' (or is it Libertarianism?) blocking the channel, I'll re-iterate the focal point. The salaries of those at the top are not driven or derived from market forces. They appoint themselves those 'rewards' (for doing very little) because the restraint that is supposed to be provided by the share-holders is not being applied.

If that did no economic harm then I couldn't care less that some smarmy fat-cat with no talent other than schmoosing got paid huge amounts for doing sod all. But these fellows are wrecking companies and destroying livelihoods whilst trousering lots of cash for the privilege. Trimming the fat doesn't just apply to Blue Collar you know.

Again to emphasise, even those in the field, the ones with some talent, are starting to speak out against the ethos of reward for failure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought I did (answer your questions), Bill .

Which bit was unclear? From your follow up remarks I think you understood just fine but don't want to agree.

I understand that you do not want to address the actual issue. I don't think you answered my questions at all. I'm asking specific questions, not requiring vast swooping generalizations or your thoughts about how things came to become so inequitable.

On the off-chance that it's not 'Libertarian-ness' (or is it Libertarianism?) blocking the channel, I'll re-iterate the focal point. The salaries of those at the top are not driven or derived from market forces. They appoint themselves those 'rewards' (for doing very little) because the restraint that is supposed to be provided by the share-holders is not being applied.

That's still not answering my questions, but I'll take this one. I don't know how public corporations allocated executive pay in your country, whatever the hell it's called , but in the USA, CEOs generally do not have the authority to award themselves salaries. Those are generally set by the board of directors.

In what world would 'market forces' set compensation, and how would that work, exactly? Some government board to decide how much a company could pay its executive staff, based on what it determined were the correct market forces prevailing at the time?

So you say executive compensation is not linked to market forces, or if I read you correctly, to actual profit and loss. That is correct, but I fail to see whose business that is but the company and its stockholders?

If that did no economic harm then I couldn't care less that some smarmy fat-cat with no talent other than schmoosing got paid huge amounts for doing sod all. But these fellows are wrecking companies and destroying livelihoods whilst trousering lots of cash for the privilege. Trimming the fat doesn't just apply to Blue Collar you know.

Yes, corporations that are badly run lose market share, lose profits, their stockholders suffer, and the employees eventually suffer as well. I've been subject to it myself, quite a lot the last few years. And what would your cure for this be? I'm interested in specifics.

Again to emphasise, even those in the field, the ones with some talent, are starting to speak out against the ethos of reward for failure.

And if executive compensation reform comes, I would suspect that it would be driven from within, demanded by stockholders who have had enough.

I'm not sure that Joe Sixpack who just doesn't like the fact that Dave Fatcat has three yachts and a small island is entitled to a say in the matter. I say this as a member of the Sixpack family myself.

My point in all this is to say that everyone likes to piss and moan about executive compensation but I've noted that a) most people don't even know how executive compensation is derived, b) no one has any notion of what should be done to 'fix' this so-called problem, and c) there's no evidence that 'fixing' this so-called problem would have any predictable positive effects on our economies.

I apply this to myself. Do you know how much I make? No, you do not. Why not? Because it is none of your business, that's why. But what if I were making a million dollars a year? Am I suddenly now one of the 'greedy' and the 'selfish'? Shall I be made to give it back? Shall I wear sackcloth and ashes and go tear out my hair (if I still had any) in the public square and beg forgiveness? Chances are, you'd say no, because you know me and you suspect I'm probably not evil (well, I hope so, anyway). But if I were some anonymous CEO whom you did not know who made the same salary? Obviously in league with the devil.

It's class envy, it's fear of the 'other', and it's ugly. If there is a number that is 'too much', then tell me what that number is, specifically, and tell me who gets to decide what that number should be, and tell me how you intend to go about applying it. These are the questions that matters. Everything else consists of talking to hear your head ring.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't believe you see this issue or the consequences of it as clearly as your passions speak but it is too late in the day for me to try to argue this case nicely. I need bed and I need it now .

