(10-27-2013 10:34 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change

Social change? Businesses aren't primarily worried about Social change. Good grief... why do we go through this argument every so often.
Go create your own business, make billions of dollars by doing so successfully, and then earn those millions of dollars in pay and stock options. And if you want to give away your income to your workers, go right ahead...

I think that's the point. It'd be a desirable outcome if more CEO's wanted to do this. There are more reasons to support this than just ethics.

Why?

(10-27-2013 10:34 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change

Social change? Businesses aren't primarily worried about Social change. Good grief... why do we go through this argument every so often.

Go create your own business, make billions of dollars by doing so successfully, and then earn those millions of dollars in pay and stock options. And if you want to give away your income to your workers, go right ahead...

I think that's the point. It'd be a desirable outcome if more CEO's wanted to do this.

Desirable for whom?

I assume you work for your money right, dmac? Other than donation to charity, how much of your paycheck do you give to your workers under you, dmac?

Oh wait, only the "evil CEO's" have to give away their earned money?

(10-27-2013 10:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I still don't care what someone else makes.

^^^^
THIS

I want to live my life, enjoy my family, and worship my God...

If someone else has gold backscratchers I could care less.

(10-27-2013 10:37 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:34 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change

Social change? Businesses aren't primarily worried about Social change. Good grief... why do we go through this argument every so often.

Go create your own business, make billions of dollars by doing so successfully, and then earn those millions of dollars in pay and stock options. And if you want to give away your income to your workers, go right ahead...

I think that's the point. It'd be a desirable outcome if more CEO's wanted to do this.

Desirable for whom?

I assume you work for your money right, dmac? Other than donation to charity, how much of your paycheck do you give to your workers under you, dmac?

Oh wait, only the "evil CEO's" have to give away their earned money?

Is the CEO the owner? Is he giving money out of his actual paycheck? It should be in the best interest of the corporation that CEO's aren't getting paid more money that they're worth, especially when other parts of the business may be suffering.

Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

(10-27-2013 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:34 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change

Social change? Businesses aren't primarily worried about Social change. Good grief... why do we go through this argument every so often.
Go create your own business, make billions of dollars by doing so successfully, and then earn those millions of dollars in pay and stock options. And if you want to give away your income to your workers, go right ahead...

I think that's the point. It'd be a desirable outcome if more CEO's wanted to do this. There are more reasons to support this than just ethics.

Why?

Happy employees are more productive.

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Happy employees are more productive.

LOL... Okay, this one I have to respond to... because I just got out of a training class for managers and coaches in which they talked about what makes a happy and productive employee?

You know where money/paychecks fall on what makes happy employees? SIXTH

They want to be told their appreciated verbally.
They want to be doing something they like doing
They want to believe their work mean something to their companies success.
They want to like their bosses and coworkers. (I forget which order those two fell)

THEN their paycheck/income comes into play...

(10-27-2013 10:49 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Happy employees are more productive.

LOL... Okay, this one I have to respond to... because I just got out of a training class for managers and coaches in which they talked about what makes a happy and productive employee?

You know where money/paychecks fall on what makes happy employees? SIXTH

They want to be told their appreciated verbally.
They want to be doing something they like doing
They want to believe their work mean something to their companies success.
They want to like their bosses and coworkers. (I forget which order those two fell)

THEN their paycheck/income comes into play...

Can you quantify how much less important pay is then the top option? I'm actually curious.

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  It should be in the best interest of the corporation that CEO's aren't getting paid more money that they're worth, especially when other parts of the business may be suffering.

Then the board will fire that CEO, and hire someone else, paying them what they believe their worth to be. (Just like they did when they hired the newly fired CEO) Some companies will be able to structure a plan that mirrors performance. However, a failing JC Penny will have a hard time getting someone good without that guaranteed money.

Quote:Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Whatever the answer is, it's none of my business.

(10-27-2013 10:49 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Happy employees are more productive.

LOL... Okay, this one I have to respond to... because I just got out of a training class for managers and coaches in which they talked about what makes a happy and productive employee?

You know where money/paychecks fall on what makes happy employees? SIXTH

They want to be told their appreciated verbally.
They want to be doing something they like doing
They want to believe their work mean something to their companies success.
They want to like their bosses and coworkers. (I forget which order those two fell)

THEN their paycheck/income comes into play...

