What is Digg?415 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -23/+114What amazes me is that so many of them seem to think they are worth it.
Most of these guys could be replaced by their admin assistants and no one would ever notice. - torched, on 10/10/2007, -19/+66Instead of sitting around here complaining about how easy it is to be a ceo and how they are over paid why don't you guys go off and become the CEO of a fortune 500 company? Or take the even easier route of starting your own business, your chance of failing is only 75% but since its just sitting in a chair looking like your important everybody should be able to do it right?
- Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35The problem is when corporations buy government power.
- jonathansoeder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35To Quote Albert Einstein from his essay On Socialism: ( http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm )
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society...
Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."
-- - Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26SO many of the bigwig CEOs regularly get monolithic raises to their already-inflated pay... even the ones that are obviously deadweight to the company and its stockholders. Also, this is not unheard of in other countries, but its much much more common in America.
- etnu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29Most of their work already IS done by their assistants. It's actually kind of scary to think of how many of the world's largest companies are effectively run by secretaries.
Devilboy: *****. There have been numerous studies done by Forbes, Fortune, and WSJ that have shown, time and time again, that the highest paid CEOs are usually very mediocre at their job. Forbes had an article last year (it's probably available in their archives) showing that the top 10 highest paid CEOs performed in the bottom fifth of fortune 500 CEOs.
Sure, SOME are worth it (usually company founders), but for every Steve Jobs there's a Terry Semel.
When CEOs are being paid outrageous sums and the company is doing well, nobody really cares. Where people take issue is when the company isn't doing well and the CEO is still raking it in (Home Depot, Yahoo, etc.). The theory goes that CEOS are supposed to get paid for performance, but it doesn't exactly require much "performance" to get paid a lot when you're given 100 million options as your pay package.
Lastly, nobody would ever suggest replacing the CEO with a "noob" or "novice", and suggesting doing so is idiotic -- but after disasters like Leage of Extraordinary Gentleman, you start to think that the old man isn't worth $20 mill a film anymore. Find a suitable replacement (who will work for a reasonable salary), and kick the worthless tools out. The worst they could possibly do is go to another company, and the odds are pretty good that the other company doesn't want them anyway. - avisotin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Getting a job is still the worst way to make an income
- cheekybastard, on 10/10/2007, -13/+36Quit complaining commies and get back to work.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -16/+34The CEO of the fortune 500 company that I work for has increased the stock price over 400% in 5 years. I'd say he earned his 8 figure paycheck.
- diizy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26It's kind of funny, this article isn't very accurate in terms of business size. I mean, there are many moderate/small size companies whose CEO's get paid much much less and who work a lot more. In most cases excessively; seriously, a growing/startup takes excessive amounts of work to keep a companies momentum going.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Quick! Lets spit on the poor! It's their own ***** fault for being under our spit!
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14not really. things have changed a lot in the past few decades. ceos used to make 40 times the average worker in the 80s, now it's about 400. cronyism is also a lot more rampant. a ceo can make stupid decisions which end up in thousands of layoffs and still retire with a multi-million dollar golden parachute. it's quite disgusting the disparately of late.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Look at who sets their pay. It's a bunch of back-scratching ***** on each others' boards who are basically granting most of the profits to each other. The "market" their labor rate operates in used to be called the Old Boys' Network. Now, it's just a new aristocracy.
- shyner, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19I'd hire those ninja teens to take out a couple of CEOs and steal some loot, but I'm in the "average worker" category.
- dftpnkezln, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13My heart bleeds for them. It must be terribly frightening to take those sort of risks when you're earning $11m in compensation. Some might even risk losing their 5th house.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15or people could try and improve the system
- fmaxwell, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17So he singlehandedly increased the company's net worth by 400%? He personally made the sales calls, produced the products, performed the services, etc. that made the company a success? I somehow doubt it.
When the workers bust their asses and the company stock goes up, the CEO gets a big raise. When the company goes into the crapper, the CEO orders that workers be laid off. The system is f*cked up. - browbeaten, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Now lets talk about those CEOs that get 8 figures in severance when their companies go bust...
- etnu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16You think that the majority of fortune 500 CEOs "worked hard" to build a business from the ground up? Even in the few companies where that is the case, the founders were usually born with a silver spoon in their mouth to begin with.
Starting out life with half a million from grandpa or your father's old shoe store is so far removed from starting with nothing that it's an absurd comparison to make.
The simple fact of the matter is that most rich people in America (like every country on the planet) did not earn their money -- they inherited it (either directly as currency and assets, or indirectly by inheriting a family business). Every time I hear some ***** defending silver spoons as having 'worked hard' to get where they are I can't help but laugh. - Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Bill Gates was born into a rich family. His father was a lawyer and his mother was part of the board of directors for a bank. You can just tell by his full name: William Henry Gates III. That name just exhumes richness.