I'll leave it at that, other than that the one clear specific is that share-holders need to start executing their responsibilities because it is they that have to ratify executive pay (over in America too as far as I know). That is the 'cure' you are asking for.

... oh and you're wronger than a wrong thing on the wrongest day :sticks out tongue ... in a mature fashion of course :lol::. Why on earth do you think that CEO's should be exempt from the 'market rate' that all the rest of us have to earn our living by? They set their own pay but noone else is allowed to? How is that okay in your head?



P.S. As regards this:

"Chances are, you'd say no, because you know me and you suspect I'm probably not evil (well, I hope so, anyway)"

You're quite right - I think you're a decent man and I object to no-one earning what is their due for what they do.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't believe you see this issue or the consequences of it as clearly as your passions speak but it is too late in the day for me to try to argue this case nicely. I need bed and I need it now .

I'll leave it at that, other than that the one clear specific is that share-holders need to start executing their responsibilities because it is they that have to ratify executive pay (over in America too as far as I know). That is the 'cure' you are demanding.

... oh and you're wronger than a wrong thing on the wrongest day :sticks out tongue ... in a mature fashion of course :lol::. Why on earth do you think that CEO's should be exempt from the 'market rate' that all the rest of us have to earn our living by? They set their own pay but noone else is allowed to? How is that okay in your head?

As I've said, here in the USA, executives, including the CEO, do not set their own pay. So that's wrong; at least it is here. I don't know how they do it in the UK/England/Great Britain/Blighty/etc. .

http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm

In the annual proxy statement, a company must disclose information concerning the amount and type of compensation paid to its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the three other most highly compensated executive officers. A company also must disclose the criteria used in reaching executive compensation decisions and the degree of the relationship between the company's executive compensation practices and corporate performance.

NOTE: The decision by a company regarding the amount and type of compensation to give an executive officer is a business decision and is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

And you still haven't told me how you'd solve this supposed inequality. What's your plan, were you to be handed the sceptre?

In the US, the usual method is that companies wishing to hire a CEO work with their Board of Directors, often engaging a third-party company that does salary surveys and makes recommendation on what they feel executive compensation should be, based...gasp...market rates. Now, while there is plenty of reason to think that such consultants and Boards of Directors are insane, it's still at least in theory based off market forces. They pay for the CEO at the going rate for the CEO they wish to attract.

And one might compare the CEO to an athletic star. Whilst my performance as a utility infielder is not likely to either make or break a run for the championship, the star athlete can make the difference, add the edge. There is a perfectly valid reason to believe that the right (or wrong CEO) can have a monstrous affect on a company's profit or loss, as well as the stock price. Given that, I am trying to imagine the results for a Fortune 50 company that might, for example, say "Well, you know what? We're just not going to pay our next CEO a gazillion dollars, we're going to pay him $100,000 and that's final." I am imaging what sort of potential applicant list they'd have to pick from, and what the results would be.

Populist outrage about executive compensation is just ugly ranting. If no one has any concrete decisions about how to determine how much is too much and how to implement such decisions...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'll leave it at that, other than that the one clear specific is that share-holders need to start executing their responsibilities because it is they that have to ratify executive pay (over in America too as far as I know). That is the 'cure' you are asking for.

And if they abdicate their responsibility, how now?

 

[billc]

Bill Mattocks, excellent posts. If only they could get what you are saying.

 

[Sukerkin]

{meaningless gibbering}

Just testing as I could've sworn I was using English and speaking as a qualified economist who knew what he was talking about.

Clearly not.

Thanks, BillM, for pointing out the differences in levels of responsibility between British and American shareholders, regarding executive pay. I am a little surprised as I would have thought that those who 'own' the company would have some oversight on executive pay.

I give up trying to get through the ingrained wrong-thinking on economic matters I see here. It's not my job to educate the readers of this site on how things are in the business world; pragmatism and education is obviously weak-sauce in the face of ideologically cast positions. If you (plural form) want me to explain how economics works then, first, you shall have to pay me and second, you actually have to listen and learn rather than assume you know better.

