NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread a lot of people are carping about a CEO being paid megabucks while Joe the meat grinder is only getting about $13.50 per hour. No one is carping about the entertainers or professional athletes making megabucks while Joe the meat grinder shells out a lot of bucks to buy tickets for the game, concert, or movie.

So, who deserves the megabucks salary? (No, you can’t vote for Joe.)

Teachers.

No one, the amount of money some of those people make is obscene. Even back in the conservatives "good old" days of the 50's the pay gap was more reasonable than it is today.

The little people. The working class who actually work.

Indeed, none of these people deserve so much money. I don't believe they contribute enough to gain so much. I'm an advocate of fair income, of a person getting a fair worth of what they put in, not getting what people are willing to pay for it(often much to high, often much too low).

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do think CEO's, etc should make a good deal more money than Joe meatgrinder, but not hundreds or thousands of times more.

The average person doesn't make enough, and the CEO/athlete/sports/movie star/whatever makes way too much.

Welcome to market economics, where people are willing to continue to support the salaries for these types of people, even when it doesn't make sense. Thats the affect of the market for you. No one wants Joe meatgrinder to make 150$ an hour, so no one pays that. Joe can demand it, but no one will hire him. On the other hand, people are willing to pay upwards of 50$ a game to see their favorite star play, so the demand exists to for an athlete to demand $10 mil a year.

*thinks*

Daddy is getting paid $63 an hour overtime.. yeehaw working class!

There are CEOs (http://www.magazine-deutschland.de/issue/Porsche_6-04_ENG_E1.php?&lang=eng) who deserve a lot of money, simply because they create even more money (plus employment, goods that people enjoy and all sorts of good social side-effects).

As for sports stars and good entertainers...well, I suppose there's nothing to be done about it. Their skills are in demand, and there are few of them.

teachers, nurses and other key civil servants like firefighters, paramedics and the more mundane civil servant professions such as traffic engineers, civil works engineers, refuse collectors etc. their jobs are far more valuable to a comfortable, safe and healthy society than aything the poll options do and they often require far more education, responsibility and loyalty to their jobs.

The big bucks should go to nurses, teachers, firefighters, paramedics. Politicians, entertainers, athletes, CEOs should suffer the same severe cuts that the working class, white and blue collar, are suffering as our income fails to keep pace with inflation and our options, educationally, medically, residentially, etc. are increasingly narrowed.

Secretaries and clerical workers, who do the groundwork so CEOs can make their decisions (which usually have nothing to do with reality) and then who take the blame when the decisions backfire, should make big bucks.

I could rant on this all day.

I'll stop now.

No one, the amount of money some of those people make is obscene. Even back in the conservatives "good old" days of the 50's the pay gap was more reasonable than it is today.

How do you know that? Were you around then?

Damn I didn't see the none of the above option....

How do you know that? Were you around then?
Lol, are you serious?
How about information,statistics etc.

Teachers.

Quite.

Lol, are you serious?
How about information,statistics etc.

Well, I lived back then and what you are saying is not exactly true. So where are those "statistics" and where is that "information?"

What do the people here think CEOs actually do, if you don't mind me asking.

Bah, professional athletes shouldn't even be paid at all. In my day they held a proper job and were a sportsman in their spare time. There was no such thing as a 'professional' althete/sportsman.

Well it depends. If a CEO brings a corporation back from death then hey why not?

Many times thought I have seen slimy screwups get the big money simply because they hold the title.

It's a great position to be in. With the "compensation" packages they are rewarded for failure. Screw a company up and get a few million for "leaving."

In another thread a lot of people are carping about a CEO being paid megabucks while Joe the meat grinder is only getting about $13.50 per hour. No one is carping about the entertainers or professional athletes making megabucks while Joe the meat grinder shells out a lot of bucks to buy tickets for the game, concert, or movie.

So, who deserves the megabucks salary? (No, you can’t vote for Joe.)

And indeed, the only way for Joe the meat grinder to make that kinda cash is if people were willing to pay hundreds or thousands of times the amount for ground meat (either that, or buy hundreds or thousands of times as much ground meat).

Or if he was working for a billionnaire who enjoyed losing money. Not too many of those around.

People should be able to pay a fair wage to anyone who provides a service. If I think the doctor did a shoddy job on my treatment, why should I pay big money, but if the lowly street sweep does a great job keeping my neighbourhood clean and tidy, I should be able to pay him a wage befitting his hard work. That way, everyone gets what they deserve. Only in an ideal world....:rolleyes:

Bah, professional athletes shouldn't even be paid at all. In my day they held a proper job and were a sportsman in their spare time. There was no such thing as a 'professional' althete/sportsman.
And a gas station attendent would pump your gas and clean your windshield, even check your oil, while you were fueling.

Not only "None of the Above" but more like "None at all". No one deserves that much money. Period.

Bah, professional athletes shouldn't even be paid at all. In my day they held a proper job and were a sportsman in their spare time. There was no such thing as a 'professional' althete/sportsman.

A person after my own heart. :fluffle:

Active Founders and Delegates of successful regions. Just a thought...

