Something I'd rather not know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riooso

Then there is Jack Welch. He neither fired a lot of people or slashed GE to the bone. He set up an advanced highly technical company that increased in total value 4000% in the twenty years that he was at the helm.

How is it that everyone rails on CEO but say nothing about sport figures making $100 Million a year, or an actor making $100 million a year, or politicians on a $150 K salary ending up with $50 million after being in office for 10 years. Those hired gunslingers live a perilous existence and just speaking for myself I would not last one week without cutting my throat.


later,
Richard

---

Your revered Jack Welsh did not earn the sobriquet "Neutron Jack" for nothing Jack Welch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It had quite a bit to do with making huge numbers of people jobless over the course of his tenure with GE. It looks to me like he may very well have set the benchmark for how things have gone these last 30 odd years. We did not get to the present situation over night, it has been a longish road.

CEOs are selected/hired from the same strata of society that they themselves belong to. That is akin to politicians who vote their own pay raises.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riooso

Then there is Jack Welch. He neither fired a lot of people or slashed GE to the bone. He set up an advanced highly technical company that increased in total value 4000% in the twenty years that he was at the helm.

How is it that everyone rails on CEO but say nothing about sport figures making $100 Million a year, or an actor making $100 million a year, or politicians on a $150 K salary ending up with $50 million after being in office for 10 years. Those hired gunslingers live a perilous existence and just speaking for myself I would not last one week without cutting my throat.


later,
Richard

---

The whole lets compare actors and athletes to CEO's isn't right in that it's apples to oranges.

An actor and a athlete are "the" attraction. They are what people pay to see or watch play. A CEO's job as public as it may be isn't "the" attraction.

There is allot of debate over this - tons!! Many argue that huge pay and bonus are the incentive needed to bring the "best people" to the table - that's fair. And in some cases that might be true. I don't know that much about GE and Mr. Welch - so I can't say that it was or wasn't "him" that made the company see the value rise.

Anyway - by rights the CEO's job is to maximize the "value" of the firm. It used to be maximize "profit," and by rights, still is no matter how they word it in North America - by law. Hence, when a public co. is making say for examples sake $100 in accounting profit vs economic profit, if a CEO is getting paid $90, that leaves very little for the shareholder and... if $90 is the equivalent of 999% of what a grunt gets... the CEO is a liability.

This is very common in North America, and something the business world debates on an ongoing basis. The thing is most companies have a huge amount of shareholders that are rather "ignorant" in that they hold shares in their 401K's and the funds that manage them don't rail out against it with their proxies. Because in the short-run, new high priced CEO's raise share prices-which is great for them when they come to reporting their gains.

It really is a schizophrenia based type of environment with the little shareholder getting screwed - but generally speaking - like elections, many shareholders feel they can't make a difference - so no difference is made.

I can say that corporations are a relatively new thing in the history of business and as seen lately with the too big to fail - stealing and corruption is rather rampant. CEO salaries could almost be considered stealing by some lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Nobody is worth that kind of money. Nobody.

---

*ahem* ... I am worth that kind of money. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackofDiamonds

*ahem* ... I am worth that kind of money. ;)

---

I believe that you might be right! But your healthcare provider doesn't lol!! What does your policy cap you at? That's what you are worth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackofDiamonds

*ahem* ... I am worth that kind of money. ;)

---

Only if you can refute the tautology of the chicken and the egg. :p

Chicken came first, it was mutation from a dinosaur egg... Duh!!!


And healthcare is against my religion, I consider it a form of gambling ...and I don't gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackofDiamonds

*ahem* ... I am worth that kind of money. ;)

---

Certainly and that is why they don't give us the same privilege of voting our own salaries. :D

Bob

Okay, all jokes aside, I read a poll once that said people who work low paying jobs seem content that they are properly paid. And those who are in the high end paying jobs are never satisfied. I think the low end jobs are just a self justification. I don't really have a nice term for the high end ones... :(

In my experience I have worked for both private companies and public ones.

In the private sector if the owner made XXXX million a year i didn't begrudge him one bit. He had a lot invested in it and he risked it. He provided me and many others with a good living and i think that is good.

With a public company the CEO is nothing more of another worker than I am. He could argue that his contribution is worth 3 or 4 times as much as mine but beond that it is ridiculous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

In my experience I have worked for both private companies and public ones.

In the private sector if the owner made XXXX million a year i didn't begrudge him one bit. He had a lot invested in it and he risked it. He provided me and many others with a good living and i think that is good.

With a public company the CEO is nothing more of another worker than I am. He could argue that his contribution is worth 3 or 4 times as much as mine but beond that it is ridiculous!

---

Yeah if a guy takes the risk and puts up his own capital sure... do as you wish.

Ford is interesting if you look at how they are structured. I might get this wrong but I think the family still has all the voting rights. Or at least 51%. Interesting. Wonder how the bailout would have worked there :).