Usually the pay is determined by risk not by is it important for our society or not. To name a few.
CEO - Deals with all company's runnings and decisions, is the poster child of the company. If they screw up the company suffers for their decisions and behavior.
Athlete - High pressure to perform on a daily basis until the athlete break of each sport. High danger to themselves and others when playing said game. Risk of being disabled high. A face for the organization they are part of, what they say and do does effect the organization even when outside the game.
Teacher - Generally considered low risk and easy to replace. Unless popular among the community what they say/do does not effect the school as a whole.
Farmer - Keeps to themselves their only risk is of their own equipment and fiances, does not have anything to do with a public image.
Stocker/Fast Food - Easy to replace, zero effect to the company, issues are quickly taken care of and everyone forgets about what ever out burst happened within a week.
Whether I think it is right or wrong doesn't matter, it just matters that everything follows the common theme of risk for pay.
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
A farmer takes huge risks, risks that they have no control over.
Weather
As a farmer for 12yrs of my life. I completely understand what you are talking about. However, my point is the farmer is their own risk they are not a global face for anything. If farmer A went bankrupt no one would notice, there would be no news about it. Again it's risk to a global entity.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Usually the pay is determined by risk not by is it important for our society or not. To name a few.
CEO - Deals with all company's runnings and decisions, is the poster child of the company. If they screw up the company suffers for their decisions and behavior.
Athlete - High pressure to perform on a daily basis until the athlete break of each sport. High danger to themselves and others when playing said game. Risk of being disabled high. A face for the organization they are part of, what they say and do does effect the organization even when outside the game.
Teacher - Generally considered low risk and easy to replace. Unless popular among the community what they say/do does not effect the school as a whole.
Farmer - Keeps to themselves their only risk is of their own equipment and fiances, does not have anything to do with a public image.
Stocker/Fast Food - Easy to replace, zero effect to the company, issues are quickly taken care of and everyone forgets about what ever out burst happened within a week.
Whether I think it is right or wrong doesn't matter, it just matters that everything follows the common theme of risk for pay.
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
A farmer takes huge risks, risks that they have no control over.
Weather
As a farmer for 12yrs of my life. I completely understand what you are talking about. However, my point is the farmer is their own risk they are not a global face for anything. If farmer A went bankrupt no one would notice, there would be no news about it. Again it's risk to a global entity.
When things go sideways for farmers its usually not just one. Lets not forget the 1980's as well as other periods in recent history.
Yes, you are more important to society if you're a teacher,farmer, etc.
...those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym.
This whole topic in a nutshell.
Trite and "cute" but disgustingly wrong. People who spew that are those who have never taught, never appreciated what it takes to be a teacher, particularly in today's world.
Go spend a year or two as a substitute or as a full blown teacher and then come back and say that. Ugh.
I've worked in education for about 20 years now and that poster was 100% correct. These days you are not teaching much anyways, professional baby sitters. Kids these days have no 'real' parents. I bet some of these CEO's worked their booties off to get there, including the risks they took as well, something educators do not do.
Usually the pay is determined by risk not by is it important for our society or not. To name a few.
CEO - Deals with all company's runnings and decisions, is the poster child of the company. If they screw up the company suffers for their decisions and behavior.
Athlete - High pressure to perform on a daily basis until the athlete break of each sport. High danger to themselves and others when playing said game. Risk of being disabled high. A face for the organization they are part of, what they say and do does effect the organization even when outside the game.
Teacher - Generally considered low risk and easy to replace. Unless popular among the community what they say/do does not effect the school as a whole.
Farmer - Keeps to themselves their only risk is of their own equipment and fiances, does not have anything to do with a public image.
Stocker/Fast Food - Easy to replace, zero effect to the company, issues are quickly taken care of and everyone forgets about what ever out burst happened within a week.
Whether I think it is right or wrong doesn't matter, it just matters that everything follows the common theme of risk for pay.
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
A farmer takes huge risks, risks that they have no control over.