Keep your eyes out as there might be some news over in Britain soon on the matter of excessive executive remuneration (8000% pay rise over a period of flat stock performance whilst layiong off thousands of workers is not considered good performance, you see). The 'rank inflation' of execs voting each other ever larger pay increases may be curbed soon by the non-executive committees having their impartiality enforced - it'll be a good move if it happens.

A small example has occurred already, allbeit a propoganda excercise to be seen to be doing something:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17094182

And an interesting opinion piece that speaks of something that we've known about for quite some time but it's never really been discussed where the 'ordinary' reader is likely to see it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17033039

 

[Bill Mattocks]

{meaningless gibbering}

Just testing as I could've sworn I was using English and speaking as a qualified economist who knew what he was talking about.

I would expect an economist to be able to answer simple questions.

The statement is made "CEO's make too much money" or general words to that effect.

You attempt to explain how CEO compensation has become disconnected with market share and how it is now multiples of rank-and-file employee pay that has reached historic levels.

All well and good.

However, I ask a simple question. HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH? And you will not answer, instead insisting that you already have.

I ask, WHO DECIDES? And you mutter some gibberish about how the stockholders must shoulder their responsibility. Of course, that begs the question, which I asked, what happens when they don't? No answer from you.

I ask, HOW WILL THIS BE APPLIED? No answer from you.


So, no, Mister Qualified Economist, you did not answer the questions. You waltzed around them, avoiding putting yourself in the box of saying that salaries should be capped, by government action if shareholders will not do so. However, since the answers to my questions lead us inexorably to that point, unless you intend for magic to occur, some force must determine maximum allowable compensation for CEOs and then enforce that decision. Typically, such a force would have to be governmental. If that is NOT where you wish to be placed as being in favor of, pray explain to me how you would achieve this.

Clearly not.

This, we can agree upon.

Thanks, BillM, for pointing out the differences in levels of responsibility between British and American shareholders, regarding executive pay. I am a little surprised as I would have thought that those who 'own' the company would have some oversight on executive pay.

This might have been addressed by the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009, which did not pass into law.

I give up trying to get through the ingrained wrong-thinking on economic matters I see here. It's not my job to educate the readers of this site on how things are in the business world; pragmatism and education is obviously weak-sauce in the face of ideologically cast positions. If you (plural form) want me to explain how economics works then, first, you shall have to pay me and second, you actually have to listen and learn rather than assume you know better.

Keep your eyes out as there might be some news over in Britain soon on the matter of excessive executive remuneration (8000% pay rise over a period of flat stock performance whilst layiong off thousands of workers is not considered good performance, you see). The 'rank inflation' of execs voting each other ever larger pay increases may be curbed soon by the non-executive committees having their impartiality enforced - it'll be a good move if it happens.

A small example has occurred already, allbeit a propoganda excercise to be seen to be doing something:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17094182

And an interesting opinion piece that speaks of something that we've known about for quite some time but it's never really been discussed where the 'ordinary' reader is likely to see it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17033039

Again, this is all well and good as far as it goes. But it stops short of stating the cure. I believe I know why it doesn't, though. It's natural. No one wants to come out and say "I think maximum CEO pay should be X, and I furthermore think that I'm the person most qualified to decide that, and I think the government must mandate this by law."

Even those who complain the most mightily about excessive executive compensation tend to shrink away from mandatory government oversight over the payrolls of private companies; even most casual socialists find that thought rather troublesome. And there are very few alternatives to this. One can mutter (as you do) about how shareholders must take up the burden of policing the corporations they own pieces of, but if they do not (and it appears they do not in most cases), the alternative would be...what?

