CEO pay

#26
#26
If we are going to limit CEO pay why not limit pay for actors/actresses; athletes; and other personalities. Take a star actor - probably makes an easy 400x or more compared to the lowest paid person on the film. An actor is as replaceable as a good CEO - probably more so.
 
#27
#27
rjd970 said:
Don't agree with the bolded. At that level, I don't believe it is a separation of ability...it is a separation of professional networking, fortuitous circumstances, and political savvy.

Not saying the top guys aren't really good at what they are doing, they are. But from my experience the top 5-10% of executives at a big company could do the job, but they all don't get paid what the CEO does. I posted a thread about this a while back, and could never come up with what market forces were driving the need to pay one executive that much money over another. It certainly isn't ability and skill set alone.

That said, I certainly don't believe the government should get involved with this, and I don't have a problem with CEO pay. It is what the market is doing, I just don't understand what is driving it. One man is getting all the reward for increasing shareholder value, and he isn't the only one responsible. With some exceptions, the CEO sometimes didn't even work his way up through the company he is over and doesn't know what happens day to day in the trenches. I would say mid-level managers have more direct influence on the success of the company.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. No problem with the pay, I just think there are plenty of people that could do the job and CEO's are largely just figureheads for the company while the real work trickles down.
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
If we are going to limit CEO pay why not limit pay for actors/actresses; athletes; and other personalities. Take a star actor - probably makes an easy 400x or more compared to the lowest paid person on the film. An actor is as replaceable as a good CEO - probably more so.
Click to expand...

Still blows my mind why actors and athletes make so much money.
 
#29
#29
VOLatile said:
This is exactly how I feel. No problem with the pay, I just think there are plenty of people that could do the job and CEO's are largely just figureheads for the company while the real work trickles down.
Click to expand...

Figureheads? Wow.

Not saying all are worth it but dang.
 
#34
#34
nbakerld said:
What makes it inefficient? Market failure is defined as an outcome where there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. This isn't even a question of market failure.

We are at market equilibrium, unless you think there is a shortage of CEOs.
Click to expand...

Yeah that statement is really hard to fathom - (because the market for CEO pay is not regulated it is becoming inefficient.)

1) It is regulated by company ownership and the Boards of Directors. They may not always regulate it well but there is a mechanism.

2) Lack of regulation in pay doesn't necessarily lead to "inefficiencies".

3) There is no evidence I can see that regulation in the form of government rules would make the market more efficient - I'm not even sure what efficient would look like here; capping pay isn't by definition efficient.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
If we are going to limit CEO pay why not limit pay for actors/actresses; athletes; and other personalities. Take a star actor - probably makes an easy 400x or more compared to the lowest paid person on the film. An actor is as replaceable as a good CEO - probably more so.
Click to expand...

Athlete pay is based on ability and production alone. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan...not a lot of people can do what they do with the same production and success. There is a skill and talent that the market is paying for, based purely on productions. Any actor that is paid huge amounts is dictated by what they bring to box office. Obviously Brad Pitt is going to put more people in the seats than your common B-level actor. So I don't agree that an actor is just as replaceable as a good CEO, certainly not moreso.

What is driving the pay of these guys? It certainly isn't production, skill set, or how much they make the company.

America
 
#37
#37
VOLatile said:
I'm not a fan of guys that get fired and still get $40M severance packages...
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they are simply figureheads. Blame the BoD for agreeing to crazy pay packages. Blame the owners of the company for agreeing to crazy pay packages.
 
#38
#38
rjd970 said:
Athlete pay is based on ability and production alone. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan...not a lot of people can do what they do with the same production and success. There is a skill and talent that the market is paying for, based purely on productions. Any actor that is paid huge amounts is dictated by what they bring to box office. Obviously Brad Pitt is going to put more people in the seats than your common B-level actor. So I don't agree that an actor is just as replaceable as a good CEO, certainly not moreso.

What is driving the pay of these guys? It certainly isn't production, skill set, or how much they make the company.

America
Click to expand...

1) the primary difference is observability of performance. No one would disagree that Steve Jobs is one of the great CEOs of all times but what are his stats?

2) building on #1 above, say a company loses money - was the CEO bad? How do we know (looking from the outside)? If a team loses games did the high paid athlete suck? If a movie bombs but the actor got $3 million for it did the actor suck?

3) athletes and actors are replaceable - look at the Lin kid in NY. A nobody, no name, who was cut by two other teams given a chance and is now an up and comer. The supply/demand thing works with athletes and actors too.

4) Minimum athlete salaries are astronomical. Have a couple decent years, get a good contract and you are paid in the millions - are you really worth it in terms of bringing money to the organization?

CEOs are scrutinized more because people don't observe what they do and how their performance impacts an organization.
 
#39
#39
Again...I ask...what is the difference between telling how much money they can make/keep vs. telling someone where they can legally stick their penis?

It is legislation of "morality".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#42
#42
Lexvol said:
Again...I ask...what is the difference between telling how much money they can make/keep vs. telling someone where they can legally stick their penis?

It is legislation of "morality".
Click to expand...

To add to that - if there is a willing buyer/payer - why should the government step in?
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
To add to that - if there is a willing buyer/payer - why should the government step in?
Click to expand...

Once the govt purchases the middle class (like they are attempting to do right now) the disincentives are only going to grow the disparity of wealth.
 
#45
#45
Vols520 said:
Where did I say that? I wouldn't mind making half of that and employing more people. To each their own, but not sure Anybody is worth 20 plus mill a year.
Click to expand...

That sounds nice, but what if paying a great CEO that much allows the company to employ more people? Yeah, you can cut costs by lowering your own salary (anybody could've thought of that) but the CEO who deserves $20 Million found creative ways to save the company $50 million, or drastically increased their revenue, etc.
 
#48
#48
nbakerld said:
That sounds nice, but what if paying a great CEO that much allows the company to employ more people? Yeah, you can cut costs by lowering your own salary (anybody could've thought of that) but the CEO who deserves $20 Million found creative ways to save the company $50 million, or drastically increased their revenue, etc.
Click to expand...

This
 
#49
#49
nbakerld said:
That sounds nice, but what if paying a great CEO that much allows the company to employ more people? Yeah, you can cut costs by lowering your own salary (anybody could've thought of that) but the CEO who deserves $20 Million found creative ways to save the company $50 million, or drastically increased their revenue, etc.
Click to expand...

Just saying I personally wouldn't need 50 mill. Maybe some are deserving, but I would guess most aren't.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top