Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's crap like this that pisses me off. So I spend my hard earned money at a store and the people that stock the shelves and help me by directly interfacing with the customer get jack squat pay wise yet the CEO in another state that has only been in the store to do PR stuff gets his salary plus Millions more to say I quit. Last time I said I quit the only thing I got was a new job.
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's crap like this that pisses me off. So I spend my hard earned money at a store and the people that stock the shelves and help me by directly interfacing with the customer get jack squat pay wise yet the CEO in another state that has only been in the store to do PR stuff gets his salary plus Millions more to say I quit. Last time I said I quit the only thing I got was a new job.
Well, Im sure the former CEO of Home Depot was a little more qualified than you to run the company and IM sure his position held a bit more responsibility than those store stockers at your local home depot.
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
agreed or shall i say a greed, hardee har harOriginally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: oogabooga
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I am sure some people are going to justify it, just like they did with other CEOs, yet under this guy's leadership HD stock has languished.
It's funny that no matter how good or bad a big CEO is, he still gets paid like a king while the peons get paid like serfs.
If he's good he gets paid like a king for bringing the $$$
If he's bad he gets paid like a king... to leave?
It's amazing the market value CEO's have...
No, it's not amazing, it's shameful.
CEO's aren't paid like regular people. They aren't paid market wages, they are paid fixed wages by fellow buddies on cross-linked compensation boards. Other CEOs sit on those boards, voting in pay raises for each other so that their buddies will scratch their backs.
Stockholders have no power because the vast majority of most company's stocks are held by mutual funds or other institutions. These funds vote by proxy for usually around 70% of all publicly held stock. Amazingly, most fund managers either work for banks or used to be bankers, or know many. They send business to the bankers, who often grease the wheels for them. If they work for a bank they often are buddies with the CEO, because banks love to get bond offering, IPO, stock offering, M&A, or other investment bank fees. What's even funnier is that while mutual fund managers help banks make larger profits through buddy systems they also bilk investor's money by charging high fees or churning fund portfolios.
They then get soft-dollars or "IOU's" from banker brokers, who then pay for overhead of the company. That soft-dollar cost is passed to investors in mutual funds, but it lowers the overhead of the actual companies, equaling more profits and higher paychecks for fund managers and fund company CEOS.
The whole think is a massive circle-jerk of high paying and interlocked elites who do nothing but spend average worker's money. The real shame is that people think that it's a free-market capitalist way of doing business. Little do they realize that it's nothing but a wealth distribution system intended to suck money from the buttom and put it at the top.
Even more think that by lowering taxes of the wealthy it encourages "trickle-down" economics, but in reality it just allows more wealth retention by the higher ups. Further redistribution downwards is now limited by elimination of the estate tax. Thus, wealth sucked from the bottom stays at the top, creating a larger elite class while the lowers are sucked dry.
I see it every day as I work in corporate America. I am not some anti-establishment hippie, but I am a realist and those that ignore aggregious CEO pay are doomed to be sucked dry.
It used to be that CEOs made a lower multiple of the lower paid workers and got reimbursed for awesome performance and stayed level for mediocre or poor performance. Now, they get paid high no matter what, even if they sucked and wasted stockholder wealth.
It's quite sad actually, that people now congratulate them for mediocrity.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's crap like this that pisses me off. So I spend my hard earned money at a store and the people that stock the shelves and help me by directly interfacing with the customer get jack squat pay wise yet the CEO in another state that has only been in the store to do PR stuff gets his salary plus Millions more to say I quit. Last time I said I quit the only thing I got was a new job.
Well, Im sure the former CEO of Home Depot was a little more qualified than you to run the company and IM sure his position held a bit more responsibility than those store stockers at your local home depot.
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
What pisses me off is when people who have no idea what kind of work an executive does thinks they should make $210M. work closely with the top execs at a top 10 bank and I see the work. Not in any day of the year would they be worth $210M, or 2,000+ people equiv to a friend of mine that works for HD as a finance manager.
