Do companies need to pay CEOs etc. so much?

KyussBeeshop

Walter H Price wrote: »

The point is the majority , the vast majority to be honest are not in dire poverty most people are living relatively comfortable lives in Ireland. we have plenty of mechanisms to support the less well off people, from disadvantaged backgrounds. |In global terms this is a wealthy society , you are in the global top 10% if you have about €55'000 in cash and assets total combined http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475 , average income here is around €30k per annum as far as i can remember. Like i'm falling to see how any of this stuff really applies here.

We have the supports , Welfare , Grants , State funded education and health , medical cards for those who cant afford primary care , prescriptions and with long term disability. Nearly all kids will go national primary school and only a few will be privately educated at second level , even at that colleges have access programs for kids from disadvantaged background to level that playing field. We have state pensions to ensure old people have some standard of living and a minimum wage to ensure people in low paying employment have a reasonable income.

This is all the likes of Chomsky and Bernie Saunders were looking to implement in the states, to be honest i cant see how the cards are stacked against anyone here . i have seen it in the states and its obvious , like glaringly obvious people born into poverty die in poverty and have little or no way out, that's not the case here , it simply is not the case. Here you can be born into a poor family and educated to 3rd level with state support if you apply yourself. It really irritates me when people compare here to the states there not even nearly similar systems.

You're sidestepping the point, which is that we live in an economic system, where people are held down for others to succeed. That on its own is not just or acceptable (nor necessary to have a wealthy and functional economy) - neither is it sustainable in it's current form.

The rest of what you post there, are talking points aimed at justifying the current system - I disagree with those points, but I'm not going to go into them, because it's pointless when there is no acknowledgement of the flaws in the current system, only excuses aimed at justifying that system.

witchgirl26

Earthhorse wrote: »

There's no meaningful difference as far as I can see aside from the morality of it. Consumers of a traditional private organisation have as much say as donators to charity; they can spend their money elsewhere. They have equal influence in both cases.

The difference is that charities generally do not have shareholders who can hold a CEO accountable and people donate money to go towards a cause, to help those in need in some way, not to pay a sometimes over inflated salary to a CEO.

A traditional organisation buy a product knowing that it's produced to be sold at a price and for the company to make a profit and pay staff. There is a massive difference. Otherwise why were people so horrified with what happened at Rehab?

I don't get what is so difficult to grasp about that. It's not about morality, it's more about the basic make-up of the different type of organisations.

Water John

Whilst absolute poverty worldwide is dropping, this is the first generation in many parts of the world, worse off than the previous gen. That is the reason for so much unease, a la Brexit and Trump.
Before whilst not spectacular one had a solid job. The new gen have to make do with contracts, exceptionally long hours for little money or reward. Yet, at the same time senior management and CEOs are becoming more of an elite and much higher paid.
That is the point where societal fracture will erupt. We have a society moving in a less equal direction and CEO pay is the visible face of that.

Capt'n Midnight

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

In which case the contacts need to be written with far more focus on performance.

And most importantly the focus should not be on short term performance.

It's easy for a new exec to trade on a companies reputation for a quick profit , collect bonus and jump ship before the punters realise they've been sold a pup. Too many brands have been trashed over the years. Or pump and dump the stock. Or raid the pension fund. Or do a deal with your former company. Look at Nokia and Microsoft.

No exec should be rewarded for setting up a company for a major fall.

maninasia

TimeToShine wrote: »

The CEO is responsible for the companies vision and awareness as well as propelling it forward in the market.

Look what happened to Sears/Radioshack. CEO's who couldn't adapt to the environment and ended up running them into the ground. Now more than ever CEO's are earning their pay as they have to work in an incredibly fast-paced and dynamic environment. The tech world has exploded and one wrong move will bury you.

CEO's deserve what they get. Just because people at the bottom of the ant hill can't see what they do it doesn't mean they don't earn it. The real waste, especially in public companies, is the amount of money spent on useless middle and senior management roles.

The problem comes from the way they 'earn' their pay and how much they get paid.

Most get hired and then given a few years to see the performance of the company. Note- the performance of the company and it's stock is the prime rating mechanism. So that often depends on the smarts and ability of the company itself and it's management AND the macro environment. Usually far more than any one CEO. Big companies have teams of experienced senior management that effectively make most of the decisions.

The other issue is that CEOs get paid so much that they can still mess up and make million and millions within a few short years. Then it's off to the next gig or a nice early retirement.

We have a megabucks CEO in from
Another unrelated industrial company.
I know from hard experienceit will take at minimum one year and more like two before you can figure out what's going on in this market and technology side of things. In effect the CEO will need a couple of years to get up to speed meanwhile he's hired the usual expensive management consultants to justify whatever decisions that he will make in the end.

Wanderer78

great discussion happening on bbc news 24 program dateline london now regarding these issues

AndrewJRenko

Some interesting updates shared by Bernie Sanders on how things have changed in the US in recent decades, with vastly more income being retained at the top;

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/america-income-inequality-wealth-net-worth-charts