Many times thought I have seen slimy screwups get the big money simply because they hold the title.

Please give us some examples of those "slimy screwups" you have personaly seen.

And a gas station attendent would pump your gas and clean your windshield, even check your oil, while you were fueling.I know! *is reminded of the Simpsons - Burns scene where he asks Marge to fill up his automobile tank with petroleum distillate post haste.

As long as there is a market that is willing to provide the money to pay athletes and entertainers, they "deserve" to get paid what they do.

Please give us some examples of those "slimy screwups" you have personaly seen.

I think the word "seen" is being used as shorthand for "made aware of by the media".

And a gas station attendent would pump your gas and clean your windshield, even check your oil, while you were fueling.

Used to be that way. :) Now you punp your own gas, clean your own windshield, and check your own oil. :( Ah, for the good old days.

As long as there is a market that is willing to provide the money to pay athletes and entertainers, they "deserve" to get paid what they do.

And as long as there is a market that is willing to provide the money to pay the CEO, they "deserve" to get paid what they do?

anyone who can talk someone else into paying him that kind of money deserves it.

I think the word "seen" is being used as shorthand for "made aware of by the media".

:eek:

Doctors and teachers are pretty vital, so those should get the largest salaries, although they do get substantial amounts of money anyway.

And as long as there is a market that is willing to provide the money to pay the CEO, they "deserve" to get paid what they do?

I don't know about the CEO. My point was only towards athletes and entertainers. I also think that teachers should be paid a lot more than they are now, and the working class should be provided with a good (college level) education and comprehensive health care, but don't deserve mega-millions, because their services are not in demand enough.

I really don't know enough about what CEOs do to make a judgement about what they earn and how much they deserve it.

On a side note, doctors deserve what they are paid, but I think most lawyers should barely be paid at all. Just my opinion.

Doctors and teachers are pretty vital, so those should get the largest salaries, although they do get substantial amounts of money anyway.

What? Doctors, yes (but there's insurance) But do you know what teachers are paid?

me. ;)

Stay at home moms.

Doctors and teachers are pretty vital, so those should get the largest salaries, although they do get substantial amounts of money anyway.

Obviously you have never been a teacher, especially in Oklahoma. :rolleyes:

In the UK they start at £20k + p/a. Most of them actually earn about £28-30k. That's about.. $35k(ish) to begin with and about $50k after a few years.

Not bad :)

I think the word "seen" is being used as shorthand for "made aware of by the media".

Actually no. When you work in the world of network security you tend to be around the execs.

Celt: A certain aerodefense company. The execs there have office that cost more then a home in some states. Three execs that come to mind were basically promoted to get them out of positions that caused problems. They held a title but had no authority and were compensated very well.

A truck company. Brother of the founder. Decided that he was going to knock off the main transportation company. Spent a great deal of money trying to peck away at them. Some rather stupid adventures and even went as far to fund a PAC in Washington. He overlooked the fact that what they made in a quarter took us 3 years to match. The company ended up being bought out.

me. ;)

Stay at home moms.

Stay at home Moms are the best, hardest working, most deserving of all workers. My wife was one and my daughter-in-law is one. Thank you for all your hard work. You are the glue that keeps the family together. YEA for stay at home Moms.

Obviously you have never been a teacher, especially in Oklahoma. :rolleyes:

So what do they make? A friend teaches and he makes $23K

In the UK they start at £20k + p/a. Most of them actually earn about £28-30k. That's about.. $35k(ish) to begin with and about $50k after a few years.

Not bad :)

You may have a lot of Oklahoma teachers moving to the UK.

In the UK they start at £20k + p/a. Most of them actually earn about £28-30k. That's about.. $35k(ish) to begin with and about $50k after a few years.

Not bad :)

Perhaps...but generally they're paid for only the hours in school (here anyways) not considering all the time they spend grading and preparing and such. Even then, these are really some of the most important people. They certainly deserve more than movie stars or altheletes

Stay at home Moms are the best, hardest working, most deserving of all workers. My wife was one and my daughter-in-law is one. Thank you for all your hard work. You are the glue that keeps the family together. YEA for stay at home Moms.


What about single moms? Just wondering about your opinion, mine is still fuzzy.
And while most stay at home moms are excellent, i've met some bad ones who think that they are better than other people by being a stay at home mom while not doing much of the actual "momming".

Actually no. When you work in the world of network security you tend to be around the execs.

Celt: A certain aerodefense company. The execs there have office that cost more then a home in some states. Three execs that come to mind were basically promoted to get them out of positions that caused problems. They held a title but had no authority and were compensated very well.

A truck company. Brother of the founder. Decided that he was going to knock off the main transportation company. Spent a great deal of money trying to peck away at them. Some rather stupid adventures and even went as far to fund a PAC in Washington. He overlooked the fact that what they made in a quarter took us 3 years to match. The company ended up being bought out.

Not good. Thanks for the "seen" examples. I'm sure they are the exception rather than the rule.

What about single moms? Just wondering about your opinion, mine is still fuzzy.

I think single moms have a tough time, I couldn't do it. too weak.
I like knowing that I am not screwing up the kids alone, and that after a bad day I have someone to run interference while I take a bubble bath.


