Are CEO's really overpaid?

[Qdrop]

Are They Worthy?
Despite the shocking extremes, new studies claim CEO pay matches performance, and increasingly so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14208060/site/newsweek/

[Funkaloyd]

If CEOs can perform hundreds of times better than everybody else, then maybe we should be paying them to fight crime?

[little j]

a CEO's performance depends on the people underhim..all the way down to the admin...admin are the back bone of corporation and they dont get paid shit.

The CEO of my corporation makes milllions...but he would not be making those millions if he didn't have the builders and the sales people and the admin supporting him the way he does.
the admin is the back bone. the CEO is head, but without a back bone the CEO is mush.

[Qdrop]

a CEO's performance depends on the people underhim..all the way down to the admin...admin are the back bone of corporation and they dont get paid shit.

The CEO of my corporation makes milllions...but he would not be making those millions if he didn't have the builders and the sales people and the admin supporting him the way he does.
the admin is the back bone. the CEO is head, but without a back bone the CEO is mush.

and without the CEO, the company has no leadership or vision....and you have no company.

around in circles is goes....

[Pres Zount]

Ae you saying that a CEO is the only person in a company that has leadership and vision?

Are you saying that middle managment is incapapble of leadership, and all other employees are visionless?

[chrisd]

...but that's just cause they haven't got a thing to say!

[Schmeltz]

I have a tough time believing that CEOs possess some kind of innate quality of leadership or vision that sets them apart from other employees who have just as much education as they do. What CEOs do have, more often, is connections. Either that or they got in on the ground floor and now find themselves at the top, with all the privileges that such a position confers.

[Qdrop]

I have a tough time believing that CEOs possess some kind of innate quality of leadership or vision that sets them apart from other employees who have just as much education as they do. What CEOs do have, more often, is connections. Either that or they got in on the ground floor and now find themselves at the top, with all the privileges that such a position confers.

both you and pres seems to be fans of "innate equality" or something to that effect....
that all people are identically gifted, and any old shmoe could do the CEO's job.

to simply state that CEO's get where they are by connections is not only arrogant, but a grossly uneducated statement.
what are you basing this on, schmeltz?
what experience have you, personally, had in the business world...particularly ones that involve CEO's and upper managment?
any?

it is truly in vogue, if not required thinking, in the young progressive culture to assume that all CEO's and upper managament are corrupt, unqualified, and generally puppets.
yet, most that make these statements have never stepped foot in a corporate job...having never progressed past short-order cook or UPS truck driver.

the CEO of my company took control in 99', and literally saved this company from bankruptcy....to the 5th largest flexable packaging printers in the country today. we are among the safest companies in the country....only .02% of the businesses in the NATION have the VVP safety records and certifications we have....i could list the awards we've won for posts and posts.

do either of you think any old guy off the floor could have done the same?

[little j]

im not saying my CEO isn't super smart especially about money ....

Im not saying he's over paid.

im just saying that the admins are WAY underpaid. way underpaid.

way.
underpaid.


way!

[chrisd]

the real question is: are ceo's over-laid?

[STANKY808]

do either of you think any old guy off the floor could have done the same?


I guess we'll never know, since no one ever asks them. That may have something to do with their lack of connections.

[Qdrop]

I guess we'll never know, since no one ever asks them. That may have something to do with their lack of connections.

yeah, it's just lack of oppurtunity....
it was his leadership and vision attributes that led him to push a broom for a living.

[bilbo]

Wow, over 12,000 posts. That's damn near 15 posts a day!
This is perhaps the dumbest thread ever started. The subsequent commentary is equally brilliant:rolleyes:

Word.
See you next month..............maybe:cool:

[Pres Zount]

what experience have you, personally, had in the business world...particularly ones that involve CEO's and upper managment?
any?

And yours? What Company are you head of?

We're talking how overpaid they are here, let's stick to it.

Ceo's of big multinationals earn tens of millions. Compare that to the average worker, who may only be getting a few cents for that item of clothing, and you have a BIG gap. Now if the shareholders had to make some life threatening hypothetical decision about whether to get rid of the CEO (who makes millions) or the workers (who together could make millions) who do you think would go?

Could a company survive without the CEO?

Could a company survive without any workers?

[Schmeltz]

that all people are identically gifted, and any old shmoe could do the CEO's job.