- the6thReplicant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You haven't actually worked in a real company have you :)
- Checkerd, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15isn't this common knowledge?
- Armor1901, on 10/10/2007, -18/+28What a bunch of *****. I'm sure CEO's and other highly paid executives really bust their asses and put their health on the line, like putting on a uniform and badge that will make you instantly hated and a target just for trying to help people and feed your kids. Of course they deserve to get paid so much! They certainly deserve to get millions for talking on the phone, sitting in climate controlled conference rooms getting catered meals when other people are running into burning buildings to save lives.
- 68024, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10You don't need MBA's. All you need is a good head on your shoulders and to be well-connected.
- Kurisuku, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Let me guess, you live in Tennessee? Yeehaw.
America was founded on the basis that you can bitch and whine and then change what is wrong with it. - futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -16/+25CEOs get paid a lot because they are worth it...lets say you an employee get paid 30K per year, and in turn you produce 40K per year in profit from your work. So hiring you gains the company 10K per year.
On the other hand you have the CEOs...they get paid 12 million per year to run multibillion dollar companies. So lets say the company has a profitable year, and its earnings are up 200 million dollars. Now don't you think in that situation the CEO's salary is justfiied?
Look at it this way, the CEO has to make all the major decisions about the company. And if the CEO started the company himself, chances are he had to work his ass off 100 times more than the minimum wage guy in the mailroom stapling together faxes. Chances are when they started the company they worked 7 days a week, 12 hours+ per day.
Ok and what about those CEOs that are brought in after the company operates? Well they are worth their price too. CEO's salary is negotiated prior to him starting the job. They are brought in to create value. Sure the company could probably be run wtih a ***** CEO which doesn't cost as much...but a high price CEO has better connections, has a better name and has a history of success.
And what about ***** CEOs that came in and are losing company money? Well chances are their salary was negotiated prior to getting hired. And chances are there is a multimillion dollar parachute that the company would have to pay out to get rid of him. - Egoist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13So the guy who has the responsibility to lead an entire company to fortune or ruin and holds the fate of hundreds, if not thousands of workers livelihoods in his hand shouldn't be paid more than the guy on the assembly line who could be replaced with a chimp?
Yeah, love the logic on that one. Stop being such victims.
If a CEO can steer a company to where it's successful and profitable, they should have a share of the profits. Without their vision, the company would not have had that success and all of those minimum wage workers would be looking for new jobs. Where would Apple be without Steve Jobs or Microsoft without Bill Gates?
It requires visionaries to run a successful company, and if they have to blow a measly $10 million a year for the guy who will set the company up to make hundreds of millions, I'd say that's one hell of a good investment. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I bet you're as privileged as anything.
- melat0nin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"If Beckham didn't deserve to be making that much, he wouldn't be, plain and simple."
Talking of desserts in the context of $125m salaries is just daft. Nobody *deserves* that much; no person's actions are so valuable as to be worthy of those kinds of sums of money (assuming one believes in the all-consuming value of money as a reward). The problem is that there is such a surplus of cash in certain sectors (sports, Hollywood, oil etc) that the money is just thrown at the people who are faces of these industries, and in turn those people learn to expect that kind of renumeration for the 'work' that they do.
There is simply no way that David Beckham, talented as he is, deserves the money that he makes. He is simply (and perhaps cleverly) working a desperately ill system to gain maximum benefit for himself and his family. I can understand that, but the sums involved are nevertheless utterly obscene, and are certainly not 'earned' in the true sense. - jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13why do owners of companies pay their managers, such as CEOs so much? They think they are worth it. Whether or not they are is up to much debate, but the CEOs job (for public companies at least) is to add share value. If all it takes to bring up the value of a company is to bring in an overpaid big name, then the CEO is worth it. A 1% increase in share value from the announcement of a new superstar CEO to a large Fortune 500 company can add 1 billion dollars in shareholder value and only cost you 11 million or so dollars. Sounds like a great investment on part of the shareholders because it is yielding a 10,000% return, much more than anyother type of investment.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9@thebaron2
I think you're missing the point here. While the masses may spend that much money on crap, without the people making it they wouldn't have it. Do you think the CEO is going to walk into the sweatshop in Malaysia and start making t-shirts and hats with a poor reproduction of Beckham's face on it?
Why is it so many fools think that the top is more important than the foundation? You can argue that they could easily get someone else to fill in at the bottom working for pennies a day, but at the same time I'm sure there is an enormous excess of people that would be more than willing to take the job of the CEO for far less money.
The problem, plain and simple, is greed. - Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10The problem is this. Early in america if a poor person got educated worked hard they could start a business expand and "change there stars" IE hard work meant reward and wealth for you and your family. Big Corps however have altered this. I have looked into what it would require to start a small business. ITs simply not possible for the average person!!!
