EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 819
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
1.3 million for his paycheck 13.6 million in stock options 2.88 million of his possible 4.4 million bonus. If you were on the board what would you offer him for pay knowing that the average employee makes less than $10 an hour. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
If you break it down the numbers the deals are very reasonable to me. 1.3 million CASH from a million cashiers registers to pay his salary. 2.88 million CASH off his employees backs for doing a good job and hitting targets set out by the board. 13.6 million NOT CASH from the shareholders to incentivize him to run the business in the interest of the shareholders(the LAST people to get paid from walmarts profit) Basically a deal from the Walton family that he is allowed to buy 27 million of their 90 billion dollar empire at half price as long as he doesn't sell the shares for typically 5 years. TLDR; executive pay is fine in my opinion. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On January 25 2014 09:43 Wolfstan wrote: Exactly, people see the 20.7 number and have no knowledge about how that number was negotiated. Thus the unreasonable (in my mind) hate on the executives. If you break it down the numbers the deals are very reasonable to me. 1.3 million CASH from a million cashiers registers to pay his salary. 2.88 million CASH off his employees backs for doing a good job and hitting targets set out by the board. 13.6 million NOT CASH from the shareholders to incentivize him to run the business in the interest of the shareholders(the LAST people to get paid from walmarts profit) Basically a deal from the Walton family that he is allowed to buy 27 million of their 90 billion dollar empire at half price as long as he doesn't sell the shares for typically 5 years. TLDR; executive pay is fine in my opinion. you needed that to prove your own opinion? how about proving he got what he worked for and not more? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
what annoys people tends to be things like: hundred million+ pay, and hundred million+ severance packages. Especially pay like that when the company is doing poorly. That's what annoys people. Also, when pay is super high for executives, and not just the ceo. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 25 2014 08:47 Wolfstan wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wal-mart-ceo-mike-duke-in-2012-paid-207-million/ 1.3 million for his paycheck 13.6 million in stock options 2.88 million of his possible 4.4 million bonus. If you were on the board what would you offer him for pay knowing that the average employee makes less than $10 an hour. There maybe better ways to do that - like shares that vest over a number of years. There's no good consensus on that afaik though. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On January 25 2014 09:51 zlefin wrote: One instance doesn't prove the point wolfstan; people may well not have a problem with that ceo's pay in this instance; what annoys people tends to be things like: hundred million+ pay, and hundred million+ severance packages. Especially pay like that when the company is doing poorly. That's what annoys people. Also, when pay is super high for executives, and not just the ceo. I just brought up walmart because that is where the discussion is. A lot of CEO pay is very defensible if you break it down. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8744 Posts
On January 25 2014 10:36 aksfjh wrote: Well, if Wal-Mart is swimming in cash, might as well give it to the CEO. If they gave it to the workers, those lazy bums wouldn't have anything to work towards... Or worse, they could actually afford the shit they are selling. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 25 2014 08:41 hunts wrote: The CEO being the one who makes most if not all of the major decisions for the business, does a lot more to directly bring in money than someone who simply stands at a cash register, would you not agree? This is a gaming forum, think about what would happen if companies you like such as blizzard or whatever else you might be into replaced their CEO's with random guys off the street. And then the guy off the street who was applying for cashier but was given CEO job went "you know, i hated paying for WoW, let's make the subscription free" or "you know, i bet we would make a lot of money if we started charging SC2 players for maps." And then said company would lose tons of profit. CEO's have to know their particular industry inside and out, and have to be constantly keep up with the times. Each decision they make has the chance to make or cost the company more money than the cashier would ever make in his/her lifetime, and a bad decision from a CEO can cost the company its existence. Of course they aren't equal positions in terms of skill. But to say that the CEO's skill is equivalent to 20.7 million compared to a cashier getting paid $10/hour is kind of grossly disproportionate, wouldn't you say? You're exaggerating your claims to make things sound reasonable, but I don't know if you're really fooling anyone. Its not like there is a binary option between hiring an idiot off the street and a brilliant CEO who reads market reports every day. There are many perfectly capable, intelligent people who can read market reports, and who could probably consult with a board of executives to determine a reasonable course of action for the company. Your examples are more a demonstration of your bias than a good argument; what normal individual would ever decide to start charging SC2 players for maps and think that that's a good business decision? Maybe you think they would be numerous, I would be shocked if even one person who plays or is familiar with SC2 on a basic level would ever think this was a good idea. And I think its only rarely true that a bad decision from a CEO can cost the company its existence. In the vast majority of cases they have a huge cushion of money to fall back on, particularly for the corporations we're discussing (Wal-mart, etc.). | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
- Net sales increased by 5.9 percent to $443.9 billion, and consolidated operating income grew by 4 percent to $26.6 billion. (that's about 25 billion more in sales and 1.6 billion more in profit) - Added 52.2 million square feet in sales space, mostly internationally - returned 11.3 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks - added 3 billion to shareholders equity - developed a plan to reduce prices 2 billion over 2 years through expense reductions and productivity improvements (that's where he "screws" employees.) If a man can do these things for you 20 million is definately worth it. So yes, he got what he worked for and could probably get more if people weren't so politically outraged that a man is making a paycheck. I'm more against the single mother of four who thinks she should make more for doing the same job as a 15 year old kid who lives at home and spends his cheque on pot and video games. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8744 Posts