Actually, I said nothing of the kind. I certainly couldn't do a CEO's job - because I don't have the necessary education or background that would enable me to do so. However, any successful company is full of (indeed, relies directly upon) numerous employees with the same qualifications and experience as any CEO. little j made a very good point: the middle strata of people who actually make the company run are routinely severely undercompensated, if not directly exploited. And, to take her point further, so are those of us on the front lines - the people who actually get their hands dirty doing the low-end production jobs that no CEO actually knows how to do either. I don't think a CEO could do my job any more than I can do his.


what experience have you, personally, had in the business world...particularly ones that involve CEO's and upper managment?


My personal experience with CEO's and upper management is that they are distant, detached, and entirely unapproachable. They exist as purely mythical entities with whom people like myself have absolutely no contact beyond witnessing their pre-printed signature on a twice-monthly paycheck, or the occasional mass company e-mail (delivered, of course, not to myself but to middle management, who then processed it and passed it on) explaining why payroll fucked up my check so badly. That's it.
So far as I'm concerned, they might as well not exist.


it is truly in vogue, if not required thinking, in the young progressive culture


Yeah, like you know anything about that.


assume that all CEO's and upper managament are corrupt, unqualified, and generally puppets.


Not puppets, puppetmasters. I'm the one dancing for my dinner over here. I did it for twelve straight hours today.


do either of you think any old guy off the floor could have done the same?


If it wasn't for the guys on the floor these CEOs would be tooth-and-nailing it for their rent and bills just like the rest of us. Your contempt for the regular people who drive this economy is very telling.

[Qdrop]

And yours? What Company are you head of? we meet pretty regularly with the CEO....his office door is always open...he's always walking around, conversing, asking and answering...very transparent.

We're talking how overpaid they are here, let's stick to it. well, we WERE....i was just defending the CEO position in general...and that they do deserve a larger paycheck.
how much....that's the debate.

could a company survive without the CEO? not for very long.

Could a company survive without any workers? nope.

who's more replaceable?

[Qdrop]

Actually, I said nothing of the kind. I certainly couldn't do a CEO's job - because I don't have the necessary education or background that would enable me to do so. is that the only reason. is the only thing that sets you apart from them, just education and experiance?

Bush went to Harvard (or was it Yale?), ran huge businesses and was a governer of a state....
you think he's a good President?

However, any successful company is full of (indeed, relies directly upon) numerous employees with the same qualifications and experience as any CEO. the same? umm.....no.

little j made a very good point: the middle strata of people who actually make the company run are routinely severely undercompensated, if not directly exploited. agreed.

And, to take her point further, so are those of us on the front lines - the people who actually get their hands dirty doing the low-end production jobs that no CEO actually knows how to do either. possibley, yes.

I don't think a CEO could do my job any more than I can do his. really, what is your job?

My personal experience with CEO's and upper management is that they are distant, detached, and entirely unapproachable. They exist as purely mythical entities with whom people like myself have absolutely no contact beyond witnessing their pre-printed signature on a twice-monthly paycheck, or the occasional mass company e-mail (delivered, of course, not to myself but to middle management, who then processed it and passed it on) explaining why payroll fucked up my check so badly. hmm...and i've had a very differant experiance. funny.

If it wasn't for the guys on the floor these CEOs would be tooth-and-nailing it for their rent and bills just like the rest of us. and if not for the CEO, the company would run aground in no time in the face of competition and changing industry, with no one to guide them through...and all those laborers would be out of work.

Your contempt for the regular people who drive this economy is very telling. oh please,i AM a "regular people" who drive the economy.
and i have NO interest in ever being a CEO or high management.
not worth the stress.

[Bob]

Bush went to Harvard (or was it Yale?), ran huge businesses and was a governer of a state....
you think he's a good President?

to be fair, he didn't do very well

[Qdrop]

to be fair, he didn't do very well
exactly.

he also ran his oil businesses into the ground.

and left much to be desired in his handling of the governership of Texas.

apparently education and experiance don't automatically make for a good leader.

perhaps it comes from some innate ability that some have, and some do not.

[Pres Zount]

Qdrop, companies can be run wihout CEO's. You may think that 'vision' and 'leadership' can only come from one avenue, but many worker collectives all across the history of the world have proven otherwise.

And you think you have 'experience' on CEO's because yours is always walking around and talking to people? Laughable.

[Qdrop]

Qdrop, companies can be run wihout CEO's. You may think that 'vision' and 'leadership' can only come from one avenue, but many worker collectives all across the history of the world have proven otherwise.
oh, please list out your socialist success stories.
we'd all like a laugh, mr. marx.

i love how the socialist/communists/marxists (who claim to completely separate entities-and while technically and philospically true- hold as much individual ideological differance as "a republican and a conservative" now-a-days) think themselves so outside-the-box when "confronting" a capitalist.
as if they have some higher knowledge or elevated moral plain....never realizing their level of self-righteousness far exceeds any Keynesian or "chicago economics" supporter...particularly when the philosophy they spew has left more failure and ruin in it's wake then the greediest of capitalist robber-barons.

or have i gone off on a tangent and pegged you all wrong?

oh, please forgive me.

