" JimH" ask wrote in message
...


Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if they go
to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...


Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if they
go to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

Never underestimate what Americans are willing to pay to be entertained.
The *top* athletes, actors, rock stars, authors, all command incredible
pay. Of the lot, I have the least problem with athletes. It's hard to
imagine a more competitive profession. Their short careers are built on
a lifetime of incredibly hard work. They are the best of the best, and,
after all, someone else is willing to sign their checks.

Hell, I don't even have a problem with CEOs' pay. I just think it would
be nice if their pay was tied to performance, as an athlete's pay is.
Think of the $210 million Nardelli was paid to be fired.

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if they
go to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

Never underestimate what Americans are willing to pay to be entertained.
The *top* athletes, actors, rock stars, authors, all command incredible
pay. Of the lot, I have the least problem with athletes. It's hard to
imagine a more competitive profession. Their short careers are built on
a lifetime of incredibly hard work. They are the best of the best, and,
after all, someone else is willing to sign their checks.

Hell, I don't even have a problem with CEOs' pay. I just think it would
be nice if their pay was tied to performance, as an athlete's pay is.
Think of the $210 million Nardelli was paid to be fired.


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of the
average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable is NOT
500 times.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if they
go to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

Never underestimate what Americans are willing to pay to be
entertained. The *top* athletes, actors, rock stars, authors, all
command incredible pay. Of the lot, I have the least problem with
athletes. It's hard to imagine a more competitive profession. Their
short careers are built on a lifetime of incredibly hard work. They
are the best of the best, and, after all, someone else is willing to
sign their checks.
Hell, I don't even have a problem with CEOs' pay. I just think it
would be nice if their pay was tied to performance, as an athlete's
pay is. Think of the $210 million Nardelli was paid to be fired.


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of the
average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable is NOT
500 times.

Why? What does the average worker contribute to the bottom line of the
business?

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if they
go to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

Never underestimate what Americans are willing to pay to be
entertained. The *top* athletes, actors, rock stars, authors, all
command incredible pay. Of the lot, I have the least problem with
athletes. It's hard to imagine a more competitive profession. Their
short careers are built on a lifetime of incredibly hard work. They
are the best of the best, and, after all, someone else is willing to
sign their checks. Hell, I don't even have a problem with CEOs' pay.
I just think it would be nice if their pay was tied to performance,
as an athlete's pay is. Think of the $210 million Nardelli was paid
to be fired.


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of
the average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable
is NOT 500 times.

Why? What does the average worker contribute to the bottom line of the
business?



And therein lies the illness that is killing this country.

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:55:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

Obscene salaries are obscene.......period. It does not matter if
they
go to janitors or CEO's.


Or athletes.

Eisboch

Never underestimate what Americans are willing to pay to be
entertained. The *top* athletes, actors, rock stars, authors, all
command incredible pay. Of the lot, I have the least problem with
athletes. It's hard to imagine a more competitive profession.
Their short careers are built on a lifetime of incredibly hard
work. They are the best of the best, and, after all, someone else
is willing to sign their checks. Hell, I don't even have a problem
with CEOs' pay. I just think it would be nice if their pay was tied
to performance, as an athlete's pay is. Think of the $210 million
Nardelli was paid to be fired.


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of
the average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable
is NOT 500 times.

Why? What does the average worker contribute to the bottom line of the
business?



And therein lies the illness that is killing this country.

What is killing this country is people thinking that because they ask
"do you want fries with that" entitles them to pay equivalent to a CEO.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:47:21 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of
the average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable
is NOT 500 times.

Why? What does the average worker contribute to the bottom line of the
business?

And therein lies the illness that is killing this country.