On January 25 2014 10:44 Wolfstan wrote: OK, here's some things he did for his "outrageous" compensation. - Net sales increased by 5.9 percent to $443.9 billion, and consolidated operating income grew by 4 percent to $26.6 billion. (that's about 25 billion more in sales and 1.6 billion more in profit) - Added 52.2 million square feet in sales space, mostly internationally - returned 11.3 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks - added 3 billion to shareholders equity - developed a plan to reduce prices 2 billion over 2 years through expense reductions and productivity improvements (that's where he "screws" employees.) If a man can do these things for you 20 million is definately worth it. So yes, he got what he worked for and could probably get more if people weren't so politically outraged that a man is making a paycheck. I'm more against the single mother of four who thinks she should make more for doing the same job as a 15 year old kid who lives at home and spends his cheque on pot and video games. Those are things happening under his leadership... He helped achieve them. But didn't do it on his own. Minor difference I guess. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On January 25 2014 10:36 aksfjh wrote: Well, if Wal-Mart is swimming in cash, might as well give it to the CEO. If they gave it to the workers, those lazy bums wouldn't have anything to work towards... Divide his pay (btw stock options aren't really very liquid, so it's kind of hard to call it pay, but I'll roll with it) among all walmart employees in the world and you get: about $10 per employee. I normally side with the workers but come on, his pay isn't really criminal considering what other posters have dug up about what he's done. Yes, a lot of that would have happened if someone else had been CEO, but I have a feeling that the board knows a little bit more about how to run Walmart (and how much was the CEO's directly) than we do. On January 25 2014 08:00 Gorsameth wrote: What people hate is CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars while telling the lower workers they need to take salary cuts or strait up not paying them enough to make a living (as is the case with wall-mart where this all started from). Yeah but don't hate the companies for it. If I were running a company I would try to charge the most possible, pay the lowest wages possible, and take home the most for myself possible all while making the shareholders happy. That's kind of how businesses work. You need legislation to prevent this, not directionless outrage. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 25 2014 10:51 Doublemint wrote: Those are things happening under his leadership... He helped achieve them. But didn't do it on his own. Minor difference I guess. Absolutely! Yet other retailers are dying (JCP, SHLD, etc.). Is that due to executive leadership? Organizational excellence? Superior workforce? Industry trends? To whom do you attribute success to? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8744 Posts
On January 25 2014 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Absolutely! Yet other retailers are dying (JCP, SHLD, etc.). Is that due to executive leadership? Organizational excellence? Superior workforce? Industry trends? To whom do you attribute success to? Market environment, good organisational structures, motivated employees, well educated workforce, exceptionally capable leadership... I guess it's like my relationship status on FB - it's complicated :p But definitely not a one-size-fits all answer. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 25 2014 11:10 Doublemint wrote: Market environment, good organisational structures, motivated employees, well educated workforce, exceptionally capable leadership... I guess it's like my relationship status on FB - it's complicated :p But definitely not a one-size-fits all answer. Yup yup! Then add internal, internecine, Game-of-Thrones-style corporate politics to that  Edit: PS: is there any redundancy in "internal, internecine, Game-of-Thrones-style"? PPS: should I have added Byzantine just to look smarter? PPPS pro tip - add big words to your PPT - makes you look smarter, and thus right PPPPS the jury's still out on emoticon use  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will not pay the legal bills for the former agency executive at the center of the George Washington Bridge lane closings scandal, The Bergen Record reported on Friday. Citing a "Port Authority source familiar with the decision," the Record reported that the Port Authority informed former executive David Wildstein of its decision Friday morning. The notification to Wildstein reportedly said his request to have his legal bill picked up "would not be warranted" under the agency's bylaws. Those bylaws state that current and former employees will be provided with legal representation if the action in question fell within their job duties, but not if there was fraud, malice, misconduct, or intentional wrongdoing. Source | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9176 Posts
On January 25 2014 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Absolutely! Yet other retailers are dying (JCP, SHLD, etc.). Is that due to executive leadership? Organizational excellence? Superior workforce? Industry trends? To whom do you attribute success to? for at least one of your examples (JC Penney), they've had serious directional issues in that they tried to compete with higher-tier stores and been largely rudderless in terms of trying to be competitive in their space relative to their peers http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/23/is-this-the-end-for-jc-penney.aspx http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/01/15/jc-penney-to-close-five-wisconsin.html http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/01/16/jcpenney-close-33-stores-cut-2-000-jobs/ | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 25 2014 11:00 Chocolate wrote: Divide his pay (btw stock options aren't really very liquid, so it's kind of hard to call it pay, but I'll roll with it) among all walmart employees in the world and you get: about $10 per employee. I normally side with the workers but come on, his pay isn't really criminal considering what other posters have dug up about what he's done. Yes, a lot of that would have happened if someone else had been CEO, but I have a feeling that the board knows a little bit more about how to run Walmart (and how much was the CEO's directly) than we do. I don't want them to divide it evenly among the workers. I would rather them build a better pay structure out of it, where there were more rapid increases in compensation lower on the ladder. Whether that's in added managerial positions, or just baked into positions already given, I think it's a much better allocation of resources than loading up the CEO and top level management. | ||
| ||
