US CEOs Underpaid

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you stiop abusing your strawman, he's getting tired.

Who said anything about profits being directly related to pay? I

I note you didn't question Genarli and ask him to prove a model where profits are directly related to the CEO. Hypocrit.

Profits come from a combination of many factors.

Steve Jobs at Apple is (was) a very good example as is Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Steve Jobs at Apple is (was) a very good example as is Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway.

And those are a couple of examples of where this, which I said on my first post on this thread would come into play...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If it's a genuine idea of a CEO which provides a fundemental change and profit increase, fair enough.

So I wouldn't take any issue here (though I have personal issues with the way Steve Jobs went about it).

There will always be the exception and I recognise that hence what I stated in my very first post.

The idea that all CEO's should get increases due to profit as "they" created it though is somewhat dubious.

The ideas often come from focus groups inside the company and are passed up. The smallest of ideas often come from the ground.

There was a programme about Natwest not lojng back (fly on the wall type thing) where a cashier had come up with an idea that was eventually implented across all branches. Why should the CEO take the credit for that idea (not that the idea was profit based, but makes the point).What is so abhorrent about the staff being recognised for it?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said anything about profits being directly related to pay?

You?

PasturesNew wrote: »

A billionaire business owner was once told by a small business owner "Yes, but you can afford to pay your little people more...." and he replied "... it's because I DO pay them more that the company is so successful"

CLAPTON wrote: »

If it were true, then I would image it would be common knowledge in the business world and business people would rush to pay people more and so massively increase their profits.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is.

With respect, you don't have the first clue about how the Aldi model works but it's not because they appear to pay their staff more than Tesco do.

The average Tesco store staff couldn't hack it in an Aldi. I'm afraid a free lunch hasn't yet been discovered.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I note you didn't question Genarli and ask him to prove a model where profits are directly related to the CEO. Hypocrit

If CEO's didn't influence profits then shareholders wouldn't spend money employing them.

There are a lot of small businesses in the UK where they are owner operated and there's a direct link between the actions of the boss and profits. I suppose a lot depends what you mean by 'prove' a direct link to profits - the CEO of McDonalds doesn't flip burgers too much these days - does that prove your point?

Is formulating strategy too indirect a link to the fortunes of the company?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was a programme about Natwest not lojng back (fly on the wall type thing) where a cashier had come up with an idea that was eventually implented across all branches. Why should the CEO take the credit for that idea (not that the idea was profit based, but makes the point).What is so abhorrent about the staff being recognised for it?

if the idea had been a disaster for the company who would be blamed?

the CEO for implementing the idea or the cashier?

( that's not to say the cashier shouldn't have received appropriate recognition)

Mistermeaner

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And those are a couple of examples of where this, which I said on my first post on this thread would come into play...



So I wouldn't take any issue here (though I have personal issues with the way Steve Jobs went about it).

There will always be the exception and I recognise that hence what I stated in my very first post.

The idea that all CEO's should get increases due to profit as "they" created it though is somewhat dubious.

The ideas often come from focus groups inside the company and are passed up. The smallest of ideas often come from the ground.

There was a programme about Natwest not lojng back (fly on the wall type thing) where a cashier had come up with an idea that was eventually implented across all branches. Why should the CEO take the credit for that idea (not that the idea was profit based, but makes the point).What is so abhorrent about the staff being recognised for it?

You clearly don't work in senior management - of course t he vast majority of ideas come from and work is done by the little people, that is what they are paid to do.

Senior managers and ceos and the like need to be able to listen to and empower their staff to make things happen and also back the right ideas - cos alot of them are !!!!!

Incidentally increasing pay is often a very poor motivator, people generally respond much better to other things than just salary.

Graham_Devon

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Incidentally increasing pay is often a very poor motivator, people generally respond much better to other things than just salary.

Really? So what's a better motivator?

Funny thing to say on a thread which is backing up CEO's needing more money....especially with the amount of times we've been told if you want the best you need to pay the most.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Really? So what's a better motivator?

Funny thing to say on a thread which is backing up CEO's needing more money....especially with the amount of times we've been told if you want the best you need to pay the most.

Surely any ceo once in that position will try to do their best regardless of being paid $5m or $50m. No one wants to !!!! up especially people who are leaders. Likewise I doubt a $1m bonus is going to have them try harder next year instead of a $200k bonus

The only difference is I suspect a $50m a year ceo is harder for another company to 'steal' than a $5m CEO.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

If CEO's didn't influence profits then shareholders wouldn't spend money employing them.

There are a lot of small businesses in the UK where they are owner operated and there's a direct link between the actions of the boss and profits. I suppose a lot depends what you mean by 'prove' a direct link to profits - the CEO of McDonalds doesn't flip burgers too much these days - does that prove your point?

Is formulating strategy too indirect a link to the fortunes of the company?

Maybe shareholders pay theor CEOs a LOT of money not for more profit but to limit the chances of bribes or anything which coupd make the company worthless

I've wondered what checks if any are in place for a CEO signing away the company assets on pennies on the pound. Could for example the CEO of BP sell its oil fields or rigs or whatever for 1/10 the value?

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

Maybe shareholders pay theor CEOs a LOT of money not for more profit but to limit the chances of bribes or anything which coupd make the company worthless

I've wondered what checks if any are in place for a CEO signing away the company assets on pennies on the pound. Could for example the CEO of BP sell its oil fields or rigs or whatever for 1/10 the value?

All employers have to consider the risk of dishonesty or the cost of a staff member leaving or being poached and remunerate accordingly. Shareholders will wish to pay as little as possible to get the staff they want.

I'm sure people would be policemen for less money but they'd be more susceptible to bribes so the employer bribes them in advance and credit checks them too. Of course there are no guarantees because there are dishonest policemen and fraudulent wealthy people too.