Topic: Irrational 1% Jealousy - page 2. (Read 5465 times)

Just to clarify, a "golden parachute" isn't something that just gets "paid when someone fails." The payment is included in the contract when the CEO is being hired. It's one of the CEO benefits, like the "benefits" the rest of us get, that is used to entice CEOs to work at a company and take a position that a CEO might think is risky, or that may waste their time. And often, the company was failing before the CEO was offered the job, and the CEO simply failed to fix the problem, and needs that money due to the huge risk that being a "falling CEO" presents. Believe it or not, CEOs don't just take every $15 mil job offered to them. I'm sure you and I would take it gladly, but at that high of a level it's like a decision for us whether to take a $25k job with lots of benefits, or a $45k job with none. But with more zeros.

Starting with your own personal safety net is no problem at all. But "golden parachute" refers to the huge sum of money that an executive gets as a reward for doing a shitty job. I once got two weeks' severance pay, and that was at a job with a six-digit salary. When I hear about people getting $15 million dollars for having their $30 million contract terminated early, I have to suspect that they weren't worth either the $30 million or the $15 million.

I'm just making a value judgment, not calling for legislative or any kind of correction (other than for boards of directors to use some fucking common sense). It just seems ludicrous that executives are so important to the success of a business that they can command to be paid huge sums even when they fail. Someone starting with their own money to back them up? Not an issue. They already had that money one way or another. But no one is so important that they ought to be paid millions to fail, and paid even more millions when they get fired.

At the very least, I can't show a lot of admiration for what a hired executive "risks" when the reward for failure is so high. A founder of a business risks everything and deserves enormous rewards if successful.

Obviously Jobs was both kinds. When he returned to Apple he was paid only in Apple stock. The way Apple looked at that time, it was a huge risk but obviously paid off big. If he'd driven Apple into the ground, he would have gotten next to nothing.

I picked those examples because I could think of them off of the top of my head. But I fail to see why they don't count. Because they were founders? So what is your point, then? That if a CEO comes out of nowhere (which doesn't happen), and sits there doing nothing at an already established business he doesn't deserve the money? I agree, and so will the board of directors when they fire him and get him replaced. CEOs have to do something beneficial. And since they run the company their decisions and actions are going to million dollar decisions. It doesn't matter whether they were founders or not, or whether they can cover losses from the beginning.

If Zuckerberg had had a "million dollar parachute", but still came up with Facebook, would he not be deserving of money? Why is it a prerequisite that someone be poor (Zuckerberg wasn't poor anyways)? If an individual already personally makes millions, why can't they make their company millions?

Take Elon Musk. Using the success of PayPal, he has founded SpaceX and co-founded Tesla, using partly his own designs. He had a safety net, but SpaceX's success (which is groundbreaking) and Tesla's would not happen without him. If that pneumatic train idea works, he will have yet another successful business.

Heck, even Donald Trump who's no doubt an ass personality-wise still has made a ton of money for his various companies. He also started with a safety net.

I see two points missed. First, no, you can't argue that either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs sat around twiddling their thumbs. I know that wasn't your point but it should be said. It's easy enough to demonize Bill Gates as the monster behind the Microsoft monster or whatever, but the guy wrote BASIC for the 8080 without having a 8080. And Jobs didn't become a marketing guy until after he and Woz built computers from his garage.

All this misses the point doubly, however, as all three examples are or were not just CEOs but founders. Anyone who claims you don't need a genius idea and the technical chops to make it happen is a fool. But there is a long way between saying that Gates/Jobs/Zuckerberg deserve to be billionaires and saying that most corporate executives bring anything at all to the table. There is a huge difference between starting with no guarantee of a salary and using one's vision to build something and taking on a multimillion dollar job with a multimillion dollar golden parachute, making a few decisions and then taking credit for the short-term success of the company which, if it can be directly linked to that persons actions, are usually because that person did long-term harm to the company.

There are a thousand James Taggarts for every one Dagny.

Looks like I missed the point? Maybe you can argue that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sat around twiddling their thumbs, and just by chance they made billion dollar companies, but Zuckerberg made Facebook. Without him, it would not exist. So how could Facebook make a dollar let alone millions if it never existed?

[/quote]

True, but no non-CEO has ever done that, period.


Of course they haven't done that alone, but the things they contributed, no one else could. Those companies could exist without those specific folks in the trenches, because there are plenty of other folks ready to fill those trenches. The trench folks are common, widely available, and although contribute, don't contribute much. So they get paid for that level. Those companies would not exist at all without those CEOs, because CEOs are not very common, and the bad ones can drive a company out of existence way faster than bad employees in the trenches. So the good CEOs get paid a different amount for their level.

It seems your argument boils down to "both, CEOs and low-level workers, are doing similar kind of work, so should get similar pay," which is just not true.

Looks like you missed the point, we aren't discussing existentialism.
Though each made great contributions, none of those are alone in those contributions.
On the existence question, would any of those companies exist without the folks in the trenches?
The CEO that claims they are making all the difference has more hubris than leadership.