I've been unfortunate to take far too many of those types of courses. On a course about public speaking the facilitator broke out some stats showing how most people fear public speaking more than dying. Swear.

I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head dmac.. i want to say the money group was somewhere around 10%, while the top of the list was at 40% or so...(I think the "like what they were doing" was at the top of the list.)

(10-27-2013 10:54 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  It should be in the best interest of the corporation that CEO's aren't getting paid more money that they're worth, especially when other parts of the business may be suffering.

Then the board will fire that CEO, and hire someone else, paying them what they believe their worth to be. (Just like they did when they hired the newly fired CEO) Some companies will be able to structure a plan that mirrors performance. However, a failing JC Penny will have a hard time getting someone good without that guaranteed money.

Quote:Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Whatever the answer is, it's none of my business.

Do you invest? Do you work for a corporation of any kind? If the answer is yes to either of those, it's absolutely your business. And like I said, there is reason to be skeptical of the relationship between pay and performance. It's hard to say they can't get someone good without having to pay $53 million a year.

(10-27-2013 10:57 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head dmac.. i want to say the money group was somewhere around 10%, while the top of the list was at 40% or so...(I think the "like what they were doing" was at the top of the list.)

Good to know.

The gap is obscene, especially when you compare it to where it was 50 years ago; there is no excuse or reason for it.

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Depends on the CEO. If he can put another $100 million on the bottom line, then paying him that $40 million is probably the corporation's best use of the money. If he can't, maybe not.

I think corporate executive salaries need some adjustment, but not because they are obscene. My issues are 1) too many supposed incentive bonuses end up getting paid whether the target was achieved or not, and 2) too much is tied up in short-term rather than long-term metrics.

The other problem is that efforts to "solve" the "problem" are likely to make it worse, not better.

(10-27-2013 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Depends on the CEO. If he can put another $100 million on the bottom line, then paying him that $40 million is probably the corporation's best use of the money. If he can't, maybe not.

I think corporate executive salaries need some adjustment, but not because they are obscene. My issues are 1) too many supposed incentive bonuses end up getting paid whether the target was achieved or not, and 2) too much is tied up in short-term rather than long-term metrics.

In my mind, there are a lot of ways a corporation could use money more efficiently than a single person investing it. If they an increased salary leads to diminishing returns, why give extra money to that guy?

(10-27-2013 11:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Depends on the CEO. If he can put another $100 million on the bottom line, then paying him that $40 million is probably the corporation's best use of the money. If he can't, maybe not.
I think corporate executive salaries need some adjustment, but not because they are obscene. My issues are 1) too many supposed incentive bonuses end up getting paid whether the target was achieved or not, and 2) too much is tied up in short-term rather than long-term metrics.

In my mind, there are a lot of ways a corporation could use money more efficiently than a single person investing it. If they an increased salary leads to diminishing returns, why give extra money to that guy?

Are you thinking that those comments are responsive to the points I was making?

(10-27-2013 11:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Depends on the CEO. If he can put another $100 million on the bottom line, then paying him that $40 million is probably the corporation's best use of the money. If he can't, maybe not.
I think corporate executive salaries need some adjustment, but not because they are obscene. My issues are 1) too many supposed incentive bonuses end up getting paid whether the target was achieved or not, and 2) too much is tied up in short-term rather than long-term metrics.

In my mind, there are a lot of ways a corporation could use money more efficiently than a single person investing it. If they an increased salary leads to diminishing returns, why give extra money to that guy?

Are you thinking that those comments are responsive to the points I was making?

I'm not trying to argue with you, so no.

RE: CEO-to-worker pay gap is obscene; want to know how obscene?
No.

(10-27-2013 09:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 09:43 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Life's not fair son.
No amount of government will make it so.

Quit worrying about what everyone else makes.
Work hard. Work smart. Make your own happiness.

Of course life isn't fair. The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change rather than government imposed "fairness".

Jealous much?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-27-2013 09:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 09:43 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Life's not fair son.
No amount of government will make it so.

Quit worrying about what everyone else makes.
Work hard. Work smart. Make your own happiness.

Of course life isn't fair. The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change rather than government imposed "fairness".

Social change? Like the Bolsheviks?