Once upon a time, people use to rail against sports stars making tons of money, silly money, ludicrous salaries, which often had the effect of driving ticket prices up to the point where common folk could no longer afford to attend a game in person. And the teams themselves complained that a rich team owner could simply 'buy' a team that would dominate the ratings and the titles, thus making it unfair

In the sports world in America, some athletic leagues have implemented salary caps or spending limits for the team salary in general.

But there is a major difference between athletic teams in a league and private companies. The league wants to maintain competitiveness between the teams, so that any could win, excitement remains high for fans, and fans do not become disappointed in the same team winning all the time.

Private companies not only do not cooperate to make sure all have an equal chance of winning, capitalism isn't structured that way. Private companies strive to win ALL the time, to maximize profit and return on investment to stockholders. It would not even be legal (in the US) for private companies to make agreements amongst themselves to limit or cap salaries.

Complaints about executive compensation are, to the extend I can tell, little more than populist outrage. What we make is 'reasonable'. What others earn is 'selfish' and 'greedy' and 'unwarranted'. We're full of ideas about how companies that we don't own should be run, how people whom we do not employ should be compensated. Of course, when called on it, one gets the usual silence that I got from everyone but you; they don't want to be caught out wishing for government control of salaries, and yet that exactly what their pissing and moaning would lead to; unless they have a better idea, which so far, they don't.

 

[granfire]

Speaking from one human being to another:
Why does it bother you so much when people look at the finances of those who hold the world's economy in their hands?

From a personal stand point I don't care how much they make as long as they don't **** over the company. It has been done before, it could happen again.
(when they break the company, they should not only not pass go and not collect 200$ but also get a 'go to jail card' free)


On a philosophical note: How much money does a person need?
How many beds can one person sleep in, on how many chairs can he sit.....

 

[Empty Hands]

We're full of ideas about how companies that we don't own should be run, how people whom we do not employ should be compensated. Of course, when called on it, one gets the usual silence that I got from everyone but you; they don't want to be caught out wishing for government control of salaries, and yet that exactly what their pissing and moaning would lead to; unless they have a better idea, which so far, they don't.

CEO salaries should not be dictated by the government. I also have nothing but disdain, as the son and son-in-law of responsible and successful businessmen, for profiteering and the separation of risk and reward, success and pay, in CEO compensation. It's bad business.

Here's my solution (which I have put forth on this board before): strictly enforce conflict-of-interest rules in executive board membership. No mutual back-scratching societies. The CEO of a company you sit on the board for should not sit on your own board. Most of this problem is due to incestuous boards rewarding each other.

 

[Sukerkin]

Bill says:

However, I ask a simple question. HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH? And you will not answer, instead insisting that you already have.

I ask, WHO DECIDES? And you mutter some gibberish about how the stockholders must shoulder their responsibility. Of course, that begs the question, which I asked, what happens when they don't? No answer from you.

I ask, HOW WILL THIS BE APPLIED? No answer from you.

I am clearly not reading what I write the same way as you are, Bill. Seriously, I haven't waltzed around anything or avoided saying anything - you think I have, which means there's a fault in either the reading or the writing somewhere (I'll guess the writing - too many things left out for the sake of brevity).

Salaries for those who run things should be capped, either formally or informally, and, which I don't think seems to have been common knowledge, they were. Over this side of the Pond at least they were; can't speak for America in this instance tho' I believe that it was a global 'agreement' (which is where the 20 -30 times workers salary for execs came from). As I noted before, we all work in a system where someone else sets our wages, why should executives be any different?

That agreement is why the head of British Aerospace made less than £30K in the late 70's. The Tories, who else, removed the impediments to executive pay and now the head of what was British Aerospace 'earns' £4.5M and is laying off thousands of talented staff whilst stock performance remains flat.

The analogy for sports stars doesn't hold true for CEO's - as I said before, they can generally only make things worse if they don't largely stay out of the way or change things slowly and carefully. CEO's nearly always wreck companies by too vociferously following their 'vision' or pursuing a 'target'. The ones that are in it for the long haul (i.e. the actual businessmen with business acumen) do rather better, for they have their eyes on the long run rather than the short.

