Are you joking, or perhaps being hyperbolic to make a point? Because if you seriously think you could run a company like HP without being laughed out of the place, I don’t know what to tell you. You have no idea what a job like that entails on a day to day basis.
Sure can. If by “probably 80%” you mean “not anywhere in the ballpark”, I’ll even buy it. I’ll wonder about the reasoning behind such silly definitions, but as long as you define your terms, sure.
I’ve seen the wiki pages and don’t dispute anything in them. They just don’t back up your claim. On those pages, I haven’t seen the math that says that those earning between $220-249K control 80% of the wealth of all people earning less than $250K. I’m still waiting on it, but not really holding my breath, based on the quality of everything else you’ve “contributed” to this thread. How’s that whole “CEOs can’t serve on the boards of other companies” claim working out for you?
Yeah, I know, since I’m the one who made that clear to you.
Sure there is. No one is claiming otherwise. In fact, I stated as such.
Sure, but for your claim to stand, the $220-249k earners “probably” have four times the wealth of all of the $0-219k earners combined.
Got math? No? I’m shocked.
Can I try? I sit in boardrooms on a regular basis, and work very closely with the CEO (a quite good one who is not overpaid) of a publicly traded company. I do know what a job like that entails.
Do you have any evidence that the highest paid CEOs are worth their money on average? I have evidence (PDF) to the contrary. Actually, the evidence is that highly compensated CEOs of small companies, especially those with a shareholder with a significant amount of ownership, do better than their underpaid peers, but that highly compensated CEOs of the larger companies actually do worse than their underpaid peers. Do you have data that says otherwise?
So even the bad CEOs are worthy of respect?
If I came from a rich, well connected family I could show up to work every day drunk and fall asleep during meetings and everyone would pretend nothing was wrong. And when I ran the company into the ground I’d just be handed another. But if I don’t come from a wealthy well connected family, I can be a workaholic genius and I’m much more likely to be one of the worker drones watching the rich drunkard run the company into the ground than I am to be in charge.
America isn’t the meritocracy you think it is.
Jesus, what kind of industries are you guys talking about? I work in the manufacturing and tech sector, and there are no CEOs like this.
I’m not saying they are all worthy of respect. I’m saying that it’s a job that requires skills. Just because there are bad doctors doesn’t mean that a name picked from a hat can do surgery as well as even the worst doctor.
snicker I trust you are aware that the current CEO of HP is ducking a subpoena from Oracle, in order to not testify how his former company stole software.
WSJ link. I guess you’re right - asterion is probably too honest to qualify to be the CEO of HP. Yep, boards can do no wrong.
I never said that! Again, just because a Surgeon is a corrupt douchebag doesn’t mean that an average person can walk into that job and do as well. There are skills required to perform at even a basic level.
And just because someone is a CEO doesn’t mean they have those basic skills. Or care to employ them constructively if they do.
Okay, I’ll concede that maybe I couldn’t do better. I do doubt that I could do much worse than Fiorina or Kindler. I’m sure I could also put together as bad a run for Senate as Fiorina did as well.
Sure, it requires skills. Skills that a good many of us, being educated and experienced Dopers, are likely to possess.
I mean, my resume has two entries for CIO or Director of IT on it and I KNOW about half of the CEOs I worked with were seat-warmers. I could easily have done a better job than the owners of three out of the five companies I’ve worked for. It’s not hard to have enough management acumen (provided you’ve been a manager at any level) to be able to think you could do a better job than, say, Carly “Crash and Burn” Fiorina.
Yes indeed. The bankers who caused their companies to fail and took governments down with them, deserve all the mega millions they got paid. It takes a well educated and well placed person to do that kind of damage and not go to jail. What kind of special person did it take to dream up swaps and thought of selling bad mortgages across the globe. They also knew enough to pay off the rating agencies like S&P . The very same agency that has downgraded the American credit rating. Those bastards should have been in jail. They admitted they did not properly rate the mortgages and the packages in front of a congressional panel. But as always, they walk free and rich because they are such special people.
The term you are looking for is interlocking directorate, and anti-trust laws prevent it in cases where the two companies could be considered acting as one.
That’s how it worked out for me. How’s the little bee in your bonnet?
Two companies don’t need to act as one in order for CEOs who also serve on boards in unrelated industries to vote up pay increases for CEOs so that the average pay of CEOs goes up so that they can negotiate their own salaries from their board, including fellow CEOs, on the grounds that average CEO pay is rising.
But I don’t really expect this to engender any response other than a the usual strawmannery or devil’s advocacy.
http://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/apmacro/Dave/wealthdistribution.htm
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, **leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). **In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
The bottom 80% of wage earners have only 16% of total wealth in America. When a spaceship leaves with 34% you have 66% left. The bottom 80% will have 24% of the remaining wealth. Hence my statement that after the top earners leave with their wealth, the next group will the lions share of what’s left over, so I guess you’re right, it’s not 20%. That’s disparity in America, the bottom have very very little.
That wasn’t the question. But would you like to get into share holder voting now?
Board of directors also fire CEOs so while the average pay may go up, the average life span goes down. And there is currently a lot of research suggesting that boards are too quick to fire and overlook the costs associated.
The average life expectancy of the average CEO is now somewhere between 30 and 40 months.
What about the CEO of banks that didn’t fail despite a massive financial collapse? Do they deserve anything?
You wouldn’t happen to have a cite backing up that claim would you?
Meh, but how long do they spend between jobs? How hard is it for them to find a new job?
Basically, no sob story in the world is going to really impress upon me that someone making 4.5x as much as I am (at minimum) has it rough at all. Especially when 60% of the CEOs I have worked for couldn’t lead a group of alcoholics to a case of Jack Daniels without going over budget and alienating half the employees.
So put your hat in the ring. What’s stopping you? Quit wasting so much time on the internet and go get a CEO position. Then report back to us on your findings, we’ll still be here.
If you could do the job better, and cheaper, why haven’t they hired you for the position? Why haven’t you started your own business that you could run better?
Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis - Wikipedia The bankers p[aid them millions to rate their crap as AAA when it deserved a D. have you been living under a rock?