Weather
As a farmer for 12yrs of my life. I completely understand what you are talking about. However, my point is the farmer is their own risk they are not a global face for anything. If farmer A went bankrupt no one would notice, there would be no news about it. Again it's risk to a global entity.
When things go sideways for farmers its usually not just one. Lets not forget the 1980's as well as other periods in recent history.
Again, what entity are they part of? Usually "my last name Farm" which is owned by themselves, invested in by themselves.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
The real issue is that companies are structured by the old design where CEO is needed.
But there are companies that run successfully without CEOs - and that is the future IMO.
Yeah and they are very rare for a reason. And as far as effeciency in decison making it is laughable. Here is a good read, yes you can do it, but from a business perspective it is very ineffecient which is why this model has not really caught fire.
It's nice to dream about, but in the end one person guiding things and make the tough deciisions is a far better business model.
Here is a success story using this model take note however, this is based on the right people
Here is an even better example. Take the money and run. Get things going and pass CEo to the next guy. This is a pretty profitable business model.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I've worked in education for about 20 years now and that poster was 100% correct. These days you are not teaching much anyways, professional baby sitters. Kids these days have no 'real' parents. I bet some of these CEO's worked their booties off to get there, including the risks they took as well, something educators do not do.
The teaching to the test part of education definitely chased me out of the profession. However, the vast majority of teachers I know are not "can't do", but people who genuinely care for kids and the future. Are there shitty teachers? You bet there are. There are shitty employees of any profession and it's a tiresome trope that only the worst the world has to offer are teaching. It wasn't true in my case and isn't true of most of those I know who remain in increasingly difficult circumstances.
While perhaps not "risky" in the same way than those that are faced by farmers or professional athletes, there are risks and nearly insurmountable challenges in today's educational sphere.
Odd to use Farmers as an example in a thread about income equality and importance. Unless the farm is extremely niche it is most likely using low paid and/or migrant labor. If the farm is niche its probably producing enough product for a few expensive restaurants or specialty shops.
So the former is setup exactly like any other business, the latter has no impact on the extreme majority of humanity.
I think y'all are missing the point here. Board of Directors are made up of other CEO's. They do not want the salaries to decrease as it could come back to haunt them. Greed is as greed does.
For the longest time, in Japan, the CEO were only allowed to make 20X more than the lowest paid worker. This is no longer the case. It goes to greed and people out of touch with reality (can we talk about the US President also? SAME ISSUE).
There are CEOs out there, multiple CEOs, who earn less than $10M (base salary + bonuses + share perks etc.) running companies that make more profit than Activision Blizzard had in revenue e.g. HSBC made over $15B profit (not revenue).
So its a legitimate question. And one that shareholders should address. And all shareholders should vote even if they only have 1 share otherwise its passive acceptance.
Hsbc isnt a good example because they are so huge, they have multiple regional CEO's, it would be interesting to see the aggregate salary of the C-Suite
There are multiple other companies. Why isn't it a good example however? AB have multiple divisions with their own "presidents" and C level staff who are also .... very well paid.
How it compares with HSBC specifically? Well the culture is different. A lot of staff are "rewarded" not just regional CEOs etc. For the last few years they have been reporting 400+ employees getting over $1M+. Which is way more than just regional CEOs. Staggeringly - the salaries of just the AB board - just a few people - will be in the same order of magnitude as these top 400. Which is what happens when c. 3 staff at AB get $100M+. Until recently 2 EA execs got more than $100M - since Andrew Wilson wasn't the highest paid!
If HSBC used AB's metrics they would be paying their CEO .... $600M? Maybe a billion? And obviously anyone who complained - well that would just be envy right (cough). Whereas if AB used HSBCs metrics then the AB CEO would get ...... less than $1M.
Now - clearly - $1M wouldn't be "appropriate" lets agree! Comparisons with other companies though are clearly valid if the argument for CEOs being paid X is because they ... manage many staff, decide the strategic direction, oversee the moral well being of the company etc. etc. ... which they all do.