And you think you have 'experience' on CEO's because yours is always walking around and talking to people? Laughable. and you think your complete and utter lack of experience on CEO's or the busienss world qualifies you for this debate?
wait, what exactly is it that you do, in you little corner of the world?

[Pres Zount]

You're so fucking shit, qdrop. You have no more experience with CEO's than anyone else in this thread. Nobody is claiming to have any experience except for you, and all you have is the coat tails of someone you think does a good job.



Your only argument is that I am not on the same experience level as you regarding CEO's. "we meet pretty regularly with the CEO....his office door is always open...he's always walking around, conversing, asking and answering...very transparent." Fuck, I've met the CEO of the company I work for too. Several times. I saw him at a party once.

I guess we're about even. Shutup qdrop, you've got nothing.

[Qdrop]

You're so fucking shit, qdrop. You have no more experience with CEO's than anyone else in this thread. Nobody is claiming to have any experience except for you, and all you have is the coat tails of someone you think does a good job.



Your only argument is that I am not on the same experience level as you regarding CEO's. "we meet pretty regularly with the CEO....his office door is always open...he's always walking around, conversing, asking and answering...very transparent." Fuck, I've met the CEO of the company I work for too. Several times. I saw him at a party once.

I guess we're about even. Shutup qdrop, you've got nothing.

got nothing?
i've established a pro-argument for the value and need for a CEO....
have you established a legitimate counter-arguement?
no.
and you never do.

either list out a point for point explaination for cons of having a CEO, and/or a heirachy business structure, or shut the fuck up.

the business world is Darwin at it's finest...survival of the fittest.
if there was a more efficient way of running a business, I.E.- no CEO or hierarchy of mangagment, such a system would compete and win out.
no, you say? the rich people in charge want to stay rich so they FORCE this system in place and keep it there, while they take watery shits on the labor force beneath them, and smoke thier expensive cigars and twirl thier mustaches?

If we ALL agree that profit is the key to capitalist system....then the most profitable system will win out.

"well it's only profitable for a few...the few on top!
and the capitalists want to keep it capitalist...fuck everyone else."

if only it was that simple, perhaps your quasi-marxist dream would have some legs.
but no controlled economy or socialist system has ever profited near the level of a capalist one....not only for the individual...but for the masses.
it's inferior.
history says so.

in the long run, more profitable for all, means more profitable for individuals.
socialists scoff at that...they say "you're blind! that's not how capitalism works! FOOL!"

it is rather pompous of you to think the the will of few rich CEO types could corral and force the entire business structure of the WORLD into a less profitable system (as opposed to socialism) simply because they can.

look at Walmart and Costco.
Let's continue the track the success of Costco vs. Walmark as time goes on...and see who truly wins out.
an unjust pay system, an unhappy and under-paid workforce, bad PR, and running afowl of environmental and anti-trust laws won't make for more profitable system. and it's catching up to Walmart finally....their profit levels have begun to fall for the fist time in years...
while Costco, the anti-walmart of the big box stores, climbs.

also, notice the pay structure of Costco and it's CEO...vs. Walmart.

in the LONG run, the most profitable for all, means more profitable for the individual.

the point of all this is the following:

the heirachy business structure (including the CEO) is the most profitable and successful system.
the CEO is necessary and benificial to a company.
not all CEO's are golf club swinging robber barons.
a hierarchy business structure is more profitable and efficient than a socialist-esque horizontal one.
those hierachy business structures that are run more equitably (Costco) will survive and thrive better in the long run.

[Teh]

This entire argument, at least the O/T aspect of it, seems a little redundant. I don't think you can just generalise CEO's, or any body of people, one way or another.

[Ali]

This entire argument, at least the O/T aspect of it, seems a little redundant. I don't think you can just generalise CEO's, or any body of people, one way or another.
Yes you can.

Everybody generalises.

[Pres Zount]

got nothing?
i've established a pro-argument for the value and need for a CEO....
have you established a legitimate counter-arguement?
no.
and you never do.