Exactly right. No way anybody I know would want to work for BAR,
average or not.
Here's something interesting I heard yesterday.
My son works at a shop doing mostly heavy truck suspensions.
The owner is a women who has 3 shops in the Chicago area.
She carries on with her deceased husband's method of operation.
Pay the workers more than the competition, provide health care, decent
vacations, a 401k, and bonuses when the profits are good.
Expect excellent quality work from employees. The crew itself
takes care of that, since there are always a couple long-timers
who really know their stuff, and new employees are on probation.
The managers do suspension work too.
And of course set prices to make a decent profit from fixing the
suspensions of fire trucks, ambulances, garbage trucks, etc.
The other day one of the "newer" workers was at a sister shop picking
up parts. Let's call him RAB. He bad-mouthed his fellow workers,
saying they were goofing off, on the computer playing video games, he
was doing all the work, etc, etc.
Some of this was in a sense true, because there are times when it's
dead at the shop, and boys will be boys. I've had a couple feast or
famine jobs like that myself.
Anyway, it just so happened that the owner's son was at the shop,
and heard everything. RAB didn't know him.
The son reported it to his mom. She got on the phone to the lead
manager at the shop and told him what she had heard, then said
something else, which surprised me, because...well, it surprised me.
She said, "What the hell kind of loyalty do you have over there?
RAB isn't a team player. You have my permission to fire him."
I think I could really get along with this lady.
BTW, he wasn't fired, but given a chance to keep his mouth shut.
My son defended him to the boss, and all his co-workers know he just
naturally has a big mouth and likes to yak about anything without
thinking first. Doesn't keep him from fixing suspensions.

--Vic

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:37:06 -0500, HK wrote:


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of the
average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable is NOT
500 times.

Philosophically, I tend to agree, but it is supply and demand run amok.
A HR guy once told me, his job wasn't to hire the right guy, it was to
make sure he didn't hire the wrong guy. Meaning, he would always make
the low risk choice. I tend to think the supply of CEO capable people
far outpaces the demand, but if you want to make the low risk choice, you
have to pay big bucks for the handful of candidates with a proven track
record.

If you want to cut costs, CEO pay is a good place to start. CEO pay has
been exploding.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060621

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:37:06 -0500, HK wrote:


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of the
average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable is NOT
500 times.

Philosophically, I tend to agree, but it is supply and demand run amok.
A HR guy once told me, his job wasn't to hire the right guy, it was to
make sure he didn't hire the wrong guy. Meaning, he would always make
the low risk choice. I tend to think the supply of CEO capable people
far outpaces the demand, but if you want to make the low risk choice, you
have to pay big bucks for the handful of candidates with a proven track
record.

If you want to cut costs, CEO pay is a good place to start. CEO pay has
been exploding.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060621


CEO's aren't hired by HR departments. They are usually recruited and hired
by the company's Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors are responsible to the shareholders. The
shareholders demand performance, growth and increased stock value. A
candidate for CEO must have qualifications and potential benefit to the
company (in terms of raising stock value or dividends) that are consistant
with the will of the shareholders. For that, you pay ... in salary, perks
and options.

Eisboch

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:59:50 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:37:06 -0500, HK wrote:


CEO pay and bonus should never be more than a reasonable multiple of
the average worker's salary at the company or corporation. Reasonable
is NOT 500 times.

Philosophically, I tend to agree, but it is supply and demand run amok.
A HR guy once told me, his job wasn't to hire the right guy, it was to
make sure he didn't hire the wrong guy. Meaning, he would always make
the low risk choice. I tend to think the supply of CEO capable people
far outpaces the demand, but if you want to make the low risk choice,
you have to pay big bucks for the handful of candidates with a proven
track record.

If you want to cut costs, CEO pay is a good place to start. CEO pay
has been exploding.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060621


CEO's aren't hired by HR departments.

Of course they're not, but the same constraints hold true. The HR guy
hired the low risk candidate because he didn't want his boss coming at
him for hiring, in hindsight, the wrong guy. The Board uses the same
conservative thinking. That's one of the reasons many CEOs are
retreads.

They are usually recruited and
hired by the company's Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors are responsible to the shareholders. The
shareholders demand performance, growth and increased stock value. A
candidate for CEO must have qualifications and potential benefit to the
company (in terms of raising stock value or dividends) that are
consistant with the will of the shareholders. For that, you pay ... in
salary, perks and options.

Eisboch

Yeah, but if you want to look at performance, there really isn't much
correlation between high compensation and high performance. For a
multimillion dollar CEO, they aren't driven by the money, it's the ego or
sense of accomplishment. An example, Bob Nardelli took Home Depot's $210
million, and is now running Chrysler for $1 per year (plus some potential
bonuses). I'll say again, cost cutting could start at the CEO level, and
without much of a performance hit.