For what it is worth, i don't agree with comparing CEO salaries to the median employee salary.
Certain business have different structures and different products that require differing levels of low skilled labor.
Starbucks vs a pharmaceutical company for example.
You could compare it to average salary, and it would still be an exorbitant amount.
This amount of wealth concentration doesn't serve the greater good. But it was never intended to.
And if you dismiss those considerations it doesn't - I suggest - serve shareholder's good either.
I think y'all are missing the point here. Board of Directors are made up of other CEO's. They do not want the salaries to decrease as it could come back to haunt them. Greed is as greed does.
For the longest time, in Japan, the CEO were only allowed to make 20X more than the lowest paid worker. This is no longer the case. It goes to greed and people out of touch with reality (can we talk about the US President also? SAME ISSUE).
But a CEO making 20x the lowest paid worker is kind of silly. I think having a CEO's cap at 20x the lowest worker would actually hurt business greatly. You would end up making moving up the corporate ladder to not be worth the reward.
You would lose these people to other countries that would pay more.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasnt saying she was incorrect to express her feelings, i was saying her expressed feeling is something i disagree with.
It is painfully obvious that teaching is more important than entertainment. It is also fact that the average basketball player makes low 8 figures. Why is there such a gap?
The poster gave a suboptimal clue worded poorly, but a better clue is an easy formula.
Money brought in divided how many people and/or what is involved.
To teach all of america you need hundred of thousands of teachers to entertain the world via basketball, a group of 360 of the most talented men in the world can do it to the tune of net revenue of 7.6 billion.
That is how the world works. That is how people get paid. It may not be what you think is the right way for the world to work, but not sure there is a better system.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
This would not be an issue if directors pay had to be passed by shareholders, that is part of the company system that has ran away with itself.
The only reason this is happening in gaming is that gaming has become so lucrative, directors from outside the gaming industry were attracted to come in and they need mega money, which in turn slowly raises the salary of all directors in gaming.
This would not be an issue if directors pay had to be passed by shareholders, that is part of the company system that has ran away with itself.
The only reason this is happening in gaming is that gaming has become so lucrative, directors from outside the gaming industry were attracted to come in and they need mega money, which in turn slowly raises the salary of all directors in gaming.
Except the gaming industry is hardly "lucrative".
Can it be changed though? Well - technically - shareholders can reject the remuneration reports. They can even sack the board - technically. Two factors:
- fund managers may wield large blocks of shares and so have a greater say - and sometimes they do express "unhappiness". As they should since they may be managing e.g. pension funds on behalf of many people. An extra $100M dividend .... from multiple companies ... adds up. - individual shareholders not voting - which means the board wields their proxy; and the votes will be cast to approve the remuneration.
However if people start to vote "no" - if the salaries seem to "excessive" of course then - maybe - fund managers will be more likely to take notice and in turn express disquiet.
Usually the pay is determined by risk not by is it important for our society or not. To name a few.
CEO - Deals with all company's runnings and decisions, is the poster child of the company. If they screw up the company suffers for their decisions and behavior.
Athlete - High pressure to perform on a daily basis until the athlete break of each sport. High danger to themselves and others when playing said game. Risk of being disabled high. A face for the organization they are part of, what they say and do does effect the organization even when outside the game.
Teacher - Generally considered low risk and easy to replace. Unless popular among the community what they say/do does not effect the school as a whole.
Farmer - Keeps to themselves their only risk is of their own equipment and fiances, does not have anything to do with a public image.
Stocker/Fast Food - Easy to replace, zero effect to the company, issues are quickly taken care of and everyone forgets about what ever out burst happened within a week.
Whether I think it is right or wrong doesn't matter, it just matters that everything follows the common theme of risk for pay.
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
A farmer takes huge risks, risks that they have no control over.
Weather
As a farmer for 12yrs of my life. I completely understand what you are talking about. However, my point is the farmer is their own risk they are not a global face for anything. If farmer A went bankrupt no one would notice, there would be no news about it. Again it's risk to a global entity.