And while most stay at home moms are excellent, i've met some bad ones who think that they are better than other people by being a stay at home mom while not doing much of the actual "momming".
anywhere in life you will find a small portion of the people in a group who are incompetent. Sahm, isn't any different.

Not good. Thanks for the "seen" examples. I'm sure they are the exception rather than the rule.

I do sound bitter. ;) But yes they are an example of the really bad. I have worked with some really great guys as well. The founder of Affymetrix, the founder of my current company and the ex CEO. The later 2 are the only execs I have seen take a cut in salary and did not reward themselves when times improved.

What about single moms? Just wondering about your opinion, mine is still fuzzy.
And while most stay at home moms are excellent, i've met some bad ones who think that they are better than other people by being a stay at home mom while not doing much of the actual "momming".

Most single Moms who are hard working and providing for their children are great and deserve a lot of credit (as well as more money from the biological father.)

Sure, some stay at home moms don't do a lot of "momming" but I think they are the exception rather than the rule. In any case, they are underpaid and often under-appreciated.

my 8th grade art teacher made 75,000 in Salary alone, plus benefits...thats a bit too much IMHO.

Servicemembers could use more direct salary. Up here, ya get 79.00 per full day (that means 6 hours-24 hours) for work that might invovle you being shot at. (Yes, the soliders on foregin deployment get this pittiful wage, and they face alot more danger then any cop or fireman)

Skilled trades shuld be paid more too, everything around us is built and maintained by them.

my 8th grade art teacher made 75,000 in Salary alone, plus benefits...thats a bit too much IMHO.

Servicemembers could use more direct salary. Up here, ya get 79.00 per full day (that means 6 hours-24 hours) for work that might invovle you being shot at. (Yes, the soliders on foregin deployment get this pittiful wage, and they face alot more danger then any cop or fireman)

Skilled trades shuld be paid more too, everything around us is built and maintained by them.

I don't know where you are but yes, the members of the military are underpaid. One reason there are not more in the military is very few people would lay their life on the line for what they get paid. The same is true for police and firemen. Next time you see one thank him/her, that is the least you can do.

The CEO. If you run a company capable of and willing to pay you that much, go the hell ahead. Remeber that Joe the meat-grinder creates an individually miniscule amount of value via a process that anything from a robot to a trained monkey could do - aka non-mind-based - and is just a cog in a machine that engineers, scientists, and researchers are the brains of and CEOs, CFOs, etc. run, repair, maintain, direct, build, and rebuild. Joe deserves the least because he is the least - an expendable commodity whose work does not require or requires very little sapient thought.

On the other hand, I think professional athletes are paid obscene amounts. They're grown men being paid to play a game. The only justification for their salaries is the enormous amounts of money they make for a city or an owner via ticket sales and the like.

Entertainers are sort of intermediate. They have a real, extremely rare, and extremely valuable skill, a talent, and it is a source of vast amounts of value. Of course, they pose the same economic-ethical quandaries as far as the nature of this value and the modern method of its control and distribution that all forms of IP to some degree do - that is, that their goods are on an accessible scale a non-scarce commodity; the normal rules of classical economics involving the optimal distribution of inherently scarce resources don't necessarily apply in the same way.

But beyond that, I think to a certain extent they deserve what they make. That's especially considering that compared to the full money their talents actually bring in to the record companies, they are paid a relative pittance.

The CEO. If you run a company capable of and willing to pay you that much, go the hell ahead. Remember that Joe the meat-grinder creates an individually minuscule amount of value via a process that anything from a robot to a trained monkey could do - aka non-mind-based - and is just a cog in a machine that engineers, scientists, and researchers are the brains of and CEOs, CFOs, etc. run, repair, maintain, direct, build, and rebuild. Joe deserves the least because he is the least - an expendable commodity whose work does not require or requires very little sapient thought.


Sounds nice but let me give you a comment once made by a CFO.

Not exact but you should get what he meant.

"It's funny but some of the least paid people in this company are the computer operators(mainframe days) and the mail clerks. If you think about it, one misplaced piece of important mail or the wrong command entered by the operator can loose the company a great deal of money."

The CEO.

On the other hand,

Entertainers are sort of intermediate. They have a real, extremely rare, and extremely valuable skill, a talent,

But beyond that, I think to a certain extent they deserve what they make.

You must be a political science student. Are you taking lessons from Teddy *hick* Kennedy? Great double speak. :rolleyes:

If you think about it, one misplaced piece of important mail or the wrong command entered by the operator can loose the company a great deal of money."

Yes this is true, but they can't cost the company as much money as one incorect Yes or No from the CEO.

Well, I lived back then and what you are saying is not exactly true. So where are those "statistics" and where is that "information?"
Well the article that inspired this thread is one, it's on the second page of that article.

On the other hand, I think professional athletes are paid obscene amounts. They're grown men being paid to play a game. The only justification for their salaries is the enormous amounts of money they make for a city or an owner via ticket sales and the like.

Entertainers are sort of intermediate. They have a real, extremely rare, and extremely valuable skill, a talent, and it is a source of vast amounts of value.