Changes in the law in Britain are likely coming to allow shareholders to reject executive pay awards more easily - it is proposed to drop the percentage needed from 51% to 25%. As that shareholder body is a complex mass of individuals, cartels and corporations, then it is yet to be seen how effective this change will be. But the big players are starting to pay attention once more to those who are nominally in charge of the companies in which they invest and rewarding failure is going to be less likely.

For it's the CEO's who 'win' when they actually destroy a company that are the target for ire. The ones who are 'good' (or lucky) can earn what they can get away with and the ratifiers won't care all that much, I don't think ... unless there is a real drive to have a more ethical capitalism. One where the long term is more important than the short and where the health of the company is more important than share dividends. Any bubble eventually bursts - maybe this time it's executive pay? For it has been a bubble - 8000% inflation in the price of an asset is a dead give-away.

Now if that is not a clear enough answer for you, then tough luck, that's all you're getting ... I was going to say "For free" but actually you owe me £50 for the time it took to write this post (and I want a performance related bonus of eight times my base fee, regardless of whether you understood me or not :lol.

 

[Jenna]

I wonder on a point perhaps not made? I am not sure if anyone has mentioned the importance of drawing distinction between morality and self-interest (which is the mantra to the individual in capitalism)?

And I am not talking about the morality or otherwise of capitalism per se as there are many arguments both for and against.

I am talking about removing an individual from the virtuous safety net of capitalism and pinging their conscience in matters of the disparity between them and others.

To propel oneself by the rhetoric that I exist within a laissez faire free market and which is a system that is proven to move to the benefit of all is to cede one's own inherent conscience to a pure economic model free from social morality and which has clearly many serious moral flaws. Poverty exists in every free market economy on earth.

It is not essential in morality for someone to give a damn about the disparity in living standard between them and their fellow humans, I just think it would be nice if we all did.

I also appreciate that my ideology is facile. That is ok too.

 

[Carol]

CEO salaries should not be dictated by the government. I also have nothing but disdain, as the son and son-in-law of responsible and successful businessmen, for profiteering and the separation of risk and reward, success and pay, in CEO compensation. It's bad business.

Here's my solution (which I have put forth on this board before): strictly enforce conflict-of-interest rules in executive board membership. No mutual back-scratching societies. The CEO of a company you sit on the board for should not sit on your own board. Most of this problem is due to incestuous boards rewarding each other.

This is an interesting discussion. Since you brought this point (back) up, what do you think of stock trading amongst board members and the like? Should there be a limit to how much stock one can own, both before the shares go to market and after?

 

[Empty Hands]

This is an interesting discussion. Since you brought this point (back) up, what do you think of stock trading amongst board members and the like? Should there be a limit to how much stock one can own, both before the shares go to market and after?

I'm not as familiar with this issue. Generally speaking, I think that owning stock in a company you work for is a good thing - it will incentivize you to make sure your company performs well. Obviously this breaks down where short-term things can be done to drive up stock prices and cash out, which are detrimental long term (like laying off productive work force and selling off infrastructure). I don't think there should be a limit, which might actually be counter-productive. What might work better would be conflict of interest trusts and the like, common to politicians like Romney or Cheney when they run for office. Or prohibiting sale of conflict of interest stock while still an employee of the company. Not sure, I would need to think more on this, and think of whether such restrictions are worth the price in freedom to run our finances as we see fit.

Which brings up another point. All of this discussion is centered around public corporations. I think this is valid, because the company is restructured as a public corporation to gain certain benefits, so they lose some autonomy. I don't think what we are talking about would generally be valid for other companies, particularly individually owned businesses. If I want to cash out my company, that's my business - I own it, it's my property. The same does not apply to executive boards and CEOs.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Speaking from one human being to another:
Why does it bother you so much when people look at the finances of those who hold the world's economy in their hands?

I don't like nosy parkers. I don't like the implications of seeking to decide how much is 'too much' and the unspoken corollary to that, which is "and therefore you should not be allowed to have it."

