Topic: Irrational 1% Jealousy (Read 5465 times)

If yo were to ask them, they would tell you that they are a real estate company. Buying and owning the best real estate is priority one, and the stores will make money themselves

Why?  That seemed to be what was meant by working up from the mailroom.  I understood that to mean the metaphorical mailroom and took that meaning to be from the lowest rung of the company on a path to CEO.


Arguably Micky D's is a manufacturing management company.  They run production lines in mass.


We agree


We agree


Its all good.
I have run companies from the C level, and have worked as the lowest rung.  When I have started companies, these are the same position.

Lately I've been engaged in starting new alternative currency enterprises and having a blast.

The Cold Hard Cash enterprise is one I've been hoping to do for a while, and the bitcoin marketplace seems just like the perfect storm for it.  Most folks don't even know what a QR code is, much less what to do with it on their money.
The bitcoin users are a unique sector.  Adventurous, forward thinking, risk-takers, these are the people in whose company I find I have no enemies so even if your were a pinko we'd have enough other things in common that we'd probably enjoy a meal together without coming to blows.

For my part here, all the arguments are in fun and among friends.  It is the nature of online discourse, for most folks when you agree, you nod silently and read on, but when you disagree even slightly it generates that urge to contribute words to the discussion for better or worse.

Sounds like an extremely valuable and useful skill that any corp would pay top dollar for. Though the problem here isn't with CEOs working within the system in an attempt to do their job, which is to make a profit. The problem is the politicians being able to give out such legislation and favors.



I'm having a hard time coming up with names of CEOs who are not those things. Most I know came from lower level positions working their way up, or founded companies themselves. What's your opinion of Jeff Bezzos, who built his company from scratch, and is not trying to get legislation that would force sales tax on internet sales?

Also, why should be have admiration for CEOs in the first place? Most of them never ask for it, yet are forced to be raised in the public eye, and then vilified for it :/


Why not both? Why can't someone take a risk, while having some insurance at the same time? There's nothing wrong with it. And why would you admire someone taking on an extremely risky venture without taking all possible precautions? I would think a person like that would be thought of as a careless idiot, not an admirable expert at negotiating their field. And, again, why would you talk about how someone is brave for doing (or attempting to do) their job? You don't talk about how brave a janitor is, so why a CEO?



Uh, CEOs are't entrepreneurs, they are employees. They don't even own the company they work for (typically). It's why they can get fired. And they do have stuff to lose. Seriously, is losing your job, with your performance and life becoming public, and with greatly decreased prospects of getting another job, and only a much smaller severance "consolation prize" no big deal for you? (pretend we are not talking about millions before you consider this one)


An oft problem on forums of this sort, one I am often guilty of as well

Why "within the core competency of the company's enterprise"? Many CEOs arrive from advanced positions well outside the core competency of the enterprise. I don't know if Don Thompson ever made burgers after grad school. He was an electrical engineer.

But all this is irrelevant. I don't know why either of you are so defensive about this. I'm not saying that true leaders don't deserve generous rewards. I'm saying two totally different things: First, the majority of CEOs are cronies, who get their enormous salaries due to their ability to manipulate politicians into creating legislation that is favorable to their specific enterprise while increasing the regulation on their competition. They are second-handers jockeying for the drippings of a thoroughly corrupted government. This is pandemic, and our admiration ought to be reserved for the true captains of industry, who create new things that make our lives better. The division between "leech" and "creator" is not a class distinction; there are both at all levels of society—even in government there are perhaps two or three honest people striving to make things better.

Second, you can take a risk or you can negotiate a golden parachute that will pay out regardless of job performance, not both. I can't blame someone for not taking a risk, but I will not talk up how brave and ballsy it is for someone to take a job where they will get millions of dollars if they screw it up so badly that they are fired in the first six months. I will admire their negotiating skills, but no more. I admire people that put their own time and/or their own capital into a business venture they believe in, but if you're playing with other people's money and have nothing to lose you ain't no entrepreneur; you're an employee.

Finally, if you want to pick on someone who thinks that rich means corrupt and poor means honest, find someone else. That just is not me, no matter how hard you twist my words to make me sound like some kind of pinko redistributionist.

…and I haven't had enough (or any) sleep and I'm likely to be a bit cranky myself. So forgive me if I'm sounding like some kind of pinko whatever. It was not my intent.

Sorry, you're right, I messed up. I meant "get fired, have fairly small severance pay compared to their salary, and have their poor job record in the public, possibly preventing them from getting another job."

One job I worked at laid me off, and the severance package was 6 month's pay. But it wasn't a cut in salary, you're right.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. You worded it better than I did.

In a trucking company, a truck driver could become CEO. 
What you are looking for (by "mailroom") is the lowest level rung within the core competency of the company's enterprise.

So straight out of college they're hired as an executive? I don't think so. They may not be sorting mail, but I don't see how they could possibly have a higher level job than anyone else in the company. And a janitorial job is a dead-end one. You don't get promoted from janitor to anything else. Plus, what were they doing in college and high school? I'm guessing they had some sort of job.