NO one man is worth 2,000 finance managers. NO one man is worth 6,000 cashiers. Especially if they haven't done much.
You people really have no idea how it works, I break it down for you and you still don't get it. Wonder why our federal debt is at 9TR? Because you refuse to realize.
Originally posted by: randal
Eh, not too big of a deal. Profits are up 150% on 5-year window which is pretty good. Stock -has- languished, but that's because of the way the company chose to distribute it's earnings into infrastructure, expansion, etc instead of just pleasing the shareholders.
$.02
Originally posted by: Savij
"He helped increase revenue and profits at Home Depot and increase the number of stores the company operates to more than 2,000. Home Depot's earnings per share have increased by approximately 150 percent over the last five years. But the public discussion about his pay and the company's stock price had become a distraction. "
one hundred fifty percent more profit per share. I don't know about you, but that sounds like some good work to me.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Savij
"He helped increase revenue and profits at Home Depot and increase the number of stores the company operates to more than 2,000. Home Depot's earnings per share have increased by approximately 150 percent over the last five years. But the public discussion about his pay and the company's stock price had become a distraction. "
one hundred fifty percent more profit per share. I don't know about you, but that sounds like some good work to me.
And he did all of that work? Must be rough being him.
Originally posted by: krunchykrome
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
Originally posted by: randal
Eh, not too big of a deal. Profits are up 150% on 5-year window which is pretty good. Stock -has- languished, but that's because of the way the company chose to distribute it's earnings into infrastructure, expansion, etc instead of just pleasing the shareholders.
$.02
Originally posted by: JS80
$20 million cash, rest is paper. Media overblowing it.
Does it come with more stress than being a brain surgeon? Or a soldier getting shot at in Iraq? So it has a lot a stress. Big deal. Lot's of jobs have a lot of stress. And there are lots of people working longer hours too that make peanuts. The reason these guys get paid so much money is because they effectively sign their own paychecks.Originally posted by: krunchykromeWell, Im sure the former CEO of Home Depot was a little more qualified than you to run the company and IM sure his position held a bit more responsibility than those store stockers at your local home depot.
210 Million is quite a lot of money, but it irritates me when I hear people b!tching about executive salaries and compensation. They get paid that much for a reason. They're running publicly traded companies, and that comes with significantly more stress than the cashier at home Depot.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: JS80
$20 million cash, rest is paper. Media overblowing it.
Doesn't make it any more right.
Paper is better than cash since it is much of it will be taxed as capital gains which are taxed much less than the highest rate for ordinary income. Plus, much of it will not be taxed until it is cashed out thus offering further tax deferrals. That's how the system works.Originally posted by: JS80
$20 million cash, rest is paper. Media overblowing it.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: randal
Eh, not too big of a deal. Profits are up 150% on 5-year window which is pretty good. Stock -has- languished, but that's because of the way the company chose to distribute it's earnings into infrastructure, expansion, etc instead of just pleasing the shareholders.
$.02
Yeah, maybe they chose to distribute their earnings to CEOs who don't even work there anymore Investors aren't stupid. If the company was really investing in expansion and future growth, and investors expected a return on that investment, stock would have gone up.
mogdigliani and miller need not apply, thenOriginally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: randal
Eh, not too big of a deal. Profits are up 150% on 5-year window which is pretty good. Stock -has- languished, but that's because of the way the company chose to distribute it's earnings into infrastructure, expansion, etc instead of just pleasing the shareholders.
$.02
Yeah, maybe they chose to distribute their earnings to CEOs who don't even work there anymore Investors aren't stupid. If the company was really investing in expansion and future growth, and investors expected a return on that investment, stock would have gone up.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: JS80
$20 million cash, rest is paper. Media overblowing it.
Doesn't make it any more right.
Originally posted by: KK
and goldman sachs people got what type bonuses this year? 16 billion?? 210 million is a drop in the bucket.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: JS80
$20 million cash, rest is paper. Media overblowing it.
Doesn't make it any more right.