Athletes entertain as well. They have a rare talent and entertain people with this talent as well as years of hard work. I don't see how you judge musicians to be better entertainers than athletes.

Well the article that inspired this thread is one, it's on the second page of that article.

I'm the OP for this thread and did not refer to any article in this thread.

Athletes entertain as well. They have a rare talent and entertain people with this talent as well as years of hard work. I don't see how you judge musicians to be better entertainers than athletes.

Well, I imagine you could head outside and play a game of basketball right now.

Sounds nice but let me give you a comment once made by a CFO.

Not exact but you should get what he meant.

"It's funny but some of the least paid people in this company are the computer operators(mainframe days) and the mail clerks. If you think about it, one misplaced piece of important mail or the wrong command entered by the operator can loose the company a great deal of money."

Same goes for a pipe in the plumbing of the server storage room. If it busts, you lose a lot. But is it individually important? Does it create value? Is it difficult to replace? Is it a scarce commodity? Does it have a rare, valuable, or specially important skill? Nope.

To put it perhaps too bluntly, they're simply tools, or replaceable parts. But who actually directs the machine? Who repairs it? Who BUILT it? If the people in control screw up, the whole thing falls apart. You can replace a mailman or recover data. A bad order, an inadvisable investment, or a branchout into an expensive but low-value industry is a company-killer.

I'm the OP for this thread and did not refer to any article in this thread.
Yes, but this is a direct break off of the discusion you started in the thread Etrusca started on this same subject in regards to an article in the NY Times buisness section on the gap in pay between the average worker and a CEO who f***ed up, yet still recieved bounuses for preformance.

CEO, definitely. I think really in order to understand why CEOs make the big bucks, one would have to spend some time in a supervisory position. It can be rewarding, challenging, and frustrating, all in one go. You can't do anything, but you are responsible for getting everything done and the only way to get anything done is by telling people that may or may not give a shit to do it. People are not machines. They are not anywhere close to 100% reliable and not only do they make mistakes, they may just plain not do what they are supposed to be doing for completely unfathomable reasons. No matter what gets screwed up and no matter what the reason it is that it gets screwed up, you are going to be the one that catches hell for it. Combine that with the resentment that you seem to be doing nothing while they are doing all the "work" and it's amazing anything gets done.

Now, be a CEO. You are responsible for getting several thousand jobs done, none of which you actually know how to do and the few hundred thousand people that know how to perform these functions that don't know you from a hole in the ground. Anybody that can run a company, more power to them.

Well, I imagine you could head outside and play a game of basketball right now.

Actually no, cause someone would shoot the short white kid trying to play basketball with all the other kids at night in the playground in brooklyn.
:eek:

Kidding, I get your point. But the level at which professional athletes play sports is something that I will never accomplish even with constant practice. And I could also go outside and sing right now. And no one would pay me to do that either. I still consider musicians and athletes to be around equal entertainers.

I still consider musicians and athletes to be around equal entertainers.

I don't. Most professional athletes are bred to be what they are. Most professional musicians attain their level of expertise through practice, not thoroughbreeding.

I don't. Most professional athletes are bred to be what they are. Most professional musicians attain their level of expertise through practice, not thoroughbreeding.

Then you don't know the dedication and practice it takes to become a professional athlete. The best "natural" athletes are not who are the best (and highest paid) profressional athletes. As an avid sports fan(but mediocre athlete), I have seen many greatly talented athletes not do well because they did not have the drive to make them perform at an almost unhuman level. And, on the other hand, I have seen greatly talented musicians waste their talent, and seen (in my opinion) untalented musicians become famous and rich based on looks and headline behaviour.

Edit: And the only athlete that I know who was "bred", was Yao Ming, who was actually bred by the Chinese government for the sole purpose of creating a basketball player. Which is really sick. Just thought I would share that.

Then you don't know the dedication and practice it takes to become a professional athlete. The best "natural" athletes are not who are the best (and highest paid) profressional athletes. As an avid sports fan(but mediocre athlete), I have seen many greatly talented athletes not do well because they did not have the drive to make them perform at an almost unhuman level. And, on the other hand, I have seen greatly talented musicians waste their talent, and seen (in my opinion) untalented musicians become famous and rich based on looks and headline behaviour.

Edit: And the only athlete that I know who was "bred", was Yao Ming, who was actually bred by the Chinese government for the sole purpose of creating a basketball player. Which is really sick. Just thought I would share that.

1: True. I guess I kind of overlooked that.

2: Eh, that's not what I heard... His parents were athletes, and his dad was a basketball player. They happened to have a son, and his dad taught him how to play basketball. At least, that's the way I heard it.

I'd prefer it if we did away with money altogether and discouraged needless materialism.

2: Eh, that's not what I heard... His parents were athletes, and his dad was a basketball player. They happened to have a son, and his dad taught him how to play basketball. At least, that's the way I heard it.


