Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: If I earned what my CEO earned... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
...well not my CEO. The CEO of the Holding company that owns the company, that owns my company.

But if I earned in a single year, what that guy earned last year, and divided that amount into my usual annual salary I could last...


...437.5 years.

and I'm not 'poor'. My partner doesn't work to spend time at home to raise our kid.

Crazy.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Italian Seismologist
United Kingdom
norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
[The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was not convincing people he didn't exist, but convincing them that he was God.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
last year (before returning to uni) it took me a year to earn what UEAs director of admissions earns in 2 days...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now how long does it take? 20 minutes?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Italian Seismologist
United Kingdom
norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
[The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was not convincing people he didn't exist, but convincing them that he was God.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
i am earning £1300/month now (for being a student), back then it was £240 a month..
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How many of you work the hours and have the skills that you CEO has? devil

I know for a fact that i don't.......
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
nothing but static
New Zealand
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I work longer hours, and there is no way on gods green earth he
could do my job.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
How many of you work the hours and have the skills that you CEO has? devil

I know for a fact that i don't.......


He might put in more hours and have more skills. It seems unlikely to me that he has 437.5 years worth of more hours and skills.
13 
 Thumb up
0.26
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Page
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
How many of you work the hours and have the skills that you CEO has? :devil:

I know for a fact that i don't.......


He might put in more hours and have more skills. It seems unlikely to me that he has 437.5 years worth of more hours and skills.


As decided by who?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
How many of you work the hours and have the skills that you CEO has? devil

I know for a fact that i don't.......


Yes, sorry. To put it into context, he does work just over 16 thousand hours a week. That's quite a skill in itself.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GazPAge wrote:
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
How many of you work the hours and have the skills that you CEO has? devil

I know for a fact that i don't.......


He might put in more hours and have more skills. It seems unlikely to me that he has 437.5 years worth of more hours and skills.


As decided by who?


Well I suppose in practise, as decided by the CEO. Which I guess is the problem
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe he just has a much better union than me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Italian Seismologist
United Kingdom
norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
[The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was not convincing people he didn't exist, but convincing them that he was God.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greendan wrote:
Maybe he just has a much better union than me.


or maybe (as is the case a lot) he was born into money and/or the company and actually has very little skill at anything other than being able to exploit those below them.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Page
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
femgoth wrote:
Greendan wrote:
Maybe he just has a much better union than me.


or maybe (as is the case a lot) he was born into money and/or the company and actually has very little skill at anything other than being able to exploit those below them.


Shareholders should fire him then and get someone cheaper. Not anyone else's business what he gets paid. If he took an 80% pay cut, that money goes to the shareholders, not the workers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
This Guy
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
I think of corporate compensation by dividing employees into 3 groups: vision, core, and support.

Vision: the employee's contribution make the company unique. If that employee were to leave it would fundamentally alter the company. Steve Jobs being an excellent example. The pool for these is small, as testing for vision is challenging: these people typically prove themselves by their actions, which can only happen if they were given a chance to demonstrate vision elsewhere. Rewarding tested vision employees can end up being expensive, but not as expensive as the damage a bad vision employee can do to a company.

Core: the employee performs core functions unique to the area in which the product competes. An AI programmer for a video game company, for example. The quality of these employees' contributions can distinguish a company or hurt it, but in smaller measure than vision. Core contributors' competency can be learned, measured, and demonstrated more easily. Losing a core employee can slow down a project, but won't derail the company.

Support: People who do common functions not core to the business. It doesn't mean they aren't highly skilled: just that their contribution won't make or break the company.

I'm a web developer. I'm on the bubble of being a vision contributor within my department, but a support contributor in the context of the company. I could be a vision contributor if I were at a business that was solely web.

Gotta run,but I hope this makes sense.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
the manatee
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I earned what my CEO earns, I'd have a much better office.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aetheros said it much better than I did.

and to take my post above futher,

At the end of the day, Aresenal could hire me to be their Striker for considerably less than Robin van Persie makes and I could fill the position - but I would be tremendously less effective than Robin.

Just like Apple could have hired me or you to be CEO instead of Steve Jobs - there is little doubt that Apple would not be where it is today if I was in charge. It takes tremendous skill to run a company well - and I STRONGLY beleive that very few people on this board have the needed skills.

Now, I will not deny that there are CEOs out there that are overpaid and underqualified - but that is an issue between the company, the shareholders and the board.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Now, I will not deny that there are CEOs out there that are overpaid and underqualified - but that is an issue between the company, the shareholders and the board.


Not really. Or it depends. If some system of board members and shareholders running companies only ends up concentrating money in the hands of people who:

a) Are rich already

and

b) Aren't competent at jobs that have knock on effects on the rest of the economy,

then it's very much an issue we should all be worried about, and try to do something about.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
nothing but static
New Zealand
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
Now, I will not deny that there are CEOs out there that are overpaid and underqualified - but that is an issue between the company, the shareholders and the board.


Not really. Or it depends. If some system of board members and shareholders running companies only ends up concentrating money in the hands of people who:

a) Are rich already

and

b) Aren't competent at jobs that have knock on effects on the rest of the economy,

then it's very much an issue we should all be worried about, and try to do something about.


corporate governance is aimed at increasing the power of
senior executives and the board at the expense of general
shareholders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK - so you think that the board/shareholders/etc. will benefit from having an incompetent at the helm and that they try and do that?????