Do you have proof? Would Microsoft exist without Bill Gates? Would Apple have existed without Steve Jobs? Would Facebook have existed without Mark Zuckerberg?

No CEO has ever done that alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdH7iGNqlY#at=2404

Not sure if this has been posted, but I thought it was pretty funny.  My forehead hurts.

That's not how it works. Joe comes along and says he'll work for 10/hour. He's hired. Bob comes around and says he'll do it for 9. Bob replaces Joe. Someone comes along and says they'll do it for 8, replacing Bob It goes down until the wage is at the lowest anyone will pay. This is assuming everyone is equally qualified, which is pretty much true for low wage jobs.

The same happens with CEOs. Just add 6 zeros. Keep in mind however that most people are not hired immediately for a CEO position... They've worked their way up, so that's why their salary is so big. In addition, their workload is more specific and intense. People would like to paint CEOs as having an easy job- they don't. Anyone can work at McDonald's, so there's a low wage. Very few people can be a successful CEO. No one is going to be a CEO for $10 an hour, because it takes many years of working their way up to even be considered for the position. Working that cheap makes no sense. The kind of person who would take a million dollar job and get paid 10 an hour is not smart enough to be a successful business owner.

Also, keep in mind, a CEO might earn 2 million a year, but if he rakes in 50 million a year for the company it's a worthy investment.

Exactly. If a company/board of directors are willing to pay that much to a certain individual, then maybe he is worth it? Although a thing I don't understand is - how did it get that way?

Your average joe works for 10$/hour, then some poor chap comes along and is willing to work for 2$/hour. Joe is fired. I get that. But why on the other end of that spectrum, salaries are so big. Why doesn't some poor chap come along to work as CEO for less?

Also how much could you possibly want? If they offer you a job for 2 mil $ a year, could you keep a straight face and say: "my services require better than that, make it 3.5 mil" ? And if they disagree - screw them, and those 2 mil, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by me being disillusioned. How? what am I not understanding or not thinking right about?

When you say "middle class," do you mean the old middle class, referring to a limited pool of workers only in USA, Canada, or Europe? Or do you mean the new middle class in a globalized economy, which includes third world countries we outsource to? If the later, I'd suspect many of us "middle class" types are actually in the 1% now.

What do you mean by trickle down? Specifically, what is it that you are expecting to trickle down? $20 bills? Increased wages? Improved quality of life? People who say that are often vague, at times saying "I meant that other thing" when you point out one of the things that does trickle down.

People who can do CEO type work are very rare and highly sought after, while people who can do low-level jobs are everywhere, especially now that we can hire labor all over the world. It's just supply/demand. Blame low wages on people willing to work for cheaper than you.

Rassah, it might be that you're own experiences have disillusioned you about the state of the rest of the 1%.  Most of the wealth that is acquired by the upper level of society does not trickle back down to others.  There are various documentaries out there that attempt to elaborate on this position.  There are also statistics that 1% of the population controls some 85% of the wealth.  The middle class the comprises approximately 70% of the population, controls just 5% of the wealth.

When there are CEO's making millions upon millions in their respective companies and their are lower level employees going to work every day and making a fraction of what the CEO makes it spins the whole concept of work and reward on it's head.  I would suggest you look up the story of HP's failed CEO Lee Apotheker http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/22/technology/hp_ceo_fired/index.htm.  This little gem took over HP for 11 months and performed dismally.  When he was fired, he walked away with a $25million severance package.

It all depends on your priorities. You can always move to Idaho, Michigan or Nebraska. And about a cardboard box - saw a little clip month ago, about people wiling to rent a closet (!) in someone's apartment, in prestigious parts of New York. For 600$ IIRC. Also state of infrastructure in some urban regions of USA is shocking to say at least. Leaking roofs, dangerously bad wiring, bridges collapsing, streets full of cars/fumes. And people still choose that.


I live in the capital, and while our prices are largely unfriendly(and if you are a naive tourist, make them 200%), it all boils down to priorities. Different parts of town - different prices. Although it's also about greed - homeowners sit with their empty properties unwilling to lower price by 20-30%, for months and years. It's much easier to own a luxury shop with huge price margins - you sell 1 item, count your profits and call it a day, rather then sell 100 things for a "honest price".

Ah don't get me started, I could rant all day about this shithole, but there are much worse places on earth.

His profile says Latvia, which could be about right? Though I thought Latvia was a little more expensive than that.

Here in California, $75/month ($2.5/day * 30 days) rent might get you a cardboard box under a bridge if you had three roommates with whom to split the rent.

Where do you live, PrintMule (what country)? 

rent and bills included

food is 2.5$
rent is 2.5$
electricity/communications/etc = ~1.5$
some everyday stuff like toothpaste, toiletpaper, detergent = ?
and there's always extra stuff like beer, condoms, chocolate.

Well if you count only food that I can easily live on $8, but then rent + bills.