Tech CEO gets 163 times his average worker's pay

[TheElectricChicken]

I don't care if they can layout a 30 layer PCB and program a trillions gate FPGA blindfolded - they probably cannot deal with the vision, skills, stress, pressure, timing, of a successful CEO.

Quit pretending they have more skills than some super-mom. They don't, they're just greedy liars who rob everyone for themselves and a few select friends, and if they have to throw people into the machinery, kill thousands by storing dangerous goods at a port, or sack everyone and move to a more exploitable location, they do. They're same as serial killers. No morals half the time.

[Galenbo]

In our country, such telecom CEO was payed a huge amount also, but he was worth it , because together with his political party he made entrepreneurship more difficult, made new competition impossible, and maintained oligopoly in the sector.
Worth it for the company and the shareholders, not for the millions of people who want better service and lower prices.

The only reason why I am against those wages, is that there's always a lot of back-room things going on, hidden contracts, covered-up actions, reward-positions, relationship swap deals etc.
No one is worth that much when everything is running decently.

[cimmo]

I don't care if they can layout a 30 layer PCB and program a trillions gate FPGA blindfolded - they probably cannot deal with the vision, skills, stress, pressure, timing, of a successful CEO.

Quit pretending they have more skills than some super-mom. They don't, they're just greedy liars who rob everyone for themselves and a few select friends, and if they have to throw people into the machinery, kill thousands by storing dangerous goods at a port, or sack everyone and move to a more exploitable location, they do. They're same as serial killers. No morals half the time.

"Why CEOs are 4X more likely to be psychopaths":
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/psychopath-jon-ronson-ceo-traits-2015-5

"Why a Disproportionate Number of CEOs Are Psychopaths":
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproportionate-number-of-ceos-are-psychopaths

From the second website:
1. They understand how to use people for the most gain.
Psychopaths have a tendency to understand the assets that individuals bring to the table. They can sum people up easily in terms of their strengths, their value, easily detaching from more nuanced or interpersonal aspects of their character. Psychopaths know how to boil someone down to their bare bones value – and that makes them "good managers," at least as far as the bottom line is concerned, because they can quickly assess someone's most valuable assets and capitalize on those traits.

2. They're master manipulators.
Psychopaths are cunning, and they use their manipulation skills to get people to do things they might not normally do. They use charm at first, which can be very hard to see through, and then guilt, or even force, to get people to act the way they want them to. These traits might help CEOs to get their jobs in the first place, and they certainly can use these traits to help keep them.

3. They think they're special.
An inflated sense of self-worth is a primary feature of psychopathy. These people often possess a grand view of their talents and potential, and this kind of confidence might help propel them into leadership positions. Additionally, willingness to take calculated risks is a very common trait of CEOs when compared with non-CEO executives – and confidence helps psychopaths hit that mark.

4. Stoic, emotional self-control helps them thrive.
An ability to stay calm and emotionally level under pressure is a helpful trait for CEOs. Pressure doesn't impact psychopaths the way it does others. Perhaps it's because they lack the empathy, or perhaps it's because of their lack of remorse and guilt; either way, psychopaths stay calm even when most everyone else falls apart. And, that makes them stand out in the business world.

[TheElectricChicken]

They're same as serial killers. No morals half the time.

"Why CEOs are 4X more likely to be psychopaths":

"Why a Disproportionate Number of CEOs Are Psychopaths":
[/quote]

Exactly my point. They'll happily kill people in Bhopal or with roundup or DDT or whatever it takes to make a few extra sense. That is WHY they have to be limited or stopped. Period. Because they are incapable of limiting themselves. The minute you leave them to their own devices in a non communist/soviet/socialist/whatever, they're turning 8 year olds into dogfood. Literally. Would they take too much of the cake than is their share ? well Duh !

[zapta]

Nothing wrong with that. Others don't have to provide us housing at our preferred locations.

It's more like people who live there are being forced out because they can't afford rising rents and taxes, or they need to move out of their parent's homes but can't afford a place of their own.

See Zapta, do you hate freedom. What you love is "might makes right", with the might in this case being money. If you have money, you can shit on other people as much as you like, because money makes it right. It's your freedom to defecate on others. Fuck their freedom, they are poor, freedom isn't free, it costs money.

