General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBig Pay for CEOs Helps All of Us
So says this guy. But he sure as hell doesn't convince me.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-04-22/Executive-Compensation-Employee-Benefits/54474954/1
Initech
(100,080 posts)mojitojoe
(94 posts)...then why is "...the number of people waiting to take their jobs is seemingly limitless?"
Initech
(100,080 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)...is convincing. Can you say "tool"?
EC
(12,287 posts)it's not even a reasonable argument to the righties.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)They want no regulations on executive pay, and executives may decide to move out to a different country so that they could get paid in crazy ball busting salaries + bonuses(a.k.a. Compensation) for their decision making processes which usually involves just off-shoring labor and funds elsewhere.
Well here's the big problem I have with executives. It is rare, especially nowadays for a CEO to make any real change/effect on the company in regards to improvement. Usually, particularly now, they are subject to market forces and the abilities of their staff. In fact, what used to be an interesting field such as Futurists who deal with figuring out trends and emerging technologies have been replaced with what they can do to make the most money out of an ever-drying up market.
It is not any more in the subject of creating something new in regards to manufacturable goods (since much of the growth and innovations are now digital based products, even that is limited) but their point is to figure out how to strong arm governments to give them as favorable terms as possible so as to not have to spend in research and development, merely advertising and lobbying.
As such is the case, I don't mind if executives move to another country as long as jobs here work.
Fact is, people know what they have to do in their jobs, and most will do their work without the need of a CEO, who in general does not know the culture of the companies they are running. As such, more often than not they institute changes that go rough-shod on a particular industry. A huge example would be individuals such as Mitt Romney. They are there only to make money not product or innovation.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)isn't attributable to a severely inebriated state then he must be compromised from his obvious, selfish conflict of interest but if he's actually rising above his obvious self interest and sincerely believes this, then he must be fucking insane.
Of course there is the possibility that it could be all three, he could be drunk, compromised and insane.
Thanks for the thread, Brigid.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)And the asshat that wrote the piece? Why-
John Martini is a partner and chair of the Global Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Practice at Reed Smith, a law firm.
Can you say vested interest?
JHB
(37,161 posts)...bigger, better tools, because bigger IS better!
And what a big tool this is!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I read the op-ed in order to find out what this guy's rationale was for liking big pay for CEO's. Well, his rationale is paper-thin, and it looks like this:
-CEO's live, breathe, and eat work, all the time, every day: great. So did I at at couple of network engineering gigs for really large companies. I'd wake up at 3AM, either from a phone call, or because I remembered something that made me sit bolt upright. I'm not alone in this. In many companies, there's a "culture" of working yourself to death, and if you're not working enough overtime, they look at you funny. So the CEO spends lots of hours thinking about work. Join the club, CEO, but don't think it makes you special. It does not.
-CEO's pay higher taxes, AND a higher tax RATE than anyone else. Since this isn't a true statement, I guess we'll just strike it.
-If we make rules limiting CEO pay, these same CEO's may decide not to locate their companies in the US. Um...ok. Bye.
-And oh my christ, here's what he lists as the biggest reasons not to cut their pay: highly-paid executives embody the hope that confers stability to the rest of us. That is, we can look up to CEOs and aspire to be what they are, and make the kind of money they make. That's the single largest reason to keep high CEO pay, according to this impassioned op ed.
Alright, so my first question is this: Is John Martini accustomed to being around adults all day? He doesn't sound like it. Obviously, the guy got a coveted spot in a national publication to make his argument for high CEO pay. This was his moment to shine, and yet, the above is the list that he made in support of obscene CEO pay packages? You can daydream you're CEO and maybe you will be one day--that pile of crap is something he considers to be a good, persuasive, op-ed? That was his money line? Please. And to "bolster" his argument, he insulted all other workers who don't hold the title of Chief Executive Officer by telling us how hard CEO's work, and how much thinking they have to do. Again, no, that's not acceptable here in the real world.
I've held off reading the comments at the end of the USA Today article. I'm going to read them now and see how far off I am from the John Q Public view.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Sometimes they suck even more.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Yes, I'm sure they suck even more sometimes. But presumably, they at least have good full-color 3D graphs explaining how much they suck.