"Rather it(Yao Ming's success) was the inevitable result of careful genetic planning, political and social upheaval, the rise of the global economy..."- sports illustrated .com

They had an extensive article in an issue around five or six months ago in the magazine about how the government picked the best male and female basketball players and forced them to, for lack of a more fitting term, breed. And then they contiuously trained him from a young age and shipped him to America. If its true, its sick.

Then you don't know the dedication and practice it takes to become a professional athlete. The best "natural" athletes are not who are the best (and highest paid) profressional athletes. As an avid sports fan(but mediocre athlete), I have seen many greatly talented athletes not do well because they did not have the drive to make them perform at an almost unhuman level. And, on the other hand, I have seen greatly talented musicians waste their talent, and seen (in my opinion) untalented musicians become famous and rich based on looks and headline behaviour.


The last part just goes to prove that it is not the ability in the field (be it music or sports) that is being paid for. It is the ability to capture the attention of the public, and thereby sell more product by advertising on TV or Radio that pays the money. How many multi millionaire badminton players are there out there, or barber shop quartets. Popularity and media exposure is all that counts when it comes to calculating the worth of a 'star'.

So , if you don't think they should earn the money, don't watch or listen to them. If enough people do that then their earning power goes through the floor. The queston is whether you are willing to give up the entetainment that they (in general) provide. If you are not then they are worth the money.

For CEOs the situation is different, as public interest is not the criteria, it is shareholders returns that matter. If a CEO provides a good return to the shareholders after the deduction of a megabucks salary then they are, by definition, worthy of that salary.

Fairness has nothing to do with this or life in general.

Fairness has nothing to do with this or life in general.

If I were the Christian type, you would deserve an "Amen" for that statement. Nothing is fair, nor is it meant to be. People cite fairness not out of a sense of justice, but out of the sense that other people around them have more than they do and they want what other people have. Rather than creating their own fortune, they think that others should just give them things, just to be fair. A wise man once said "A poor man cannot earn a penny by counting his neighbor's wealth, even if he does so night and day." Granted there were no accountants around at the time, but I think the idea is that worrying about how much other people have is not going to make you any richer.

The other thing that doesn't seem to be obvious is that people don't get that rich by taking money away from people. In order to get that rich, you have to have people shoving money at you. I doubt (at least I would like to doubt) that pro atheletes, entertainers, and CEOs think they are worth as much as they get paid, but who are they to say no when people want to shove that kind of money at them?

In terms of how much one "deserves," let's just put it this way.

People rip on professional athletes way too much. Sports teams are capable of bringing in a lot of money for both the owner and the city they are stationed in, and they give people a hell of a lot more common ground than any company or movie producer can. You will find far more people who are loyal to the Boston Red Sox than you will to Matt Damon or to AT&T.

Also, professional athletes risk severe injury every time they perform. Granted, there are exceptions to this, but entertainers don't have nearly the injury risk that athletes do. Professional football players constantly break bones and tear ligaments, causing themselves possible long-term damage. Also, one mis-step on a faulty field can cost a person his career. Plenty of talented running backs have turned their knees the wrong way and torn their ACLs, and for those of you who watch football closely, no one is the same player after tearing an ACL. If there's a reason to argue that professional athletes "deserve" the ridiculous amounts of mney they earn, this is it. I still would say they are overpaid. In my own humble opinion, an average salary in the neighborhood of $100,000-$200,000 would be more fitting, along with some of the best health care money can buy. (Though I am all for socialized health care myself anyway.)

CEOs work plenty hard, sure, but the best effect they have on their companies is psychological. They like to know that someone good is steering the ship. And while being at the top should be rewarded, and doing a good job keeping the employees and investors confident should be rewarded, CEOs make too much damn money. Keeping the company afloat, making sure the investors are happy, and maintaining a good public relationship should exceed paying the CEO. Such people should be paid based on how well the company is doing in this regard. Same for the board of directors and anyone who has a big, fancy title.

As for entertainers...I refer mainly to actors and musicians. These people make way too much damn money. Especially those on TV. I watch movies and everything, and I watch a lot of TV, but the fact that there are actors who make exorbitant amounts of money for shows that generate the same ratings that reality shows generate is insane. In the final season of Friends, the six star actors made $1 million per episode, or about $22 million EACH. That's $132 million for the six of them alone. Production costs for Friends had to be insane. By contrast, filming a season of Survivor, one of my favorite shows, costs about $1 million per episode - for everything. This includes the location, the rewards, the cheesy helicopter scene in the finale where Jeff Probst pretends to fly from the Guatemalan jungle clear to Los Angeles, the Pontiac G6 that the last reward winner gets, the Chevrolet SSR that the winner gets, the $1.5 million or so that goes to the contestants, Jeff Probst's salary, and whatever the host nation gets. So for what it costs to pay the stars of Friends for that one season, CBS can air 10 seasons of Survivor. And frankly, people like Tom Westman, Danni Boatwright, and Chris Daugherty earned their million bucks a lot more than David Schwimmer, Matt LeBlanc, and Courteney Cox did.

For entertainers to be paid as much as they are is absolutely insane. For CEOs and athletes, it's only unreasonable.

I don't. Most professional athletes are bred to be what they are. Most professional musicians attain their level of expertise through practice, not thoroughbreeding.

