|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under...
Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations?
A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well.
|
On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable.
Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be.
|
On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well.
What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT.
On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be.
Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter?
|
On January 23 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd prefer to have a fair set of rules in place so that companies act responsibly in the first place. That's pretty vague. What does that mean?
I think we need to stop the government from subsidizing low wages (as that ironically hurts employers who prefer to pay their employees themselves), raise the minimum wage and cap payments of high earners.
A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was.
So just because our mighty executive overlords are really good at their jobs that is know an excuse that the majority of workers is living at the poverty line?
Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be.
...so everything's fine because free markets yada yada yada?
|
On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT.
Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work?
Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter?
Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company.
|
@Nyxisto -- This may be hard for you to believe, but there are executives who add hundreds of millions of dollars in value to their companies. You can't just pay someone like that a six figure or even modest seven figure salary and call it good.
|
On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company.
1 you didn't answer the question.
2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it.
|
On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be.
It matters, at least to me, primarily because of the connection between political power and money. Who really cares if the "CEOs" (used as a catch all term here) gets helicopters and jets, the rest of us gets PCs and iphones and 40 euro flights to Spain. Still better than 50 years ago. And if it stopped there I would be fine with it, only it doesn't.
TV, lobbying, super pacs, networking and what have you on one hand, but more important still is the fact that companies now are large enough to topple nations. The US is the largest economy in the world but Goldman Sachs et al was still effectively able to make the US public an offer they couldn't refuse.
Taken together these things cause a huge transfer of political power out of democratic systems and into closed sauna meetings. I would argue without batting an eyelid that we are well underway with recreating the political system of medieval Europe, complete with lords, serfs and monarchs. And as someone who actually very strongly believes in freedom(tm) I have a fundamental problem with that.
|
On January 23 2014 10:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd prefer to have a fair set of rules in place so that companies act responsibly in the first place. That's pretty vague. What does that mean? I think we need to stop the government from subsidizing low wages (as that ironically hurts employers who prefer to pay their employees themselves), raise the minimum wage and cap payments of high earners.
I think that's a great way to screw over the needy.
|
On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it.
You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff.
|
On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff.
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject
|
On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject
The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain).
Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
|
On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff.
It would be nice if you would stop the marxist/communist rhetoric as everything I have proposed so far has nothing to do communism. Also he's probably aware that workers don't legally own the company, but that's not what we are talking about anyway. We were talking about the moral responsibility that comes with owning a company/a lot of moeny, and that is not being recognized right now by many large companies and executives.
Also workers and executives and shareholders are codependent. If workers don't work, shareholder and executives don't get rich. And if we're on the topic of dependencies that's also a nice moment to remind that companies are relying on public schools/infrastructure/research and whatnot to make the profits they make, so they indeed do have a responsibility towards society.
There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are
Yeah or we could pretend for a moment that we're actual humans and not replaceable car parts and have a discussion on that basis.
|
On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level.
|
On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles.
On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level.
It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument.
|
On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject
This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Workers own nothing. Period. The reason why I said that you are living in Marxist/communist fantasy land is because one of end goals of communism is to give workers the type of power that you are describing (and more, really). The obvious deduction to be made is that workers don't have that power presently.
In all seriousness, do you know anything about corporate ownership? Stocks? Employer/employer relations. If I had to guess, I'd say that you have never worked outside of the academic world in your life.
|
On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level.
Ownership has nothing to do with value creation. CEO's aren't owners either - they're workers too.
Value creation in an organization comes from the workers, but there are organizational affects as well. And again, CEO's are workers too.
|
And FFS, did it ever occur to you that the executives are workers?
|
On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument.
No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation 
On January 23 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Workers own nothing. Period. The reason why I said that you are living in Marxist/communist fantasy land is because one of end goals of communism is to give workers the type of power that you are describing (and more, really). The obvious deduction to be made is that workers don't have that power presently. In all seriousness, do you know anything about corporate ownership? Stocks? Employer/employer relations. If I had to guess, I'd say that you have never worked outside of the academic world in your life.
This is such fallacious thinking I'm actually the one who doesn't know where to begin. I mean really, are all your arguments just pro status quo and that's all the thinking/reasoning you need? I'm not going to address your last point since it's mostly flamebaiting, the kind you scolded Sam for doing. I hope you'll hold your tongue from the fire unlike him.
edit: I love how he thinks I'm some kind of marxist intellectual I didn't realize you looked up to me that much.
|
Roe
No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation
because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it.
And you say
btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject I feel like I'm getting massively trolled here. Twins separated at birth, unaware of each other's existence, if I can twist a phrase to this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
