The $145 Million CEO

[SagaLore]

Is there any science behind these numbers, or do you simply have solid opinion on what constitutes "enough money" and "fair compensation"?

It is my opinion. I based it on my feeling that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed and excel, and always have a higher goal to attain to drive that motivation to succeed and excel, but not at the cost and detriment of others. If the CEO wants to make millions of dollars, then he/she should be allowed to - as long as the people helping him/her make those millions can ride his/her coattails. If the CEO wants to raise the salary ceiling, then the least paid employees to be paid more. I personally think this makes more sense than trying to legislate minimum wage and raise taxes in order to prevent a complete money vacuum.

 

[silverpig]

Yes you could. Unions have held (and do hold) companies hostage over pay. They don't have to negotiate as much as demand what they want.

It's not nearly the same thing. Not even close.

 

[zsdersw]

It's not nearly the same thing. Not even close.

Then explain the pay/benefit disparities between union and non-union workers.

 

[silverpig]

Then explain the pay/benefit disparities between union and non-union workers.

Still not the same at all. Come back to me when unions set, decide, and approve their own salaries.

Some (not all) CEOs choose the board and sit on it as well. The board then sets the CEO's compensation.

The logical parallel would be the union choosing and hiring the employer's negotiator.

 

[zsdersw]

Still not the same at all. Come back to me when unions set, decide, and approve their own salaries.

Some (not all) CEOs choose the board and sit on it as well. The board then sets the CEO's compensation.

The logical parallel would be the union choosing and hiring the employer's negotiator.

Of course it's not exactly the same... never said it was. I said it's the same in the sense that union employees play a big role in determining their own pay/benefits.

 

[silverpig]

That argument could also apply to unions in the sense that they provide their members with a lot of influence over their own pay.

Of course it's not exactly the same... never said it was. I said it's the same in the sense that union employees play a big role in determining their own pay/benefits.

It's not even close to the same. The argument could not at all apply to unions. The mechanism is entirely different.

 

[Bowfinger]

Of course it's not exactly the same... never said it was. I said it's the same in the sense that union employees play a big role in determining their own pay/benefits.

Yes, like apples and airplanes are the same in the sense that both are things. So other than being fundamentally different, they are the same.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, like apples and airplanes are the same in the sense that both are things. So other than being fundamentally different, they are the same.

No, like apples and oranges are the same in the sense that both are fruit and both are round.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, like apples and oranges are the same in the sense that both are fruit and both are round.

Except the comparison between CEOs on their own boards and union employees isn't anywhere close to an apples to oranges comparison. They literally have virtually nothing in common.

 

[zsdersw]

Except the comparison between CEOs on their own boards and union employees isn't anywhere close to an apples to oranges comparison. They literally have virtually nothing in common.

They both heavily influence their own pay. That's not "virtually nothing in common".

 

[senseamp]

No, like apples and oranges are the same in the sense that both are fruit and both are round.

Negotiating for compensation as a group is not the same as having your group decide on your compensation. But nice diversion, looks like you ran out of excuses, now trying to change the subject.

 

[zsdersw]

Negotiating for compensation as a group is not the same as having your group decide on your compensation. But nice diversion, looks like you ran out of excuses, now trying to change the subject.

Who said it was exactly the same? I didn't. It is the same, though, in the way I indicated.

 

[Texashiker]

If that private company receives public money there is a valid claim that the public money should be paid back in full before anyone in that company gets a raise,

Since the company is in the medical supply business, the company probably receives money from medicaid and medicare.

 

[Bowfinger]

Who said it was exactly the same? I didn't. It is the same, though, in the way I indicated.

Apples and airplanes are the same too, in the way that both come in different colors. But, but, but ... I never said they're exactly the same, just the same in the way I indicated.

In a meaningless way, of course, but it's a way.

 

[silverpig]

Who said it was exactly the same? I didn't. It is the same, though, in the way I indicated.

Which again, is a non-point because the mechanism is entirely different.

Your statement is either logically wrong or completely irrelevant.

 

[Patranus]

Since the company is in the medical supply business, the company probably receives money from medicaid and medicare.

And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?
Go find another medical supply company that has the capabilities to do such volume they can make a 1% profit margin and still make money.

Oh, thats right, that requires the "doers" to make something, something liberal hippies don't understand.

 

[Bowfinger]

And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?

Which may simply show they waste a ton of money, e.g., on executive compensation.

 

[blackangst1]

Which may simply show they waste a ton of money, e.g., on executive compensation.

It may, but as has already been explained, the CEO's compensation, for example, is .05% of the budget. I sincerely doubt the sum total of all the CxO's compensation tops .5%. So maybe not too.

 

[IBMer]

And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?
Go find another medical supply company that has the capabilities to do such volume they can make a 1% profit margin and still make money.

Oh, thats right, that requires the "doers" to make something, something liberal hippies don't understand.

Profit margins only matter if they are negative. Anything positive will be manipulated till the point where they have the least tax burden.

 

[HomerJS]

And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?
Go find another medical supply company that has the capabilities to do such volume they can make a 1% profit margin and still make money.

Oh, thats right, that requires the "doers" to make something, something liberal hippies don't understand.

If this guy were the only doer in the company they wouldn't be profitable.

How about some props for the average joes in that company who bust their asses and get their benefits cut.

 

[silverpig]

It may, but as has already been explained, the CEO's compensation, for example, is .05% of the budget. I sincerely doubt the sum total of all the CxO's compensation tops .5%. So maybe not too.

2% to 2.5% is not negligible.

Net income for the past year for his company was ~$1.6 billion. He may have 0.05% of total revenue, but he's also got 10% of net income.

 

[zsdersw]

Apples and airplanes are the same too, in the way that both come in different colors. But, but, but ... I never said they're exactly the same, just the same in the way I indicated.

In a meaningless way, of course, but it's a way.

Meaningless to you, but you're not the authority on what does and doesn't have meaning or relevance.

 

[zsdersw]

Which again, is a non-point because the mechanism is entirely different.

Your statement is either logically wrong or completely irrelevant.

The mechanism is not entirely different. Management negotiates with unions like CEOs negotiate with boards... and unions strong-arm the management by threatening strikes while CEOs strong-arm boards by, essentially, attaining majority support.

 

[Texashiker]

And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?
Go find another medical supply company that has the capabilities to do such volume they can make a 1% profit margin and still make money. Oh, thats right, that requires the "doers" to make something, something liberal hippies don't understand.

Where are most of their products made?

 

[zsdersw]

Since the company is in the medical supply business, the company probably receives money from medicaid and medicare.

Of what relevance is that? It competes for Medicare/Medicaid dollars like any other medical supply company.