When things go sideways for farmers its usually not just one. Lets not forget the 1980's as well as other periods in recent history.
Again, what entity are they part of? Usually "my last name Farm" which is owned by themselves, invested in by themselves.
"In the 1980s, American farmers were hit hard by what were, at the time, the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. Droughts ravaged the fields, property values plunged, loan interest rates soared, thousands were forced off their land and faced foreclosure and bankruptcy. The number of suicides among male farmers in the Upper Midwest reached double the national average, according to a study by the National Farm Medicine Center. And in 1985, the Los Angeles Times dubbed farm policy one of the "toughest issues confronting Congress." "
Also, @sbford, you are incorrect in giving that poster a "wtf". What he says is 100% true.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wasnt saying she was incorrect to express her feelings, i was saying her expressed feeling is something i disagree with. It is painfully obvious that teaching is more important than entertainment. It is also fact that the average basketball player makes low 8 figures. Why is there such a gap?
The poster gave a suboptimal clue worded poorly, but a better clue is an easy formula.
Money brought in divided how many people and/or what is involved.
To teach all of america you need hundred of thousands of teachers to entertain the world via basketball, a group of 360 of the most talented men in the world can do it to the tune of net revenue of 7.6 billion.
That is how the world works. That is how people get paid. It may not be what you think is the right way for the world to work, but not sure there is a better system.
So then you should start of with, I disagree that you gave that poster a "wtf". Saying it is incorrect is forcing your opinion where as saying you disagree is expressing your own feelings. It's all about tone and in this PC culture tone is everything these days. Tone is making and breaking people all across the world. It's crazy when you think about it, really.
One thing we haven't touched on for sports is that the major sport federations are like their own society. They have salary and roster caps per team and use that to entice more talented players to come aboard. The federations themselves have fines, penalties and other "laws" which keeps the talent in check and revenue flowing in. The ridiculous amount of money paid to talent is from sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise, stadium venders and every team gets a cut into it, along with their own ticket sales, sponsors and merchandise, stadium vendors. It's really a one of kind revenue model that clearly speaks big gains.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
I wasnt saying she was incorrect to express her feelings
So then you should start of with, I disagree that you gave that poster a "wtf".
Reading comprehension or it's lack of.
He does not disagree with her giving "wtf", she can tag the post as she sees fit, however she is wrong thinking "wtf".
Oppinions can be wrong, and often are...especially on these boards.
I didn't know you were speaking for him. I didn't know you knew what he felt. That's some futuristic shit right there!
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
The US taxation system is what is causing this mess: because taxes are low or non-existent on value growth, all companies, instead of a sustainable business, chose the path of growth.
The CEOs are legally bound to provide a certain amount of growth per year. The shareholders don't want dividends (because taxes are too heavy on those) and want the value of their shares to increase so that they can sell them in the future for a tax-free profit.
As a result, every company based in the US (or whose market is in the US) is destined to become a stock-market entity above all sooner or later, leaving what "made them great" pragmatically behind.
We shouldn't be surprised that these CEOs are butchering their companies in our eyes, because that is irrelevant to their agenda. All that matters to their contract is that they provide growth.
I didn't know you were speaking for him. I didn't know you knew what he felt. That's some futuristic shit right there!
....well, I did point out your lack of reading comprehension already, at least you are consistent.
Glad you don't fall far from your role in this community cause you do such a good job at it.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I've worked in education for about 20 years now and that poster was 100% correct. These days you are not teaching much anyways, professional baby sitters. Kids these days have no 'real' parents. I bet some of these CEO's worked their booties off to get there, including the risks they took as well, something educators do not do.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
While perhaps not "risky" in the same way than those that are faced by farmers or professional athletes, there are risks and nearly insurmountable challenges in today's educational sphere.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So the former is setup exactly like any other business, the latter has no impact on the extreme majority of humanity.
