About CEO pay vs average Joe

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Hahahaha...here we go again!!!!

Spin me right round baby right round....round round...

Anyhow, you are right you are only talking partial socialism and partial redistribution of wealth...that's very different.

agian, work for welfare ... make peole that need help WORK for it ... again, this country has a ton of issues ... put people that need money to work to improve the country.

cincybearcat

justam wrote:

I don't think the responsibility should even be an excuse, because there are much less well compensated jobs that have responsibilty attached and it's ignored come salary time...

The pilot of a plane has a lot of people depending on him.
Hell, the driver of a bus has people depending on him.
Air traffic controllers are responsible for many lives.
An anesthesiologist could kill every patient if he's not doing his job right!!

I don't think the two things you mention are really good enough justification for the glorification of this type of person. It's just GREED.

My plant manager has 4 times as many people depending on them then any pilot. And it's that's just 1 small plant out of many that the CEO has to worry about.

Lemme ask you this, who does the pilot depend on? That's right...the mechanics, the company to provide $ for maintenance and training...who does that buck stop with?????

It's certainly not all about Greed, but it certainly has an element of greed.

I guess we can agree to disagree as I think the responsibilty of a CEO certainly entitles them to higher pay...not really entitles though since they EARN it.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

agian, work for welfare ... make peole that need help WORK for it ... again, this country has a ton of issues ... put people that need money to work to improve the country.

Yep, put them to work giving vasectomies to deadbeat dads.

Did I spell Vasectomy correctly?

Strangest Tribe

saveuplife wrote:

Yep. Supply and Demand set markets. Including the labor market. When government intervenes it creates wage ceilings or floors. These are inefficient. Moreover, taxation in order to accomplish the same result is also inefficient. It's very simple.

you have said nothing

all you say is "inefficient" but no explanation....
why is it inefficient?

saveuplife

Strangest Tribe wrote:

you have said nothing

all you say is "inefficient" but no explanation....
why is it inefficient?

Actually, I said something.... not nothing. You just don't agree with it; fair enough. But, please, do yourself a favor and try to get it taken out of every intro to microeconomics text book that exists and then let me know when you are finished.

A wage floor means that the quantity of labor supplied does not equal the quantity of labor demanded. Since there is no equilibrium, markets don't clear and therefore there's an inefficiency. The same goes for the wage ceiling except the opposite direction.

Kel Varnsen

They used to do this thing on a CBC show, I think it was Venture, where a CEO would swap places with a entry level person from their company. The one I remember was the CEO of Boston Pizza swapping places with a waitress for like 4 of 5 days. He said her job was hard, but you could tell he bascially had it mostly figured out in a couple of days. For the CEO position you could tell the show made it easy on her, but she said it was way harder then anything she ever did, especially the big time decisions she had to make and the fact that pretty much the only time she wasn't working was when she was sleeping.

A lot of the time I think the reverse is true. If you are some guy who bolts a tire onto a car, or sweeps the floor in a mill, and you are getting 25+ bucks an hour, then you are overpaid. When I was in University I did a coop work term in the engineering department of a pulp mill. The summer students they hired to sweep the floor and hand out safety gear (who were usually the kids of senior people who worked in the mill) actually made more than me and I was an engieering student with a few credits shy of having an actual degree.

Strangest Tribe

saveuplife wrote:

Actually, I said something.... not nothing. You just don't agree with it; fair enough. But, please, do yourself a favor and try to get it taken out of every intro to microeconomics text book that exists and then let me know when you are finished. I'm just making things up.

A wage floor means that the quantity of labor supplied does not equal the quantity of labor demanded. Since there is no equilibrium, markets don't clear and therefore there's an inefficiency. The same goes for the wage ceiling except the opposite direction.

So if you pay your labor more, then there are fewer people to do the job? or are there less? or is this just some hoodoo bs?

And if you pay your workers more and your CEO less then that makes your company inefficient? or is that just more hoodoo bs?

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It doens't really bother me. I mean if you are an average Joe working for a big company and you fuck up on something it is probably not going to have a huge effect, at worst you might lose your job. If you are the CEO of a big company and you fuck up at worst every average joe in the company could lose their job.

Not to mention the average joe gets to go home at night and chill with a beer, while the CEO is essentially on the job 24/7, when you take that into account, and the fact that it is the type of job only a small portion of the population is skilled enough to handle, then yes I think they should be paid accordingly. I mean you don't want some unskilled joker running a Fortune 500 company, you want someone with the skills, but getting somone with the skills costs money. If you posted a job listing for a CEO job for 40 grand a year for a big company no one with any skills would take it because they would know they could get more somewhere else.

