Thread: Twinkie for your thoughts

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Not to start an argument with you, but what about surgeons?

A surgeon provides a very large economic value to a hospital or clinic. Peri-operative care is one of the most profitable things in medicine.

Now compare that surgeon to someone like an actor who gets paid millions to entertain for a living...
Why does the guy that can cut you open and put you back together get paid a fraction of what the guy who plays the role on TV gets paid?

The entertainer provides a larger economic value.

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

Now compare the responsibilities and each of thier roles in the company

Hmm. Just spit-balling here...
If the line worker improperly installs the tranny (and quality control misses it -- it does happen) it can conceivably lead to a "catastrophic malfunction resulting in injury or death." I think we'd all agree that's pretty serious.

I admit I'm so far removed from a CEO's responsibilities that I cannot conceive whatever it is for which they are typically responsible, but I'd guess that plant safety is somewhat below their pay grade, but for which they might be held to be ultimately responsible. Also pretty serious stuff. Plant safety is usually the responsibility of the plant superintendent, isn't it? So what mistake can a CEO make that directly risks the consumer's life other than approving a known faulty design for production? That's an honest question.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Hmm. Just spit-balling here...
If the line worker improperly installs the tranny (and quality control misses it -- it does happen) it can conceivably lead to a "catastrophic malfunction resulting in injury or death." I think we'd all agree that's pretty serious.

I admit I'm so far removed from a CEO's responsibilities that I cannot conceive whatever it is for which they are typically responsible, but I'd guess that plant safety is somewhat below their pay grade, but for which they might be held to be ultimately responsible. Also pretty serious stuff. Plant safety is usually the responsibility of the plant superintendent, isn't it? So what mistake can a CEO make that directly risks the consumer's life other than approving a known faulty design for production? That's an honest question.

And where does the ultimate responsibility land in everything you describe? It trickles all the way back to the top to the CEO. Not sure about the U.S. but in Canada it's called due dilligence and in the end the head of the company himself, not just the company, can be fined and even do jail time for such negligence should it be proven.

Originally Posted by HNSB

A surgeon provides a very large economic value to a hospital or clinic. Peri-operative care is one of the most profitable things in medicine.

Now compare that surgeon to someone like an actor who gets paid millions to entertain for a living...
Why does the guy that can cut you open and put you back together get paid a fraction of what the guy who plays the role on TV gets paid?

The entertainer provides a larger economic value.

Thanks for the insight. As an athlete, I was an "entertainer" of sorts, and I also made more $$$ than any medico who cut me open or stitched me up. Their societal function is/was far more important than mine!
We'd both be remiss if the fact that advertising plays a much larger role in "entertainment" than medicine went unlisted as a variable, and is a major source for said entertainer's income.

Originally Posted by HNSB

A surgeon provides a very large economic value to a hospital or clinic. Peri-operative care is one of the most profitable things in medicine.

Now compare that surgeon to someone like an actor who gets paid millions to entertain for a living...
Why does the guy that can cut you open and put you back together get paid a fraction of what the guy who plays the role on TV gets paid?

The entertainer provides a larger economic value.

There is a larger supply of good doctors as compared to what the public views as good actors. That's a supply/demand thing if you ask me. If there were only a few "perceived" good doctors they would get paid even more than they do.

Besides - where a actor might make 5 mil on one movie - a doc might make 1 mil a year. But the doctors career is likely to last longer, and an actor might only make one movie every 3 years.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Hmm. Just spit-balling here...
If the line worker improperly installs the tranny (and quality control misses it -- it does happen) it can conceivably lead to a "catastrophic malfunction resulting in injury or death." I think we'd all agree that's pretty serious.

I admit I'm so far removed from a CEO's responsibilities that I cannot conceive whatever it is for which they are typically responsible, but I'd guess that plant safety is somewhat below their pay grade, but for which they might be held to be ultimately responsible. Also pretty serious stuff. Plant safety is usually the responsibility of the plant superintendent, isn't it? So what mistake can a CEO make that directly risks the consumer's life other than approving a known faulty design for production? That's an honest question.

If a CEO doesn't create vision MLA - it's all for not. If a CEO doesn't ensure systems for the company to be positive and expansive, there can be all kinds of fall out. For example staff might loose interest in their jobs, which trickles down to the bottom and that dude who is putting on the brake pad who no longer cares gets sloppy -> you drive off the off ramp unable to stop lol.

Originally Posted by HNSB

No one gets paid according to how "important" their work is to the end consumer.
You get paid according to the economic value you provide.

So you think that the current ceo pay of 231 tines the average employee's salary reflects the economic value he provides?

So in the 50s, did the 60 some odd times the average worker salary then NOT reflect that value at the time?

Do the workers salaries, which have stagnated in that time while the ceo pay skyrocketed disproportionately, reflect that the actual workers in the last 40 years are providing less and less economic value?

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

And where does the ultimate responsibility land in everything you describe? It trickles all the way back to the top to the CEO. Not sure about the U.S. but in Canada it's called due dilligence and in the end the head of the company himself, not just the company, can be fined and even do jail time for such negligence should it be proven.

Personally I didn't start 'bashing' CEOs until they went from getting 40 times what the line worker got to 400 times. What it is now I'm afraid to even ask. The phenomenon of takeovers to rape the company of it's assets before dissolving it only started in the past 20 to 30 years. It seems to have ebbed a bit AFAIK but it is typical of the 'don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon' philosophy of the money hungry entrepreneurs of the past few decades. People like "Kenny boy" of Enron fame. Remember when he told the workers to hang on to the stock while he was selling his ?

Weird how we keep going in circles here lol... I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

And where does the ultimate responsibility land in everything you describe? It trickles all the way back to the top to the CEO. Not sure about the U.S. but in Canada it's called due dilligence and in the end the head of the company himself, not just the company, can be fined and even do jail time for such negligence should it be proven.

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

Originally Posted by maddafinga

So you think that the current ceo pay of 231 tines the average employee's salary reflects the economic value he provides?

So in the 50s, did the 60 some odd times the average worker salary then NOT reflect that value at the time?

Do the workers salaries, which have stagnated in that time while the ceo pay skyrocketed disproportionately, reflect that the actual workers in the last 40 years are providing less and less economic value?

I'm curious...what was the cost of living, inflation rate etc. in the 50's as compared to today? ALso how many employees etc. was the CEO of the 50's responsible for as to today?