Posted on 12/29/2006 12:13:05 PM PST by shrinkermd
Since going public, the company I work for has gone through CEOs at an average of 1 every 2 years. Each left the company a little worse off then when they took the job, and each walked off with a couple of million in bonus money. Thankfully, we're going private again.
I agree with you, not something I want the government involved in...this is up to the board of directors and stockholders of these companies to straighten out.
The current Business Roundtable ethos of the CEO's purpose being to deliver profits this quarter (whatever quarter that may be) while not caring f*ck all for the future of the firm is destructive in the extreme.
I am blessed to work for a multi-billion dollar family-owned firm that has been in business for 140 years and they steadfastly refuse to hire jerkoffs like Otellini because they want to be in business 140 years from now.
It's the mindset that is obsessed with short-term corporate profits over long-term corporate survival that will be the downfall of this country.
Were livestock firms run by Wall Street they'd slaughter everything in order to return "record profits" for one quarter and then next quarter they'd move on to ruin another business.
I'm no leftie, but having corporate raiders run our national infrastructure is never going to come to any good. We need responsible men with a commitment to their company, their product, and their employees and the profits will happen on their own.
But, you know that those who regularly say that someone (or a group of people) are "overpaid" are in search of government controls on that person(s) pay. And that is really the point of the article and discussion.
At $15 million per year, Katie Kouric is waaayyyy overpaid.
Says me.
Any sensible firm that wants to be around into the next decade would be wise to do the same.
Entertraitors are in a completely different catagory.
I agree with the folks who say these things have a way of correcting themselves.
Here's an article with all the 'catch phrases' of the left. Only substitue 'middle class' for 'workers'. (See the 'concentration of wealth in fewer hands'.
http://www.wpb.be/guests/imperial.htm
That tells me there's a supply problem. Being a CEO must be a pretty tough job since since it looks like good ones are hard to find.
Says her boss and the advertisers who support the boss and Katie--Nyet, she is worth it.
Well, you are right, you can have any opinion, but can you make people you believe are overpaid take less?
If that were the case then there's be a handful of extremely successful, extremely high paid executives. Seems to me that high top exectutive wages are being showered pretty indiscriminatingly. Sometimes with above average results, more times not.
Who will be the 'decider' as to the 'worth' of a person?
Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Tom Cruise, etc, etc,
Tom Cruise et al are all paid by consumers for services rendered. Whether it is athletics or looking pretty people pay for it.
Utltimately, the consumer. In case of corporate moguls the board of directors.
Miss the cut, no check.
Who does? They can't work 30X more hours than an engineer in the company.
There are about 5 million corporations in the U.S. How many of those CEO's are extremely high paid? I'll bet it's no more than a handful. An effective CEO is always in demand because they're hard to find. Some get themselves into situations that can't be fixed while others get on the train as it's picking up speed. Most of them though, have a tough job and they're paid accordingly.
Seems to me that high top exectutive wages are being showered pretty indiscriminatingly
Maybe at some companies at some particular time but your statement would not hold water when a large sampling of corporations is considered. No doubt the Fortune 1,000 companies compensate their top executives very well but they demand a hell of a lot in return and competition is fierce. You'll find that most CEO's run small companies and earn small to mid six-figure salaries. That's not what I would call excessive.
Which bring up a (different but related) question, do companies really get value for the money they pay to sponsor the PGA or is it just a big ego thing and perq for the top execs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.