Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a slight difference between a guy running a business (CEO) and a guy sitting behind a desk in Washington DC.
Then what about the first question?
Does a company that posts negative earnings or misses their earnings mark deserve to blame the CEO? Does that make him a "bad" CEO?
If not, why does the same person get to take all of the credit and reap all of the rewards when times are good?
I would say No, not always. You could have a good CEO that gets hit by market forces, unexpected competition/factors, etc. Just because a company is doing bad doesn't
always meant the CEO is at fault.
Now, a company doing bad for 8 quarters on end...that's not good. Or a company that's in decent shape, normal market, nothing going on...gets a new CEO and he F's it up...that's not good either.
Almost in no cases though do these CEO's deserve the packages they get. No one is worth $35M a year. No one.
I don't disagree with Obama that CEO compensation is out of control (but then again, this isn't an Obama revelation,
nearly everyone has this opinion), but the legislation he wants passed amount to accomplishing absolutely nothing...which means it's just more BS on the books and more time wasted by our Congress debating and voting on it, when they have hugely massive more important things to be spending their time on.
This is clearly something Obama is throwing out there to gain votes, nothing more. -1 for Obama.
Chuck