Do top-level executives deserve to be paid million-dollar salaries?

Forums › Off topic › Do top-level executives deserve to be paid million-dollar salaries?

1 | 2

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#314127 2-Apr-2010 11:37

freitasm: Stalin, let me see... Isn't this one that paranoid schizofrenic guy with a big moustache with a pechant to killing even the closest people to him? Yes, thought so.

And Karl Marx? Oh, right "Workers of the world, unite!"... Sure, right.

As oppose to to the champions of capitalism? Lest us not forget who dropped the atomic bomb, because it sure wasn't a communist...

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

timestyles

424 posts

Ultimate Geek

#314131 2-Apr-2010 12:00

MikeyPI:
freitasm: Stalin, let me see... Isn't this one that paranoid schizofrenic guy with a big moustache with a pechant to killing even the closest people to him? Yes, thought so.

And Karl Marx? Oh, right "Workers of the world, unite!"... Sure, right.

As oppose to to the champions of capitalism? Lest us not forget who dropped the atomic bomb, because it sure wasn't a communist...

And the Russians were perfect? How many of their own country did they kill after WW2? My uncle was a British radio operator after WW2, he said how he heard messages related to Russians shooting down DC3's carrying refugees back to Russia.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76370 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#314133 2-Apr-2010 12:07

MikeyPI:
freitasm: Stalin, let me see... Isn't this one that paranoid schizofrenic guy with a big moustache with a pechant to killing even the closest people to him? Yes, thought so.

And Karl Marx? Oh, right "Workers of the world, unite!"... Sure, right.

As oppose to to the champions of?capitalism? Lest us not forget who dropped the atomic bomb,?because?it sure?wasn't?a communist...

I didn't discuss or touch ideologies, only the specific names brought into the topic.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

spk18

85 posts

Master Geek

#314158 2-Apr-2010 13:50

Talk about some OT talk... but I digress. In my view there is nothing wrong with executives pay being high as long as they contribute accordingly to company performance (in the medium rather than the short term). However, on that measure, most senior executives in NZ listed companies would be unbelievably overpaid. That fault lies with company directors who authorise such salaries for CEOs and senior management. Pay people what they are worth, but it seems we are a little too quick to think people are worth more than they are. Its all about results.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#314165 2-Apr-2010 14:37

one thing to remember when looking at exec remuneration is that usually only a relatively small portion of the pay is cash.

Usually a significant portion of it will be shares or options - which, by definition, only remain valuable as long as the share price does well.

If the company is doing well, and the exec is creating shareholder value, then he deserves to be paid accordingly.
If the companies share price is tanking, then usually any options awarded become worthless, and shares awarded become worth much less too.

Ragnor

8085 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#314320 3-Apr-2010 00:10

Depends on how you measure value, if you consider the value to society rather than just ROI to investors of whatever company you'll find the highest paid jobs actually destroy the most value.

GBristow

178 posts

Master Geek

#314328 3-Apr-2010 01:04

freitasm: Stalin, let me see... Isn't this one that paranoid schizofrenic guy with a big moustache with a pechant to killing even the closest people to him? Yes, thought so.

And Karl Marx? Oh, right "Workers of the world, unite!"... Sure, right.

Haha, next you'll be telling me we should discount the works of John Nash in mathematics because he had schizophrenia. Stalin certainly was crazy as a bat. Still, his industrialization efforts in the 1920s are still studied in sociology and economics courses today. Karl Marx was quite brilliant. We base economic principles of management on his work. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't despise rigid class stratification. He was rather neutral. Surely you gleaned more than "workers of the world, unite" from reading about him? How do you feel about his bourgeoisie/proletariat works?

Personally, I think this has been hashed out too many times already. People will choose to sit either side of the fence. We see the Democrats/Conservatives in the states; National/Labour here. It's the never-ending struggle between an anarcho-libertarian ideology, and socialism. There's no "right" answer. Functional modern democracies sit somewhere in the middle.

spk18

85 posts

Master Geek

#314344 3-Apr-2010 08:47

Ragnor: Depends on how you measure value, if you consider the value to society rather than just ROI to investors of whatever company you'll find the highest paid jobs actually destroy the most value.

Perhaps but I dont see people investing in companies 'for the good of society'. Executives are nothing more than the employees of the managers (directors) of a company. Their job is to act in the best interests of the shareholders (not society) - admittedly a number tend to forget this.

cws82us

785 posts

Ultimate Geek

#314352 3-Apr-2010 11:06

They need to give some that money back into there staff. Why only CEO get all the money yes he run the campany but all the staff do too. And the staff will stay longer too.

RickD

280 posts

Ultimate Geek

#314385 3-Apr-2010 14:17

SteveON: Even more silly is the people who voted, I am not sure if people understand but if you pay peanuts for a top exe or CEO; you might as well get a farmer to run our top companies.

Level of ignorance is amazing. Assuming you've never been out of the city.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#314511 3-Apr-2010 23:24

cws82us: They need to give some that money back into there staff. Why only CEO get all the money yes he run the campany but all the staff do too. And the staff will stay longer too.

were you thinking of any company in particular when you came up with this?

most CEOs that get multimillion dollar salaries are CEOs of companies that employ thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. to cap their salary at, say, $500k, and give the rest to their staff would see their staff get paid an extra few dollars per year. It wouldn't even be noticable in their fortnightly paycheck.

Byrned

453 posts

Ultimate Geek

#314558 4-Apr-2010 08:25

I think what people need to consider before stating off hand whether a top exec earns a mutlit million salary is what they do and what they're responsible for. As a guesstimate it would be fair to say 90% of the people voting really have no idea what a CEO is responsible for.

In all fairness, there are a number of execs that do not deserve the salaries that they are getting. However it is up to that company to curb that, and not something that should be regulated. If it were, at what point? If I own my company, are you saying I can only pay myself a certain amount per year? And if that's exempt, why would anyone ever want to run a large company.

If you're not happy with it, buy some shares and vote. If you don't want to buy shares, don't buy there products. If you don't want to do either of those, shut up!

We live in a capitalistic democratic society. There are plenty of ways to have your say if you truly want to. But if you're gonna sit on the sidelines, don't be surprised when it doesn't go your way.

1 | 2