For the longest time, in Japan, the CEO were only allowed to make 20X more than the lowest paid worker. This is no longer the case. It goes to greed and people out of touch with reality (can we talk about the US President also? SAME ISSUE).
How it compares with HSBC specifically? Well the culture is different. A lot of staff are "rewarded" not just regional CEOs etc. For the last few years they have been reporting 400+ employees getting over $1M+. Which is way more than just regional CEOs. Staggeringly - the salaries of just the AB board - just a few people - will be in the same order of magnitude as these top 400. Which is what happens when c. 3 staff at AB get $100M+. Until recently 2 EA execs got more than $100M - since Andrew Wilson wasn't the highest paid!
If HSBC used AB's metrics they would be paying their CEO .... $600M? Maybe a billion? And obviously anyone who complained - well that would just be envy right (cough). Whereas if AB used HSBCs metrics then the AB CEO would get ...... less than $1M.
Now - clearly - $1M wouldn't be "appropriate" lets agree! Comparisons with other companies though are clearly valid if the argument for CEOs being paid X is because they ... manage many staff, decide the strategic direction, oversee the moral well being of the company etc. etc. ... which they all do.
But a CEO making 20x the lowest paid worker is kind of silly. I think having a CEO's cap at 20x the lowest worker would actually hurt business greatly. You would end up making moving up the corporate ladder to not be worth the reward.
You would lose these people to other countries that would pay more.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
No one is incorrect to express their feelings, you'd do well to remember that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wasnt saying she was incorrect to express her feelings, i was saying her expressed feeling is something i disagree with. It is painfully obvious that teaching is more important than entertainment. It is also fact that the average basketball player makes low 8 figures. Why is there such a gap?
The poster gave a suboptimal clue worded poorly, but a better clue is an easy formula.
Money brought in divided how many people and/or what is involved.
To teach all of america you need hundred of thousands of teachers to entertain the world via basketball, a group of 360 of the most talented men in the world can do it to the tune of net revenue of 7.6 billion.
That is how the world works. That is how people get paid. It may not be what you think is the right way for the world to work, but not sure there is a better system.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
The only reason this is happening in gaming is that gaming has become so lucrative, directors from outside the gaming industry were attracted to come in and they need mega money, which in turn slowly raises the salary of all directors in gaming.
Can it be changed though? Well - technically - shareholders can reject the remuneration reports. They can even sack the board - technically. Two factors:
- fund managers may wield large blocks of shares and so have a greater say - and sometimes they do express "unhappiness". As they should since they may be managing e.g. pension funds on behalf of many people. An extra $100M dividend .... from multiple companies ... adds up.
- individual shareholders not voting - which means the board wields their proxy; and the votes will be cast to approve the remuneration.
However if people start to vote "no" - if the salaries seem to "excessive" of course then - maybe - fund managers will be more likely to take notice and in turn express disquiet.
http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2023006,00.html
The Entity they were part of is called the United States of America.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
One thing we haven't touched on for sports is that the major sport federations are like their own society. They have salary and roster caps per team and use that to entice more talented players to come aboard. The federations themselves have fines, penalties and other "laws" which keeps the talent in check and revenue flowing in. The ridiculous amount of money paid to talent is from sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise, stadium venders and every team gets a cut into it, along with their own ticket sales, sponsors and merchandise, stadium vendors. It's really a one of kind revenue model that clearly speaks big gains.
He does not disagree with her giving "wtf", she can tag the post as she sees fit, however she is wrong/incorrect thinking "wtf".
Oppinions can be wrong, and often are...especially on these boards.
The CEOs are legally bound to provide a certain amount of growth per year. The shareholders don't want dividends (because taxes are too heavy on those) and want the value of their shares to increase so that they can sell them in the future for a tax-free profit.
As a result, every company based in the US (or whose market is in the US) is destined to become a stock-market entity above all sooner or later, leaving what "made them great" pragmatically behind.
We shouldn't be surprised that these CEOs are butchering their companies in our eyes, because that is irrelevant to their agenda. All that matters to their contract is that they provide growth.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee