Executive pay is not based on results.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Did you read the article in the OP? It talks about CEO's making untold millions while their company is losing money. Also, the differential today between CEO and worker pay is higher than ever. American corporate performance isn't commensurate with their pay (say I, a shareholder in many US companies).

Compensation isn't based upon performance, it's based on how much the executive compensation committee can squeeze out of the company for their friends and colleagues, the executives. Take a peak at this article to say how it really works:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...PJL_story.html

I think you're way over-generalizing from way too few specifics. It may work that way at some firms, but by far and away certainly not all.

But again, so what? What does it matter what someone makes?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I think you're way over-generalizing from way too few specifics. It may work that way at some firms, but by far and away certainly not all.

But again, so what? What does it matter what someone makes?

From the linked article in the OP:

Shareholders at the company, one of the nation’s largest biotech firms, had lost 3 percent on their investment in 2010 and 7 percent over the past five years. The company had been forced to close or shrink plants, trimming the workforce from 20,100 to 17,400. And Sharer, a 63-year-old former Navy engineer, was already earning lots of money — about $15 million in the previous year, plus such perks as two corporate jets. The board decided to give Sharer more. It boosted his compensation to $21 million annually, a 37 percent increase, according to the company reports.

Then I post an article showing that the compensation committee were chums handpicked by this very executive. And you see nothing wrong with this? WTF??

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I think you're way over-generalizing from way too few specifics. It may work that way at some firms, but by far and away certainly not all.

But again, so what? What does it matter what someone makes?

Funny question for you to ask. If the topic was janitors making $30 an hour, you'd be all sorts of bent out of shape. So, why don't you just shut your hypocritical hole?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Funny question for you to ask. If the topic was janitors making $30 an hour, you'd be all sorts of bent out of shape. So, why don't you just shut your hypocritical hole?

Dave

Find me a post where I've every been critical of what someone makes - based on their talent and abilities. I have been critical of labor negotiations that produce unsupportable results - critical of management in those scenarios. There is a difference.

So - back atcha - please shut your ill-informed, jaded, assumptive and over-sensitive hole.

My question remains unanswered.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Find me a post where I've every been critical of what someone makes - based on their talent and abilities. I have been critical of labor negotiations that produce unsupportable results - critical of management in those scenarios. There is a difference.

Right, and obviously since the shareholders have lost 7% of their value and the company lost business he, the CEO, is incompetent, yet the board choose to reward his incompetence.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Find me a post where I've every been critical of what someone makes - based on their talent and abilities. I have been critical of labor negotiations that produce unsupportable results - critical of management in those scenarios. There is a difference.

So - back atcha - please shut your ill-informed, jaded, assumptive and over-sensitive hole.

My question remains unanswered.

Yes, and the difference is that management negotiates future union wages and benefits based upon assumptions regarding company profitability/earnings. In the cited case of executive compensation, the Compensation Committee decided unilaterally (i.e., doesn't negotiate) a significant raise after it has beem demonstrated that the company lost money under the exec's leadership. A big difference indeed.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yes, and the difference is that management negotiates future wages and benefits based upon assumptions regarding company profitability/earnings. In the cited case of executive compensation, the Compensation Committee decides unilaterally (i.e., doesn't negotiate) a significant raise after it has beem demonstrated that the company lost money under the exec's leadership. A big difference indeed.

So you are saying an executive has a contract and negotiates? Sounds a lot like what unions have. So why would the leadership not want the same for their workers?




Barney

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Oerets

So you are saying an executive has a contract and negotiates? Sounds a lot like what unions have. So why would the leadership not want the same for their workers?

Barney

I tweaked a few words to make my post a bit more clear. What I meant to say is that union wages are based upon assumptions of future earnings and subsequent negotations. Executive pay is based upon the exec's chums on the Compensation Committee deciding to increase compensation unilaterally, even in times of decreased corporate earnings.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

My question remains unanswered.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

or an employee with stagnant wages - or worse yet, laid off. Or a consumer whose choices in products becomes limited because CEO's justify soaking the company by cutting expenses - other than executive salaries.

Regards,

D-Ray

More like you are ignoring the answer.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

More like you are ignoring the answer.

Regards,

D-Ray

Posting hypotheticals doesn't answer the question. Can you provide an actual example of a consumer who was denied a choice because of a CEO's compensation?