...opens a breeder farm for athletes...women pay megabucks to breed with retired athletes...goes to bank...the hell with CEOs...

I'd prefer it if we did away with money altogether and discouraged needless materialism.

So, what is the price of a box of cookies? :eek:

I'd prefer it if we did away with money altogether and discouraged needless materialism.

What's the point? Currency are markers, generic tokens that represent simple value, in the specific context of goods and services. Money is a simple-indirection layer for economic value. Are you trying to do away with value? That sounds utterly evil to me.

In another thread a lot of people are carping about a CEO being paid megabucks while Joe the meat grinder is only getting about $13.50 per hour. No one is carping about the entertainers or professional athletes making megabucks while Joe the meat grinder shells out a lot of bucks to buy tickets for the game, concert, or movie.

So, who deserves the megabucks salary? (No, you can’t vote for Joe.)
Well, I look at it this way. Professional athletes are making tons of money because team owners are willing to shell it out, and no matter what the owners say, they're not losing anything, so I say athletes ought to make whatever they can, especially since they have short careers compared to CEOs. What's more, except in rare circumstances, their salaries aren't guaranteed. If they play badly, they don't stay on the team, and they don't get paid, so pay is directly tied to performance.

As for entertainers, same deal. They're charging what the market will bear, and if someone is stupid enough to shell out $300 for the fucking Eagles, who am I to tell Don Henley he shouldn't take it and run. Again, performance dictates salary there as well--if you're not popular, you don't get $300 per ticket. Ask Wang Chung what they get per person.

But CEOs lately have been getting paid huge salaries even when they put their companies in the toilet. I read yesterday where the CEO of Verizon made something like $48 million last year, not including perks, but his company lost money. Huh? If Shaquille O'Neal had averaged 7 points and 3 boards a game last year, would he still be making what he's making? Not a chance.

If Shaquille O'Neal had averaged 7 points and 3 boards a game last year, would he still be making what he's making? Not a chance.

Point; Shaq makes millions of $$ a year.

Point; Joe meatgrinder who makes about $13.00 per hour pays a hell of a lot of money to see Shaq play ball.

Point; CEO (good or bad) gives Joe meatgrinder a job.

Point; What does Shaq give Joe?

Point; Joe and all his meatgrinder friends pay Shaq the megabucks he earns, so why do they complain when the company that pays them enough money to give to Shaq pays the CEO megabucks?

But CEOs lately have been getting paid huge salaries even when they put their companies in the toilet. I read yesterday where the CEO of Verizon made something like $48 million last year, not including perks, but his company lost money. Huh? If Shaquille O'Neal had averaged 7 points and 3 boards a game last year, would he still be making what he's making? Not a chance.
Except for the jealousy factor, I don't see where compensation is anything but an agreement between the parties concerned. Whether or not the compensation is justified is up to the hiring and firing party. It's not even clear that Verizon did poorly with their choice. Maybe that CEO saved the company from losing even more money than they did. Then there are always the Jack Welch's and Lee Iacocca's of the corporate world that bring a great deal of value to their company's balance sheet.

I'd prefer it if we did away with money altogether and discouraged needless materialism.
Is that John Lennon I hear singing in the background?

Point; Shaq makes millions of $$ a year.

Point; Joe meatgrinder who makes about $13.00 per hour pays a hell of a lot of money to see Shaq play ball.

Point; CEO (good or bad) gives Joe meatgrinder a job.

Point; What does Shaq give Joe?

Point; Joe and all his meatgrinder friends pay Shaq the megabucks he earns, so why do they complain when the company that pays them enough money to give to Shaq pays the CEO megabucks?
Problem is now that your second point is happening less and less, because meatgrinder Joe doesn't have the $50 for a cheap seats ticket at the arena, at least not regularly. People are still watching Shaq live, but they ain't meatgrinder Joe. Meatgrinder Joe is watching Shaq at home on the 13" color set.

Now, if the CEO of that company that pays Meatgrinder Joe is doing a good job, then sure, that CEO ought to be rewarded--not to the extent he is now, where he's making 500 times what the average worker in the company is, but certainly a successful CEO deserves a healthy salary. But if the company is losing money, then why should the CEO get bonuses? Because that's what really inflates CEO salaries--performance bonuses. You wouldn't give Shaq a bonus for scoring 7ppg and pulling down 3 boards a game--why should you give a CEO a bonus when his company loses 5% of its value over the course of a year?

Except for the jealousy factor, I don't see where compensation is anything but an agreement between the parties concerned. Whether or not the compensation is justified is up to the hiring and firing party. It's not even clear that Verizon did poorly with their choice. Maybe that CEO saved the company from losing even more money than they did. Then there are always the Jack Welch's and Lee Iacocca's of the corporate world that bring a great deal of value to their company's balance sheet.
Here's the reason I brought up Verizon. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/business/10pay.html?_r=1&ex=1160280000&oref=slogin)
Others with a stake in Verizon did not fare so well. Shareholders watched their stock fall 26 percent, bondholders lost value as credit agencies downgraded the company's debt and pensions for 50,000 managers were frozen at year-end. When Verizon closed the books last year, it reported an earnings decline of 5.5 percent.