From a personal stand point I don't care how much they make as long as they don't **** over the company. It has been done before, it could happen again.
(when they break the company, they should not only not pass go and not collect 200$ but also get a 'go to jail card' free)

So if I start a company and it goes bankrupt, I go to jail?

On a philosophical note: How much money does a person need?
How many beds can one person sleep in, on how many chairs can he sit.....

What difference does it make?

I get asked that from time to time with regard to my guns. How many guns do you need? Well, as many as I want, that's how many. How many book may I own? How many cars? How many fluffy pillows? How about it's nobody's damned business?

How much money does a person need? As much as they have plus a dollar more, I suspect. If you ask them. If you ask someone else, well, that's a different story. Nobody who makes a dollar more than we do actually needs it. And again, the unspoken but still present threat "and therefore it should be taken away from them."

I don't know if I make an excessive amount according to you or the next person down the line. I do know that I'm not letting anyone take it from me. How much do I need? None of your business, that's how much.

How much do YOU need? May I take any excess you happen to have laying about?

 

[David43515]

I seem to recall from Dick Marcenco`s book on leadership that when Lee Iaccoca was CEO at Chrysler he had to go before the United Auto Workers meeting and ask his workers to agree to a pay cut. He told them that the company could no longer afford to pay $20+ dollars an hour to people on the assembly line, but that they had thousands of jobs that would pay $17 dollars an hour. He asked them to vote on the change and told them that if the answer was no, the company would file for bankruptsy the next monring. They agreed because before he asked them to take a cut, he cut the salaries of all managment first, got rid of all stock options for managment, and cut his own salary to ZERO.

He didn`t own the company, but he put it`s long term welfare ahead of his own pocketbook. Now you could argue that it was just a gesture, that he was already a wealthy man, and you`d be right. But to say the only good executives are overseas seems a little far fetched to me.

 

[granfire]

I don't like nosy parkers. I don't like the implications of seeking to decide how much is 'too much' and the unspoken corollary to that, which is "and therefore you should not be allowed to have it."

You are putting words in my mouth.
I did not say that. I said looking at, nothing more.

So if I start a company and it goes bankrupt, I go to jail?

No.
if you take the controls of a functioning company, gut it, waste the workers retirement funds all while still making millions before and while you are leaving, yes.
Because that is no different than stealing.

What difference does it make?

I get asked that from time to time with regard to my guns. How many guns do you need? Well, as many as I want, that's how many. How many book may I own? How many cars? How many fluffy pillows? How about it's nobody's damned business?

How much money does a person need? As much as they have plus a dollar more, I suspect. If you ask them. If you ask someone else, well, that's a different story. Nobody who makes a dollar more than we do actually needs it. And again, the unspoken but still present threat "and therefore it should be taken away from them."

I don't know if I make an excessive amount according to you or the next person down the line. I do know that I'm not letting anyone take it from me. How much do I need? None of your business, that's how much.

How much do YOU need? May I take any excess you happen to have laying about?

Again. you are putting words in my mouth.
How many guns does a man need. The answer ranges from zero to many.
However, once you surpass the - for argument's sake - 100 mark, it becomes redundant.

Does a person need 10 cars? One might like to own more, drive different ones every day, but the answer to the question of need would likely be no. one is enough. You can't eat more than your fill, when you sleep you don't need more room than it takes to lay down.

However, the conclusion to which you jump on this ZEN inspired question is false.

I really would like to know why you always get so cranky when somebody questions those 1%ers...

Most of them did not pull themselves up on their boot straps.
And even many of the ones who did have done so gleefully stepping over people as they crumbled under them.

it has been suggested - but don't hold me accountable, it's been a while I don't recall who said it - that to be in this type of leadership position a person does well to have sociopathic tendencies.



Ok, back to the original problem.
Oh, right.
CEOs doing right by their people are a news worthy event. Now why exactly is that?