Your entire argument is that a person's positive freedom is proportional to their wealth. That's an extreme right wing position. You are the enemy of freedom, a supporter of the tyranny of the privileged elite.

Mojo Chan, you are confusing between owning a property and renting somebody else's property.

As for taxes, if the government takes excessive taxes, take your complain to the government.

[VK3DRB]

Ok, take the 'average worker' engineer and put them in the CEO position.

I don't care if they can layout a 30 layer PCB and program a trillions gate FPGA blindfolded - they probably cannot deal with the vision, skills, stress, pressure, timing, of a successful CEO. There are very few people that have the range of skill to do it. Of course there are some that are salesmen that sell themselves as CEO material but generally don't last long, especially in a public company. The good ones have a unique set of skills that the average worker does not and they are responsible for $billions.

Yes, I would like to see a much bigger hammer for those that fail, cheat, or steal but that is different from a blanket comaplaint about how much CEO's make relative to the workers. I have been in the entertainment biz for decades. The on-set crew works ridiculously hard and most of the them are quite sharp. They do not make $20mil per movie like the A-list actors because they cant act. The actors literally pretend and 'make believe' for a living working fewer hours than anyone. But....they are the glue that binds the whole project together and create the demand that justifies the paycheck.

Same with the live music industry. Classic example... The Funk Brothers, the most widely recorded musicians in history. The Funk Brothers have played on more number-one hits than the Beatles, Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys combined. Their music has been heard by more people than anyone else ever. But they were not paid much. Without the talents of the Funk Brothers, a lot of big names would never have become stars.

You will find many smart engineers have intelligence and vision to be a CEO, but they lack the ego, self promotion, marketing and sales skills and are too honest. They don't talk enough and are too hard working to "delegate" their work to others.

I think the excuse that "talented" CEO's are worth their $10 million salary is complete .

This Australian government employee is on about 10 times the Prime Minister's salary... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-11/critics-question-australia-post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682.
Australia Post cost me $100,000 because they failed to deliver a registered letter within a reasonable time. The fools literally lost some irreplaceable cargo of mine, with some priceless family items in it. I would not even trust Australia Post to run a barbecue without totally f***ing it up.

[zapta]

I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted it.

Mojo Chan, respect from you is very low on my priority list.

[miguelvp]

(source: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/highest-paid-bosses/)

So let us take the current top CEO and how his silver spoon helped him reach that goal:

http://www.cwhonors.org/archives/histories/Hammergren.pdf

Hard work, focus and vision more than anything else. And even if he started college with the purpose of being an engineer, he drifted into marketing/business while in college.

Edit:
2nd top CEO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lauren

Edit:
3rd one on the list, I start to see a pattern of silver spoons:
http://urbanland.uli.org/capital-markets/michael-d-fascitelli-markets-success-giving-back/

Edit:
4th one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/11/21/rich-kinders-energy-kingdom/

Far from the oil patch, Kinder grew up in the land of Mark Twain, paper route and all. He was born in Cape Girardeau, Mo., on the banks of the Mississippi. His dad was an insurance salesman and his mother a schoolteacher. He served in Vietnam as an Army captain, attended the University of Missouri and got a law degree. The 1970s were rocky. He filed for bankruptcy in 1980 after a bad investment in a Howard Johnson’s (though he later repaid his debts in full).

Anyways, I'm done looking for CEOs origins you can do the remaining ones if you have the time.

[zapta]

Mojo Chan, respect from you is very low on my priority list.

Answer the points put to you, stop evading. Or just admit that I'm right.

I don't think you are right at all, actually very extreme left.

I answered your questions but you keep ignoring anything that doesn't fit your socialist dogma.

My advice to you is to go out and enjoy your own life instead of dictating to other people how they should live their own. Give it a try, you may even find life somewhat enjoyable.

[miguelvp]

Took all of 20 seconds a list of twenty for you.

http://indigest.biz/2011/09/ceos-who-inherited-their-jobs/

I can also add off the top of my head the Shaw brothers, my current ISP's retired CEOs. Want some laughs look into those two clowns.