And yet, according to the committee of Verizon's board that determines his compensation, Mr. Seidenberg earned his pay last year as the company exceeded "challenging" performance benchmarks. Mr. Seidenberg's package was competitive with that of other companies in Verizon's industry, shareholders were told, and was devised with the help of an "outside consultant" who reports to the committee.

The independence of this "outside consultant" is open to question. Although neither Verizon officials nor its directors identify its compensation consultant, people briefed on the relationship say it is Hewitt Associates of Lincolnshire, Ill., a provider of employee benefits management and consulting services with $2.8 billion in revenue last year.

Hewitt does much more for Verizon than advise it on compensation matters. Verizon is one of Hewitt's biggest customers in the far more profitable businesses of running the company's employee benefit plans, providing actuarial services to its pension plans and advising it on human resources management. According to a former executive of the firm who declined to be identified out of concern about affecting his business, Hewitt has received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from Verizon and its predecessor companies since 1997.

In other words, the very firm that helps Verizon's directors decide what to pay its executives has a long and lucrative relationship with the company, maintained at the behest of the executives whose pay it recommends. I should have linked this from the beginning, because it deals with the rigged nature of the game.

I should have linked this from the beginning, because it deals with the rigged nature of the game.
So the point is that an entire BoD has been hoodwinked? I doubt that the Verizon board is that easily swayed into a decision that they don't agree with, simply on the recommendation of a consultant. But even if it were so, does that mean that 'someone' should step in and limit CEO compensation? Of course not.

Let's look at a different case. In 2001, The Gillette company was about ready to fold. They hired a new CEO named Jim Kilts. By the time P&G bought the company in 2005, he had increased the company's value by 34%. All this for a measly 17 million over four years. When Gillette was bought, the total value of the company stood at $57 billion. What percentage of the company value was Kilts salary and bonuses?

Now, if you found an executive that could turn a failing company into one that was worth $57 billion dollars and growing steadily, how much would you pay him? How much more would you pay him to stay? Guys like Kilts don't grow on trees and other companies might just want to hire him away from you.

Why should we paint all CEOs with the same brush? You're right, it's a bad idea. All CEOs aren't created equal.

I want to add one comment that isn't personal, so don't take it that way. Remember I have a little experience here, too. I've found that the only workers that are truly overpaid and under-worked are college professors.

I want to add one comment that isn't personal, so don't take it that way. Remember I have a little experience here, too. I've found that the only workers that are truly overpaid and under-worked are college professors.

Just a qualifier on this. It depends on where they work. In a lot of cases you are right, but in some cases you could not be more wrong.

Economic value is determined by the relationship between supply and demand, PERIOD.

Just a qualifier on this. It depends on where they work. In a lot of cases you are right, but in some cases you could not be more wrong.
It was a joke, anyway. I just didn't want to ruffle any feathers. That's too easy to do here.

Of course there's always the odd exception. I enjoyed the relaxed pace of the department, the research was fun, but the money sucked. No bonuses, no stock options, it wasn't the way I wanted to spend the rest of my working life.

A CEO may earn the seemingly exorbitant salary by making strategic decisions that greatly improve the company... creating jobs, improving stock value, driving product/service development and marketing, etc. He's also the face of the company, fielding questions from rabid reporters often out to make business look bad. There's also a huge X on his back -- if the company fails, he usually takes the blame.

As for actors/musicians/athletes etc... if we go to the games, buy the t-shirts, buy the CDs, watch the movies (etc.), we justify their income.

The only way to set your income is to be your own boss... start a company and pay thy self. hehe

In another thread a lot of people are carping about a CEO being paid megabucks while Joe the meat grinder is only getting about $13.50 per hour. No one is carping about the entertainers or professional athletes making megabucks while Joe the meat grinder shells out a lot of bucks to buy tickets for the game, concert, or movie.

So, who deserves the megabucks salary? (No, you can’t vote for Joe.)
I often give out about overpaid sports stars, rock stars, etc.

Those who deserve the salaries are everyone who works. All that money would be better divided more evenly than all of it going to one extreme minority.

A CEO may earn the seemingly exorbitant salary by making strategic decisions that greatly improve the company... creating jobs, improving stock value, driving product/service development and marketing, etc. He's also the face of the company, fielding questions from rabid reporters often out to make business look bad. There's also a huge X on his back -- if the company fails, he usually takes the blame.
There are those, but there are also CEOs who make destructive decision after destructive decision, while still holding onto job longevity that would earn the envy of even public sector bureaucrats.

Even if the CEO did all these jobs (no, they don't design the marketing campaigns) I don't think that their salaries are proportional to the amount of work done. They should get more money than Joe meat-cutter - but not a thousand times more!

I want to add one comment that isn't personal, so don't take it that way. Remember I have a little experience here, too. I've found that the only workers that are truly overpaid and under-worked are college professors.
That's what America gets for having a privatised university education system. Here, professors are not overpaid at all.

There are those, but there are also CEOs who make destructive decision after destructive decision, while still holding onto job longevity that would earn the envy of even public sector bureaucrats.