Also, your are suggesting a level of state controlled capitalism that I am quite frankly uncomfortable with (i.e. to big to fail in the US).

But, hey, lets keep up the idea that CEOs are a bunch of overpaid oligarchs who can get replaced with no impact to corporate performance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
OK - so you think that the board/shareholders/etc. will benefit from having an incompetent at the helm and that they try and do that?????


No, I think shareholders and board members often work in a "you scratch my back..." and old boys network world, where pay is not necessarily connected to performance and more to do with who you know and whether you are in or not.

If someone getting a board membership because his father will give a big contract to some other company that another board member has stakes in leads to knock on effects within that company that cost me my job in a unrelated field (which is not that usual an event, especially if they are about to jump ship and go somewhere else), then of course it's my business. The economy is interconnected.

Capitalism is only good if it works. If non-interference leads to banks being too big to fail, and situations where the government must step in to prevent terrible recessions, then clearly something is going wrong with the system of shareholders and board members. The business world currently rewards "good" short term thinking, and that can be very bad for long term business. But why would shareholders or board members care about the company they were at 3 years ago? Shareholders might have bought and sold their shares 20 times since then, and board members can jump about too.

Some CEOs are good at their jobs. Not all of them are. And that concerns a great deal more people than the board members and shareholder when it comes to the big multi-nationals. There are plenty of ways to make money from a failing company.

You might be uncomfortable with governments interfering with businesses. I don't like it either. But I'm much more uncomfortable with businesses doing whatever they like.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's another fun little story.

My company is very successful at what we do. In 2007 we got bought out by Company 1 who in turn are owned by the Holding company I mentioned earlier.
Now, after this buy out very little changed day-to-day for us who work at the coal face.
Then about 18 months later we got told we were changing stationery suppliers. We had used the same local supplier for years, they knew us, we knew them. Then we were told we were changing to this very large, very well known (more well known in the States I belive) supplier.

So I did some digging...(amazing what you can find out on the internet).

Turns out about 3 months before we were told to change, a Board member had left the Large Stationery company and joined the board of our Holding Company.

WHAT A COINCEDENCE!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bojan Ramadanovic
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
OK - so you think that the board/shareholders/etc. will benefit from having an incompetent at the helm and that they try and do that?????


No, I think shareholders and board members often work in a "you scratch my back..." and old boys network world, where pay is not necessarily connected to performance and more to do with who you know and whether you are in or not.

If someone getting a board membership because his father will give a big contract to some other company that another board member has stakes in leads to knock on effects within that company that cost me my job in a unrelated field (which is not that usual an event, especially if they are about to jump ship and go somewhere else), then of course it's my business. The economy is interconnected.

Capitalism is only good if it works. If non-interference leads to banks being too big to fail, and situations where the government must step in to prevent terrible recessions, then clearly something is going wrong with the system of shareholders and board members. The business world currently rewards "good" short term thinking, and that can be very bad for long term business. But why would shareholders or board members care about the company they were at 3 years ago? Shareholders might have bought and sold their shares 20 times since then, and board members can jump about too.

Some CEOs are good at their jobs. Not all of them are. And that concerns a great deal more people than the board members and shareholder when it comes to the big multi-nationals. There are plenty of ways to make money from a failing company.

You might be uncomfortable with governments interfering with businesses. I don't like it either. But I'm much more uncomfortable with businesses doing whatever they like.


Shareholders may sell - but for every sell there is a buy. Share buyer is buying into all the bad long-term decisions previous owner signed onto and either demands price cut for that or is silly and hopes to pass the hot-potato to yet another buyer before chickens come home to roost.

I grant, *sometimes* you can fool your customers but sooner or later shareholders will pay for their bad decisions. As a rule - most companies are not run like that because most shareholders are a) not day-traders and b) understand the risks of wrecking the long-term future of the firm for the sake of temporary payout.

Now, it is true that some executives have much more short-termist view but that is standard agency problem and is solved partially by trying to align interests of the executive with that of shareholders but more importantly (and less popular politically) by changing the corporate governance to maximally empower the shareholders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bramadan wrote:
Shareholders may sell - but for every sell there is a buy. Share buyer is buying into all the bad long-term decisions previous owner signed onto and either demands price cut for that or is silly and hopes to pass the hot-potato to yet another buyer before chickens come home to roost.


Sure, but no shareholder thinks that they are that shareholder who will be left with the hot-potato at the end.

A shareholder knows that someone will be left with the hot potato when everything goes wrong, but if no shareholder think that this will be them, then nothing the shareholders do will encourage long term decision making. At least, not until it's too late.

I'm not saying this always happens, most (big) companies are pretty stable and like it that way. But it certainly does happen, and happens far too much.

bramadan wrote:
Now, it is true that some executives have much more short-termist view but that is standard agency problem and is solved partially by trying to align interests of the executive with that of shareholders but more importantly (and less popular politically) by changing the corporate governance to maximally empower the shareholders.


Absolutely. But I think there's also an issue of shareholder culture as well.

Still, my initial point was that this is something we should all be worried about. It's not just an issue between shareholders and board members.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.