I'm going to define mailroom as the lowest level job that still allows for promotions that could lead to CEO. Because a truck driver or janitor will never become a higher level employee because they aren't proving themselves to the company. Maybe they'll become head truck driver or head janitor, but you can't jump from there to an executive position.

* of course, in the shipping industry the "mailroom" could be anywhere.

No, I'm going to ask that you back that up with statistics, and I'm certain that you will not be able to without defining "mailroom" to mean something other than the lowest level of responsibility in a given company.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/ceo-statistics/

74% of chief executive officers have at least a four-year college degree. "Entry level" for college graduates in almost any industry translates to having more responsibility than sorting mail. I suspect most of them started out in lower-to-mid-level management and worked their way up. I have no doubt that a very small number of them did indeed "bootstrap" their way from janitor to the corner office. But it's a very small number.

You said "I doubt that many of them worked their way up from the mailroom." Guess what? Most did.

Oh right, because "Almost all, I assume, held other executive positions prior to being Chief Whatever Officers" COMPLETELY means they were born CEO out of nowhere.

Why do I even bother writing replies? I think I must just be a masochist.

So you think that most CEOs just became executives out of nowhere? The point Rassah was making is that they worked their way from the bottom, whether it was in the company they're a CEO of or somewhere else. No CEO has became a CEO without any experience. It's not like a new baby is born, and it is christened as the new CEO of a company.

No, if I do a shitty job, I get my salary cut by 100%. You're not going to make me cry over someone getting their salary cut 50% WHEN THEY GET FIRED. What planet are you writing from?


California, mostly.

I don't even know how to answer that. I doubt that many of them worked their way up from the mailroom. Almost all, I assume, held other executive positions prior to being Chief Whatever Officers. Some founded their own businesses. Some are just good at liquidating a business's assets before dumping them and moving on to the next. You probably have a few YSOM dropouts in the mix too. What kind of answer are you looking for?

CEOs tend to be Strong ENTJ types, though there are many exceptions.
When you have just an ENTJ alone, you don't have a company, you just have a frustrated asshole looking to order people around that aren't there. 

BTW this isn't meant to be mean spirited at all, I greatly enjoy the company of CEOs.  They get the humor of this.  The ability to be bothered by all the right things, and to maintain self-knowledge is part of what drives them to success.

People look at that $15 mill, and think, "Man, if I had $15mil, I would..." comparing their income and lifestyles to CEOs directly. CEOs don't live or work the same way we do. Sure, a lot of that money is spent on luxuries, but much more is spent on investments and other businesses they run. Those people are in the business of "making money," not earning money and spending it away. It's also why they get hired in the first place.

So, instead of thinking, "Holy crap! They still get to keep $15mil! I could do so much with that in my own life style/situation!" think "Where would I be if my salary was cut in half, and I had a very public bad record in my resume that was published in a bunch of newspapers?"


That is an actual problem, and corps are starting to fix that, with things like performance based salaries and stock options that can only be exercised in the future.


Where do you think executives come from? (Not a rhetorical question, actually wondering)

Why are these bad examples? Because they prove my point? I've listed 5 CEOs that have major companies, and their companies would not succeed let alone exist without them.

And for the record, Jobs and Zuckerberg have (had in Jobs' case) salaries of $1 per year, in order to maximize profits. Most successful CEOs use this method in order to make sure that the company can succeed, which in turn will increase the value of the stock that they hold (although Jobs' wealth was based mainly in Pixar, not Apple).

It annoys me that those 3 are mentioned (and zuckenberg should not even be mentioned at all). They are founders of their own companies, they had X of the shares, they could set whatever salaries they want, even work for free as a gimmick. We need better examples.

I could argue that, but that would be stupid wrong made up nonsense and would just look foolish.  If you want to argue against things that no one is arguing for, you risk looking like that too.

Some CEO are overpaid, some aren't.  My point was that none succeed alone, they tend to be CEOs of companies (which have employees that individually contribute).

For what its worth, Gates, Jobs and Zuck each famously owe much of their success to stealing seminal ideas from others, and then successfully developed and sold them.

I absolutely get that it is part of a negotiated contract. I was being a bit flippant when I said that it was a reward for doing a shitty job. If you do a great job, you get to come back for another year at $30 million per year. If you do a shitty job, you get $15 million and get to take the rest of the year off.

But the assumptions made in entering into those agreements are flawed. Removing the risk (and I don't agree that there is any substantive risk to taking an executive job—it's being an employee with no skin in the game, especially if your worst-case scenario is walking away with a fortune and having a negative article written about you in the WSJ) invites poor decisionmaking. And the short-term criteria they are judged on often puts them in a position where their best choice is the one that is worst for the long-term health of the company.

Even if none of that was true, there is still a world of difference between being a founder/stakeholder and a hired executive.