Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Are the board of directors stupid?

Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 4:07 p.m. EST by ronimacarroni (1089)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why the hell does the board of directors give CEO's 300 times as much money as the rest of the employers.

What in the world could ONE CEO have that thousands of other people who are qualified to be CEOs and would be willing to accept a way lower wage don't?

This is insane!

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

Also for those who are "investing" in this companies

Why in the world are you investing in a company where most of the revenue will go to the top instead of your portfolio.

Its like the whole system has gone full retard.

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 11 years ago

Being a CEO is a higher risk job than say a factory floor worker, or low level cubicle drone. And paying just one person such a big sum, really is just a drop in a bucket for most big corporations. You cant compare CEO pay to lower level employee pay because there is one CEO, and potentially thousands of employees. so paying ONE CEO a ton, doesnt really affect the bottom line that greatly.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

So you agree that CEO's should make 343 times as the regular employer?

What the heck could they possibly spend that much money on?

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

It is not a matter of what they would or would not spend their money on unless that is the sole purpose of your post. I would only assume that they would spend their money on food, lodging, transportation, family, gifts, vacations, etc. same as you do.

If you are paid twice that of any employee where you work, should I demand to know what you would spend all of your money on.

Your post speaks more of jealousy than anything else..

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 11 years ago

What they spend it on is irrelevant, my argument is, if they are making majors decisions for the company, especially multibillion dollar conglomerates, they have a higher risk, and it probably took quite sometime to climb that ladder. Keeping share holders and board members can be quite the task.

Yes the income gap is huge. But once again paying one person a lot vs paying a ton of other employees a bit more is a huge difference in cash. Which makes paying that one CEO stacks of cash no big deal. Well at the level of business we are discussing anyway.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

I know America is always the "best"
We even have the "best" ratio of top to bottom salaries of any country in the world - for the 1%

[-] 1 points by Prospirity (12) 11 years ago

because they sit on each other's board...it's the old buddy-buddy system and from the bottom the shareholders allow it. Always self-responsibility. If shareholders would wake up too and start putting their feet on the table it would stop.

So there is no need for more laws, regulations the last thing we need is more gov. Ultimately shareholders have the last vote so the message of fairness has to cross that barrier too and it shouldn't be too hard because they indeed are losing that equity to unproductive means. Whether a CEO makes 1M or 10M won't change his productivity level

It's not only insane it's stupid and like someone else said "retard"

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

Well you still need regulations because the businesses will still attempt to scam people like they did with the bail outs.

[-] 1 points by Prospirity (12) 11 years ago

I sure agree while the bailouts should not have have happened in the 1st palce since they did it should have been tied with serious and very tight rule. we bail you out you WILL bail the people out of their foreclosure. But on the CEO issue only i still think it is a free market issue. It is the shareholders and even employees, customers that also need to "revolt"

[-] 1 points by solidarity1 (25) 11 years ago

There are increasing returns to experience and human capital at the higher wage levels. Everyone who is qualified to do the job isn't willing to accept a lower wage otherwise THAT would be the wage of the CEOs.

Is it more likely that EVERY board of directors is full of idiots or that the AVERAGE CEO is worth what the market will bear?

If you think your resume can compete with the my CEO's then I'd be glad to forward it to a board member that I know. Maybe they can get you to do that enormously stressful job with all that responsibility for pennies on the dollar. I hope you have 25 years of experience strategically positioning technology-oriented healthcare GPOs...

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

...

I've just come to the epiphany that this generation is getting screwed by pretty much everyone else.

Screw this I'm moving to Canada.

[-] 1 points by Prospirity (12) 11 years ago

:-) I'm in Canada and must agree compare to the rest of the world and even U.S. our conservative nature while had been the laughing stock business wise it is now showing up as being not so bad a choice. (2008 banking collapse was almost a misnomer here. Political contribution are regulated here isn't completely out but it is nothing compare to how ridiculous and outrageous it is in the US

But structurally and fundamentally we all face the same problems, monetary,political,legal systems have to be fundamentally change so we're still busy supporting OWS.

Corruption is planetary because the whole system design is flawed. It is money before people instead of people first.

We're just more polite in the way we screw people :-)

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 11 years ago

Not sure why I'm jumping into this acrid pool, but what the hell. 

There is no blanket indictment with regard to C E O pay. Base salary is not just a magic number that equates with $ into pocket. Total base is often an accumulation of compensation, health care package, 401's/deferred payments, stock options, and miscellaneous "perks". 

So, a base salary of 250k may only equal, say,  100k take-home - the rest absorbed in benefits. 

None of makes any of you feel better, perhaps even more resentful.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

Also keep in mind that a lot of this compensation might be paid in the form of stock or stock options in the very company that the CEO operates.

I bet you would do a much better job in your line of work if 50% of your salary was paid to you in stock or other interest in what you were doing or the business you work for. What do you think: WALMART employee........... CLASSROOM teacher - would you take stock in your school? WAITER - would you take 1/2 your pay in stock at a possibly failing restaurant? Hey you work for SEARS - how about taking 50% of your pay this year in Sears stock (K-Mart) BLOCKBUSTER video employee - did you get your salary in Blockbuster Stock . Did you check to see if that is how your CEO was being partially paid?. Do you think the company might still be around if you had??

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 11 years ago

Oh I agree, most do not even understand how options work, how/when they are given.....how/when/if they vest....and that 33.3% off the top when they are exercise.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

Thanks - I really find it difficult to understand how the dearth of common sense and common understanding has so inflitrated our society that we jump on any band wagon that comes along.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

Everyone knows by know that giving CEO's an insane amount of stocks just leads them to sacrifice the company to prop up their stock prices.

Like I said , the system has gone full retard.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

Please explain how that works exactly, I myself am a little retarded.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

By cutting costs, never investing in the company, laying people off and increasing prices for the costumers if they don't have an alternative.

Getting bailed out doesn't hurt either.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 11 years ago

It looks like you are talking about annual dividends as opposed to increasing the actual value of the stock, is that correct.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 11 years ago

Everyone who's complaining is a greedy asshole who only cares about his stupid portfolio.

How about YOU get off your ass, stop wasting money on the stock market AND GET A REAL JOB?