Even if the CEO did all these jobs (no, they don't design the marketing campaigns) I don't think that their salaries are proportional to the amount of work done. They should get more money than Joe meat-cutter - but not a thousand times more!

Let's ignore the first paragraph because it is so over-simplified that it's pointless.

But what about the salary for a CEO? What's enough? Is it the amount that keeps him and his family housed, fed, and clothed? Maybe so. But what if the CEO is above average and the company value increases? Isn't some other company going to offer him a new car to go with that basic subsistence?

Sure, the company's board of directors isn't stupid. They know that this guy can take a failing company and make it grow in value. So now enough is what it takes to keep the CEO at our company. Maybe that's a new car and a bigger house.

What is 'enough', anyway? And who should decide?

Well, I lived back then and what you are saying is not exactly true. So where are those "statistics" and where is that "information?"
Everything I've ever read on the subject shows an increasing gap between the rich and poor in the US. It began in the late seventies and was a reversal of the nation's historical trends.

On topic:
Nobody “deserves” anything. Athletes, entertainers and CEOs, through a combination of luck, skill and determination, have risen above the masses and reap the benefits of that ascension. That doesn’t mean they “deserve” huge pay checks. That’s just the way the world works.

There will always be individuals who dominate others in the constant conflict that is life.

Point; What does Shaq give Joe?

Shaq gives Joe entertainment.

Everything I've ever read on the subject shows an increasing gap between the rich and poor in the US. It began in the late seventies and was a reversal of the nation's historical trends.

On topic:
Nobody “deserves” anything. Athletes, entertainers and CEOs, through a combination of luck, skill and determination, have risen above the masses and reap the benefits of that ascension. That doesn’t mean they “deserve” huge pay checks. That’s just the way the world works.

There will always be individuals who dominate others in the constant conflict that is life.

because we aren't equal... and so long as we are free, the divide will remain.

if everyone is going to be made equal, freedom will have to be curbed.

because we aren't equal... and so long as we are free, the divide will remain.

if everyone is going to be made equal, freedom will have to be curbed.

Which is where you come down to the basic question: What do you value more, freedom or equality?

because we aren't equal... and so long as we are free, the divide will remain.

if everyone is going to be made equal, freedom will have to be curbed.
No, you see, because then the people who are in charge of the government are the ones who have risen to the top, instead of CEOs and Athletes. There will always be people above others

Only a complete and utter societal breakdown coinciding with a philosophical move of most of the world’s population to anarchic ideals, could ever change that truth.

Let's ignore the first paragraph because it is so over-simplified that it's pointless.

But what about the salary for a CEO? What's enough? Is it the amount that keeps him and his family housed, fed, and clothed? Maybe so. But what if the CEO is above average and the company value increases? Isn't some other company going to offer him a new car to go with that basic subsistence?

Sure, the company's board of directors isn't stupid. They know that this guy can take a failing company and make it grow in value. So now enough is what it takes to keep the CEO at our company. Maybe that's a new car and a bigger house.

What is 'enough', anyway? And who should decide?

WEll?

Why not look at two examples. I can't remember where I saw/heard this but the chairman of Dymler made 2 million(before they bought chrysler) and the chairman of Chrysler made 20 million.

A few million to the guy who cures cancer, harnesses fusion, invents a hyperdrive or what not. Everybody else can do just fine on a six-figure salary.

There are CEOs (http://www.magazine-deutschland.de/issue/Porsche_6-04_ENG_E1.php?&lang=eng) who deserve a lot of money, simply because they create even more money (plus employment, goods that people enjoy and all sorts of good social side-effects).

Just as an experiment. Let's temporarily lay off these miracle worker CEOs. Replace them with Joe Meatgrinder worging at, say, $15.00 an hour. After a couple years lets compare performance. We can then rehire the old CEOs for the difference. If we want to...

anyone who can talk someone else into paying him that kind of money deserves it.
This would include con-artists.

WEll?

Why not look at two examples. I can't remember where I saw/heard this but the chairman of Dymler made 2 million(before they bought chrysler) and the chairman of Chrysler made 20 million.
I think you may need to elaborate a little. It probably crystal clear to you that you have made a point, but I can't see it.

Sure, the company's board of directors isn't stupid. They know that this guy can take a failing company and make it grow in value. So now enough is what it takes to keep the CEO at our company. Maybe that's a new car and a bigger house.

What is 'enough', anyway? And who should decide?
The thread title (usage of the word "deserves") implies that we the posters should make moral judgements, rather than pragmatic judgements. I understand why CEOs in America get paid so much; it's the demand in their market.

But I think that they should get enough to live comfortably. But then, ideally, everyone in the world should be earning enough to live comfortably.

because we aren't equal... and so long as we are free, the divide will remain.

if everyone is going to be made equal, freedom will have to be curbed.
If everyone was going to be made equal, then capitalism would have to be abandoned. This means that the idea of "freedom" you're working from would no longer apply. Capitalism is not found in nature; it's a man-made economic system just like all the others. Its version of freedom is not really more objectively valid than that of say, socialism.