Well the problem that I see is that when the average joe fucks up he get;s fired and that's that. When the CEO fucks up he gets fired but get's a huge lucrative multi-million dollar package for basically running a company into the ground.

Take the latest CEO fired. Kerry Killinger from WaMu. It was his policy that switch WaMu's focus from A-paper, fixed rate mortgage loans to B-paper, adjustable, sub-prime loans. This one decision has basically run WaMu into the ground. In 2002 over 70% of WaMu's mortgages where A-paper. By 2007 less that 30% where A-paper. What does he get for his royal fucked, a package estimated at over 15 million dollars. What do the WaMu employees who where laid off because of his fuck up get, a few weeks severance.

jimed14

mammasan wrote:

Well the problem that I see is that when the average joe fucks up he get;s fired and that's that. When the CEO fucks up he gets fired but get's a huge lucrative multi-million dollar package for basically running a company into the ground.

Take the latest CEO fired. Kerry Killinger from WaMu. It was his policy that switch WaMu's focus from A-paper, fixed rate mortgage loans to B-paper, adjustable, sub-prime loans. This one decision has basically run WaMu into the ground. In 2002 over 70% of WaMu's mortgages where A-paper. By 2007 less that 30% where A-paper. What does he get for his royal fucked, a package estimated at over 15 million dollars. What do the WaMu employees who where laid off because of his fuck up get, a few weeks severance.

yeah, but, $15M is probably a few week's severance for Killinger. How will he live?

saveuplife

You're not listening or reading what I am saying. But, I'll try to answer your questions anyway.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

So if you pay your labor more, then there are fewer people to do the job? or are there less? or is this just some hoodoo bs?

If you pay your labor more there's always going to more people wanting to do the job (that's why the labor supply curve slopes up). What I'm talking about was the market (not just a supply curve). I was talking about the market. Where you have wages on the verticle axis and quantity of labor on the horizontal axis. Then you have a demand for labor (the employers) and supply of labor (the potential employees). If there's floors (or ceilings) set in, the market is not efficient because S can not equal D.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

And if you pay your workers more and your CEO less then that makes your company inefficient? or is that just more hoodoo bs?

Who is "you" in this quote above? The board?

Anyway, I'm sure there's a number of firms that have some staff making more than the CEO. Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about markets and jobs and how government involvement makes things inefficient.

But, getting to your point.... CEO's salaries are most likely set by a board or approved by shareholders. Hence, this body representing some firm is the demand for labor. The CEO's contending for the job are the supply. The market meets at an equilibrium. That's what the CEO is paid. Some CEO's make more because they are more talented. Some make less. God decides those factors. The market sets up the link or match of job and person.

mammasan

jimed14 wrote:

yeah, but, $15M is probably a few week's severance for Killinger. How will he live?

I'm sure he will manage.

nick1977

It's not ok for a CEO to make that much money, but it is quite ok for a movie star, rock star, or sports hero to make that much money.

Strangest Tribe

nick1977 wrote:

It's not ok for a CEO to make that much money, but it is quite ok for a movie star, rock star, or sports hero to make that much money.

Good point... So a CEO with essentially a high batting avg. will get better pay.

And really who gives a flying fuck about the fans anyway? They'll still buy tickets and $12 beers won't they?

Strangest Tribe

I believe a more relevant economic chart of efficiency would involve line level employee satisfaction vs. job outsourcing to China

Or

CEO efficiency when offered incentive packages based on labor savings vs. CEO efficiency without incentive packages in a TEAM based corporation.

I believe the economics spin is never holistic enough to satisfy my questions.

saveuplife wrote:

You're not listening or reading what I am saying. But, I'll try to answer your questions anyway.



If you pay your labor more there's always going to more people wanting to do the job (that's why the labor supply curve slopes up). What I'm talking about was the market (not just a supply curve). I was talking about the market. Where you have wages on the verticle axis and quantity of labor on the horizontal axis. Then you have a demand for labor (the employers) and supply of labor (the potential employees). If there's floors (or ceilings) set in, the market is not efficient because S can not equal D.




Who is "you" in this quote above? The board?

Anyway, I'm sure there's a number of firms that have some staff making more than the CEO. Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was talking about markets and jobs and how government involvement makes things inefficient.

But, getting to your point.... CEO's salaries are most likely set by a board or approved by shareholders. Hence, this body representing some firm is the demand for labor. The CEO's contending for the job are the supply. The market meets at an equilibrium. That's what the CEO is paid. Some CEO's make more because they are more talented. Some make less. God decides those factors. The market sets up the link or match of job and person.