I looked into two kinds of businesses A hobby shop and a restaurant. I stopped doing the math when I realized JUST the down payments lawyers taxes fee's permits would cost more than I currently make in a year by SEVERAL orders of magnitude. I just gave up. The only way I could start a small business is to already have enough money where I would have no need of a small business to begin with (1.3 million would set me up for life never have to work another day)
Sure if I made 75k+ a year after taxes I could afford to start a business but at that point I have no need for a business since I would already be making well over the amount of money I NEED and have my 1.3 million in a little over a decade.
The "system" is more and more designed to PREVENT anyone else from becoming successful. This is the FIRST generation IIRC in america's history where our parents are wealthier than we are. They had fewer road blocks to wealth than we do.
The problem is not evenly distributing the wealth. The problem is evenly distributing fair access to potential wealth. IE the american dream is history. Its no longer an even moderately level playing field to BECOME wealthy. Hard work is NO LONGER even remotely an assurance for wealth and success.
IE wealth was never assured but it was at least assured I would have a FAIR SHOT at wealth if I worked hard. IE it was WITHIN the means of any normal citizen if they worked hard enough for it.
Today in many cases how hard you work at it does not matter. you are locked out barred from access.
TOO much of the wealth is in the hands of too few and those few have altered the playing field and the rules to make sure they keep it.
THIS is what needs to change. - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10That's why in the first sentence of the article they limited it to "top executives at major businesses". The article is accurate for that group.
- theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I'm calling ***** on that one. I feel confident that Beckham and Connery could do just fine with a good chunk less money. Then maybe everybody could afford to go to a Soccer match and to a movie rather than just the privileged few. So great. They are exceptional talents and super-stars. But what they aren't able to do is to keep these companies going by themselves. The people below them deserve a much larger share of the spoils of that success. Some of them aren't even getting a living wage. REGARDLESS of misleading news stories about Americans getting above the poverty level. I'm afraid that data is based on out-dated metrics. CEO culture needs to get their collective head out of their narcissistic ass. They owe almost everything to their workers.
- the6thReplicant, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Some reasons are:
1. Their family was rich
2. Their family owned/owns the business
3. Their family has connections.
4. They started the company from scratch.
5. They took the job when the company was near collapse and made it successful.
First 3 aren't good reasons, but the last two are. Now can we debate about this. - archlich, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14Because quality of life shouldn't be defined by dollars. There are people in the United States that work every day and cannot afford basic healthcare. How much money does one person need before all needs and wants are fulfilled? Multi million dollar palaces not extravagant enough? How about a new luxury submarine. CEO's are the new lords, and we're the serfs. If lucky, one might even get a cubicle and a sit down job.
- netburnr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9This was on fark awhile ago, there were so many charts showing the trend that it was both awesome and saddening at the same time.
- Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"communist". You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You were looking for the word "socialist", which means the government handles stuff. You do realize that your fire department and your police department are socialist, right? You don't need to pay the police for investigations or breaking up a stickup at the local bank, because you pay for those through taxes. Why doesn't the US do it for healthcare? Those Ron Paul supporters will be happy to learn that just like the fire department and police department, each state can have their own health department, thereby reducing the load of the federal government.
Thanks for playing, though. - Nerys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Gates is rich because he is smart yes and because he HAD $50k to BUY DOS with. If he did not have $50k it would not matter how "smart" he was there would be no microsoft.
- geniusj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Knowing people and collecting contacts is part of the skill. Managing all of those relationships is not easy for everyone.
- e3boy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8soooo where do i send in my application for CEO?
- Jibberwalk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11People like you bug me. If there is a problem with America, then do what our forefather's intended: fix it! Don't sit idley by and accept the quo... reach out and step out to make a change for the better. I don't know how many times I've heard "If you don't like America so much, why don't you go to Canada?" ... If you really liked America, you would wish for nothing more then constant change and revolution.
- MageLordy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8indeed indeed...
surfs? serfs! - steveeq2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12So what? Doesn't necessarily mean he caused it. Could be that favorable market conditions arose or something lucky happened.
- dftpnkezln, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Pretty sure the golden handshake makes the fall from grace a bit more tolerable.
- georgetds, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Takes money to make money, most of the time. Many of us who are sitting here complaining about not having money can't do the things to get that rich because we don't have the money to help boost us there in the first place. It's life, and it sucks.
- Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -14/+20They are worth what people are willing to pay them. Simple as that.
- Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9It's simple supply and demand. I don't see what is so complicated.
- RoadWarriorX11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Ummm I was 18 making minimum wage but at the same time I was furthering my education, now I have a decent job where I get to sit in a nice comfortable office and don't have to flip burgers anymore.
Please spare us your projection Jfitzpatrick. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Whiner!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 409 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is