Is a CEO worth 364 times the average Joe?
KosmicJelli
Posts: 1,855
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/IsACEOWorth364TimesAnAverageJoe.aspx
interesting reading....
interesting reading....
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
One thing it fails to mention is how much of their salary is performance based. To the owners of the company they are worth it, because their compensation comes only after specific company profits have been made.
I'm not saying that it is fair, but it seems to be conspicuously left out of the article.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
We had a case of that here in Norway in the semi-state oil company. The leaders had deals that gave them millions upon millions based on "performance". However, that also meant that since the international oil price went up, so did earnings, and so did the "performance pay". It would be a stretch to say that Statoil's leader made oil prices rise. Deals like that just ensure that if things are generally good, the leader will get all the credit and huge benefits, even if he did anything towards it or not.
Now I'm not totally dissing performance pay, but it should not simply be tied to stock value or total earnings as there isn't any necessity at all that those go up purely because of "leadership". A good leader helps, of course, but that doesnt mean he has truly earned an extra 10 million on his paycheck.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yahoo's stock is lower now than it was at the start of 2004, while the Standard and Poor's 500 index ($INX)has advanced more than 30% in the same time period. Semel stepped down as CEO in June because of shareholder dissatisfaction with his company's performance."
it talks about preformance...
considering Semel was one of the top paid CEO's...
Couldn't agree with you more. There are plenty of cases when an increase in profits has little to do with the CEO and a lot to do with changes in markets, etc.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
It depends on who you ask.
The Home Depot paid Bob Nardelli 220 million to go away after he wrecked the company.
Delta, same kind of deal really.
Management is always in charge. Everyone likes the idea of pay for performance but Managers don't generally do thier jobs. They want you to set your own goals and measure everything you did then rate yourself at the end of the year... meanwhile they are the only ones with an idea of the shared money pot so they review you based on the level of money they've already decided they can give you... performance pay means fuck all if you aren't in sales or in another easily quantifiable job because you basically have to prove your worth in numbers or you get nothing.
It's not simply company leadership as dan says that rises earnings. Many times it's the market or outstanding work done in safe operations that drives corporate success... of course, those people are too occupied with actually doing the work than finding the numbers to show the stockholders what they did for them.
If a poor profit sharing structure is in place or you have a shitty HR department (98% of US corportations) you get screwed if you aren't a manager. But if you want to make a ton of money for doing virtually nothing productive and you don't want to be in insurance.... become an HR consultant.... they are truely worthless.
It really dosen't matter how hard you work or how well you perform. It's how well you perform when given the opportunity to show off, then you get the looks, which get you the higher paying gigs.
The CEO is similar to a head coach or GM.... Sometimes you lay the groundwork for success and the market changes and you get screwed. Sometimes the market changes to your benefit. It's a risky position so it pays well even when you fail sometimes.
Basically everyones worth in regards to pay is always always always what they can negociate.
I take it your web activity is monitored by your company! :cool:
-
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
How did you arrive at either of those answers?
Mozilo, O'Neal and Prince defending their paychecks.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I doubt it, since I never use the net at work. Just don't want everybody on here knowin where I work.
All I know, he rocks and is one of the best CEO's in corporate America!
Oh yeah...we karaoke at work too:)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
edit: for the clickably challenged...
"-- The richest four hundred American taxpayers have amassed immense wealth, and that amount is steadily increasing, according to figures reported by the Wall Street Journal Wednesday.
The Journal piece and the latest celebration of the world’s billionaires carried out by Forbes magazine point to an increasingly and malignantly polarized American and global social order, with fabulous riches accumulated at one pole and widespread social wretchedness at the other.
The data published in the Wall Street Journal article come from an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) study of wealthy US taxpayers in 2005, an update of a report conducted five years earlier. The study reveals that the 400 super-rich—who represent approximately .0003 percent of the nation’s 134 million taxpayers—reported total income of $85.6 billion in 2005, an average of $213.9 million each.
To be a member of this exclusive crowd, “the Fortunate 400,” as one academic terms the group, an individual had to report an income of at least $100.3 million in 2005, a sharp increase from the $74.5 million such membership would have required only the year before.
The increase in the fortunes of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers over the four years 2002-2005 was phenomenal. In 2002 the average income of the 400 was ‘merely’ $104.1 million, little more than the “entry level” in 2005. The 2002 total income of the group was $41.6 billion, less than half the 2005 total.
The 400 wealthiest absorbed 1.15 percent of total national income in 2005 (in other words, three-millionths of the taxpaying population took in an eighty-seventh of total income), an increase from 1.02 percent in 2004 and more than double the 0.49 percent in 1995. After adjusting for inflation, the minimum income required for entry into the club of 400 has tripled since 1992. This provides a snapshot of a social process that has gone on uninterruptedly under both Democratic and Republican administrations."
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In which case, the gap between the rich and the poor can at least remain constant instead of steadily increasing until it gets to the point where it's just sickening.
On the other hand, Ben & Jerry's isn't exactly giving Dreyer's and Breyer's runs for their money. Could that be because Ben & Jerry's liberal salary strategy has failed to attract the right leadership?
I think some people really under-estimate just how difficult it is to go through business school and then actually become a business leader who makes a measurable impact on the success of a company.
I suspect it would be so much easier and nicer to just push a broom all day. I don't even make any real decisions at my job, but if I could get paid the same money for mopping the floor that I get for analyzing balance sheets, I'd walk away from my current job in the blink of an eye. I absolutely detest having to wear a tie and comb my hair 5 days a week. I am amazed at how some people actually look forward to that sort of thing. Hand me some blue coveralls and you'll hear no complaints from me so long as my bills are paid.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Blue collar dipshits are worthless.
Well that says a lot and yes on average CEOs are worth 364 more times the average worker to a company.
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
funny...
Is true not too many left as the same for the middle class....
They all moved to China Taiwan and Korea.