Fixed link

Hmm, the article talks of 10 not 20 and it only shows 4 and those 4 have inherited the whole business founded by their father or grandfather.

It's not like you could inherit being the CEO of a company when your parents didn't own controlling shares of it.

[Zero999]

The end result is the average person can no longer afford a home so have to move out of the city.

Nothing wrong with that. Others don't have to provide us housing at our preferred locations.

I didn't say they should.

My point is that the free market doesn't always allocate resources efficiently, resulting in waste and having a large equality gap is detrimental to the economy and society as a whole.

If the super rich buy up all the property in a city and rents rise to astronomical levels, often leaving a large number of properties empty (as in London). The ordinary people will move out and will have to commute to work which will increase traffic congestion, pollution and make it more difficult for employers to recruit.

One solution is to raise taxes on the most expensive properties. This doesn't reduce anyone's freedom. It just means those who can afford to pay more do.

[rx8pilot]

Where would your A list actors be performing without all the support people? They would be performing in the street for handouts, thats where.

Where would all the support people be if there were no actors? The ones that are the most unique in some way get the most money and work the least. Actors are cast - they are not dictators. The ones that are paid $20M per picture are invited and in some cases begged to take the money.

In the case of the ridiculously paid CEO scenario - they did not appoint themselves. They had to be chosen be a group. That group decided that it makes business sense to spend a giant pile of cash to get the skills that there chosen CEO has. If the chosen CEO is being offered $20M in cash and another $50M in performance based time released stocks - the board has calculated that this person can and will lead the company to earn at least 10x that value but probably way more.

In general terms, there is nothing criminal. If you want to make $70M, you will not do it sitting at a bench designing circuits. There are 10's of thousands of engineers all over the world and the classic supply and demand system is at play. If you want to be an executive of a very large corporation you have to take a totally different path than just whining about how much someone else earns.

You have to risk it all and bust your ass to start a new and successful business - appoint yourself CEO and pay yourself whatever the company can afford.
You can get a couple of degrees in various business disciplines, bust your ass, build some serious political skills and convince the world you are a smart leader that can take an idea and develop a team to monetize that idea.
You can weasel your way into a start-up that gets a pile of VC cash, skim it for yourself and get fired. In the end you still have a few million, a Ferrari, but little chance of ever doing it again.

This could go on and on. Compensation will never be based on hourly effort, physical effort, or IQ points. No one will get a raise because they whine about how unfair the CEO makes. You will get a raise when you prove that you are the dominant reason the company increased its GP by $100M last year and you are the only person around that can do it again. If you think you have done that already, but were not recognized - leave and start your own company. Appoint yourself CEO and go shopping for yachts, jets, and super cars. It's easy and CEO's are monkey's right.

[Galenbo]

..."Why CEOs are 4X more likely to be psychopaths":
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/psychopath-jon-ronson-ceo-traits-2015-5

"Why a Disproportionate Number of CEOs Are Psychopaths":
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproportionate-number-of-ceos-are-psychopaths

Take the absolute inverse of a psychopath, and you have the biggest looser ever.
Those guys don't become/stay CEO, they're eaten up after some weeks.

No wonder there's a more than average number of more-than-average-psychopaths between the CEO's.
But also in Olympic/TV Sports, project leaders, music/singers (try to work for Thom Yorke, Bono, Madonna,..)
In short, everything that needs some real balls or real vagina to get there.

[zapta]

The end result is the average person can no longer afford a home so have to move out of the city.

Nothing wrong with that. Others don't have to provide us housing at our preferred locations.

I didn't say they should.

My point is that the free market doesn't always allocate resources efficiently, resulting in waste and having a large equality gap is detrimental to the economy and society as a whole.

The goal of freedom is not efficiency.  The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

[Galenbo]

I don't think you are right at all, actually very extreme left.

I answered your questions but you keep ignoring anything that doesn't fit your socialist dogma.

Zapta, that moral-high troll just wanted to make a sentence with the new hipster word.
Last time it was a sentence with micro-agression, this time it's something with positive-freedom.

He's payed for trolling like that, and payed for not admit that.

