A common misconception about CEO's...

It is intersting to see that the top earners in terms of CEO's do the worst.

http://a--sandeep.blogspot.com/2011/03/paycheck-scandal.html

They apperently get greedy and suck the company dry getting rid of workers and selling property, etc... Then they get a lot of profit during their term and walk away. The next guy get hit hard with the last guys bul(#$#@) and has to fix it while he makes next to nothing.

Why shouldnt the government step in and protect the shareholders? Who would want to invest in a screwed up system like this. I'd put my investments in overseas corporations before I give it to an American company ran by a greedy CEO.

 

I don't have a problem with stronger regulations to protect stockholders and pension funds.

 

Why do you think you are qualified to determine who deserves what level of pay? Are we really supposed to believe that you are so intellengent, so learned, and so far seeing, that you as a single person can know what the optimum maximum or minimum salary is for anyone? I must admit... I would have no idea how to calculate such a thing. And that is why I do not even try. I promise you.... if you have a skill that is rare enough, and in high enough demand, that a company was willing to pay you millions of dollars a year.... I would not try to stop you... I promise....

 

I beleive the person who is more valueable to the company deserves higher pay.....

A company can function without a CEO. A company's Board of Directors, or Executive Board, is more than capable of running the company without the need to hire a CEO.

The company cannot, however, function without the average workers who does 90% of the work. The idea that a CEO someone deserves 400 or 500 times the pay of the average worker is insane.

 

Why he deserves hundred of times more than the productive workers? Why an improductive person deserve hundred of times more? I don't understand.

If at least they would pay when the company breaks down, but even they don't do that, even they receive prizes when that is going on. They can retire with millionary pensions... Please don't insult us.

They don't deserve that. A company without CEOs can work perfectly. A company without workers, the real productive part of the company can't work. So which part of the company is more important? The CEO or the worker?

 

Both are equally important for the functioning of the company. Asking if the CEO, one individual, is more valuable than thousands of workers is silly and misleading.

The CEO is as valuable or moreso than one worker. The company can function, for a while, without either one. But eventually you need both back.

And honestly, a company cannot function without a CEO. You're saying that they can, but what you're really saying is that the responsibilities of CEO would drop to the COO and the upper management would still be intact. If you took away all executive leadership and just had thousands of workers all deciding what to make, how to pay each other, and how to make sales or secure contracts or interpret SEC rules or meet safety regulations...

You'd have a cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) on your hand. CEO and upper management are equally crucial to a company's success. Workers and management need each other.

 

So you think $10,000 dollars an hour is justifiable? You really think a CEO is that important? I don't. Anybody can come in and hack away, give themselves bonuses from other people's jobs. I think they're criminals and belong in a pool of fire.

 

I think you have no idea how business and management works. An incompetent CEO can ruin a company and cost tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. No one can just walk in and do it.

I think (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about executive compensation distracts from ensuring that workers receive a living wage +.

 

What's the first thing a new CEO does when he comes in the door? CHOPS JOBS, for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AN HOUR (plus stock options). I've been victim to it several times now. It is always the same. I see nothing honorable or decent in the occupation.

 

That depends on each CEO. Some probably hire a lot of people when they come in as well, depending on the situation of each individual company.

There's nothing inherently honorable or decent in any occupation. Whether you do honest work or not is the deciding factor there. If a CEO is loyal to his employees and the company, does his best, and tries to make the company successful then he is being honorable.

If demand drops and returns, expenses must be cut. Your ability to produce far exceed what your demand consumes. Laying people off is a part of that. You're delusional if you don't understand that.

 

Ten thousand dollars an hour to take other people's jobs and carve up the cash for themselves. That's WHAT THEY DO. YOU are delusional if you think there are incoming CEO's that do anything different (and perhaps dishonest).

 

It sounds like you're letting personal experiences obscure your objective appraisal of the situation.

 

Well, that's pretty much all I have to go on is "personal experiences". Twice to me and now soon my wife..amongst three different companies. I think it's an accurate appraisal.

 

Not really accurate at all. You don't seem familiar with even the basic job functions of a CEO. And if you don't recognize the need for people to be laid off during difficult times then you are really out of the ballpark.

 

I recognize that CEO's cut other people's throats purely for MORE profit. They do nothing different. New CEO? Bye bye to jobs. Hello to $10,000 dollars an hour for themselves. THAT is reality, not the BS you're putting forth. Only FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND A WEEK??? How DO they get by? Oh....other people's futures. That's how. Pigs.

 

CEOs are the face of the company. The face of sports teams are paid a (*)(*)(*)(*) load, so why shouldn't a company's?

You can't say Steve Jobs didn't do anything. He worked day and night to help design products and lead the company.

Also, if you're so jealous that they make so much and do so little, why don't you either go see what they're about, or go to school and become one?

 

http://money.msn.com/investing/why-no-ceos-were-busted-post-crisis-bloomberg.aspx

Next time you see a CEO....pee on them. They're the reason you're losing your house.

 

You're a disgrace to liberal and rational thought everywhere.

 

You're a disgrace to the human race and will have a warm spot in hell (I'll pray).

YOU'RE making 400 thousand dollars a week (a mere 10 thousand dollars an hour), and I am the disgrace? Evil pays well doesn't it?

 

There is no hell.

You aren't a progressive, you're a whiny brat.

If you can't discuss things rationally, don't do so at all. You make the rest of us liberals look like morons every time you open your mouth.

 

More than likely they are also the reason you have a house in the first place. Many of the materials were created by a corporation with a CEO. It may have been built by a corporation with a CEO. You likely work for a corporation with a CEO and got your loan from a lending agency ran by a CEO.

 

no, you are losing your house because you didn't pay your mortgage, you can't pay your mortgage because YOU bought too much house OR you used your equity to buy OTHER toys.

 

A relfection not necessarily of necessity however.

 

Oh, there's a Hell. Keep thinking there isn't though, Mr. Green. I'll say whatever I choose, any time I choose.

 

I will continue believing the obvious and the rational, yes.

Just because you're capable of speaking doesn't mean your opinion is of value.