[Galenbo]

...
The goal of freedom is not efficiency.  The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

Don't talk about freedom with a leftist. It will be misunderstood.
For them it means free of ownership-worries, freedom to steal maker's money, the freedom to completely fuckup and blame others.
The freedom to undermine terms, too, till they mean nothing.

[bills]

...
The goal of freedom is not efficiency.  The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

Don't talk about freedom with a leftist. It will be misunderstood.
For them it means free of ownership-worries, freedom to steal maker's money, the freedom to completely fuckup and blame others.
The freedom to undermine terms, too, till they mean nothing.

I agree 110% It is almost impossible to debate some lefty's.
 

[Zero999]

The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

[Galenbo]

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

That's a beautiful quote, but then the details kick in.

The moral-high comes around, wants immediately a full-luxuary appartment, cleaning of the stairs included, with the most expensive elevator.
For a price that is "affordable" after working a maximum of 35 hours a week in a non-stressing planned environment, and after going 4 times a year on vacation.

And it will never be enough, because he wants more than the neighbour.

[Zero999]

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

That's a beautiful quote, but then the details kick in.

The moral-high comes around, wants immediately a full-luxuary appartment, cleaning of the stairs included, with the most expensive elevator.
For a price that is "affordable" after working a maximum of 35 hours a week in a non-stressing environment, and after going 4 times a year on vacation.

Nope, a basic apartment, just comfortable enough to get by.

If you can afford a luxury apartment then good for you.

In London it's especially bad as the super rich are buying apartments and are not even living in them or letting them out, they're sitting there empty! Of course they're free to do so, at the expense of the freedom of others!

[ivaylo]

It is almost impossible to debate some lefty's.

Yup, hard to bear, so many communists here...

Quit pretending they have more skills than some super-mom...

Here is an example closer to home. Who is/was a better CEO of Hewlett-Packard? Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman? And how were/are they compared with Hewlett and Packard? Because both of Carly and Meg preside(d) over HP at times when CEO pay relative to everybody else was an order of magnitude higher than Hewlett and Packard times. They didn't determine their salaries, but that doesn't make the phenomenon less absurd. Yeah I know, freedom, freedom, blah, blah, freedom, blah...

[Zero999]

...
The goal of freedom is not efficiency.  The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

Don't talk about freedom with a leftist. It will be misunderstood.
For them it means free of ownership-worries, freedom to steal maker's money, the freedom to completely fuckup and blame others.
The freedom to undermine terms, too, till they mean nothing.

I agree 110% It is almost impossible to debate some lefty's.
 

It's impossible to debate with extremists, whether they be right/left wing, religious, anarchist etc.


The problem is gross inequality and those at the bottom not being given the opportunity/freedom to work hard rise to the top - there's a huge pool of talent being wasted. Of course if someone is lazy they should not be entitled to anything.

Anyway, I've derailed the thread somewhat, back to the original topic. Some people will always get paid more than others. There will be those at the top and bottom. The idea of imposing any kind of pay cap is totally retarded. Of course any organisation should have the right to pay their CEO as much as they like. As long as they pay their fair share of taxes, which should be spent on police, health, education, roads etc. as well as providing opportunities (not handouts) to those who are not so well off.

[zapta]

The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

That's simple, don't work in places you can't afford to live.

[Galenbo]

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

That's a beautiful quote, but then the details kick in.

The moral-high comes around, wants immediately a full-luxuary appartment, cleaning of the stairs included, with the most expensive elevator.
For a price that is "affordable" after working a maximum of 35 hours a week in a non-stressing environment, and after going 4 times a year on vacation.

Nope, a basic apartment, just comfortable enough to get by.

If you can afford a luxury apartment then good for you.

You failed to understand the message.

Who will determine "basic" "just" "comfortable" "enough" and "get by" ?
I do not want an answer, just want you to think about the possibilities.

[Galenbo]

The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

I agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

That's simple, don't work in places you can't afford to live.

True.
There's also the fact that Wage depends on region.
In my country, you get payed nearly 1000 euro more in one region then in the other, 50 kilometers away.
The first is near the airport, they have to raise the wages to attract people to work there.
It can also be seen as a compensation for traffic or more expensive housing.