No, you haven't. Your 'pro-argument' for paying CEO's more money is that the CEO of the company you work for was a nice guy who turned the bussiness around. You don't think that there are thousands of CEO's out there that are mean and have run their companies into the ground?

meanwhile you are trying to distract me from the topic of "should CEO's be paid more", with pathetic socialism bashing - I don't give a shit what you have to say about socialism or communism, you have proven in other threads that you cannot take information on board, you don't think the USSR produced larger quantity of nearly ever major resource than the US? After only industrialising from a third world base for ten years? Of course US capitalism is the most profitable, but since when have profits actually meant that people are better off?

[Documad]

Yes, of course they are. There are loads of examples of CEOs who make more and more money while their businesses lose more and more money. And their salaries increase at a far far greater rate than the salaries of anyone else in the company, even when the companies are successful. That doesn't make any sense. You also don't see too many CEOs who thrive at one company and then move to another company and thrive there. You see a lot of the big name CEOs who are only successful at one company. That makes me doubt whether the CEO was the secret of the success.

I think that a lot of people who become leaders at a corporation think about the short term and the superficial instead of looking to long term financial health. They do this by cutting costs so that their profit rate looks really high, but no one goes back and sees whether the cuts made sense in the long term. A lot of the profitability is only profitability in an accounting sense. The business is more unhealthy.

An example I've seen a lot is cutting back on the number of employees, but someone needs to do the work, so they hire contractors. The contractors actually cost more and in my experience they don't do as well. Plus the contractors' contracts are up and the people who made the decisions are thus long gone by the time the problems start to arise and the lawsuits start.

[Qdrop]

No, you haven't. Your 'pro-argument' for paying CEO's more money is that the CEO of the company you work for was a nice guy who turned the bussiness around. You don't think that there are thousands of CEO's out there that are mean and have run their companies into the ground? so pay each accordingly.....
and i said much more than what you listed.

meanwhile you are trying to distract me from the topic of "should CEO's be paid more", i do think they deserve to be paid more, if not the most...but many of the current salaries seem incredibly outlandish.
with pathetic socialism bashing i'm just calling a spade a spade man....it's need to be very clear where your sentiments lie...we all know where your underlying hatred for anything profit driven comes from.

- I don't give a shit what you have to say about socialism or communism, you have proven in other threads that you cannot take information on board, you don't think the USSR produced larger quantity of nearly ever major resource than the US? After only industrialising from a third world base for ten years? yes yes...let's discuss how the USSR's economy was so much better off than the free market of the US...that's why 1989 happend, right?
put down your propaganda pieces and read some objective info:

www.commandingheights.comhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/index.html

Of course US capitalism is the most profitable, but since when have profits actually meant that people are better off? maybe it's better if you stop talking.

[Qdrop]

Yes, of course they are. There are loads of examples of CEOs who make more and more money while their businesses lose more and more money. And their salaries increase at a far far greater rate than the salaries of anyone else in the company, even when the companies are successful. That doesn't make any sense. You also don't see too many CEOs who thrive at one company and then move to another company and thrive there. You see a lot of the big name CEOs who are only successful at one company. That makes me doubt whether the CEO was the secret of the success.

I think that a lot of people who become leaders at a corporation think about the short term and the superficial instead of looking to long term financial health. They do this by cutting costs so that their profit rate looks really high, but no one goes back and sees whether the cuts made sense in the long term. A lot of the profitability is only profitability in an accounting sense. The business is more unhealthy.

An example I've seen a lot is cutting back on the number of employees, but someone needs to do the work, so they hire contractors. The contractors actually cost more and in my experience they don't do as well. Plus the contractors' contracts are up and the people who made the decisions are thus long gone by the time the problems start to arise and the lawsuits start.
while many of these anecdotal stories have a ring of truth to them...
why pretend this is the norm?
have you been that brainwashed by the media and cultural-backlash?

do all Catholic priest abuse boys too?

do all blacks commit crimes?

are all southerners racist?

are all muslims terrorists?

so why paint a picture, word of mouth anecdotes that all CEO's are corrupt, ineffective, and useless?

[HAL 9000]

It depends how you look at it – from a point of view of the underlying economics, CEOs are generally not overpaid – why would any organisation overpay any of its employees. Problems may arise when the CEO has been in place a long time and is able to hand pick a board of directors, obviously this leads to major conflicts of interest and can result in the CEO being overpaid. Good regulation should prevent this happening but often doesn’t.

It should be noted that a CEO is not paid in order to reward him for the benefit he personally adds to the company. Instead his pay is a carrot that is being dangled in front of the noses of the senior management beneath him to encourage them to work hard (actually its dangled in front of the noses of all the employees). In most corporate structures, an individuals pay is dependant on many factors including their individual output. But a significant part of an individuals pay is to motivate employees lower down the chain.

After all, Im sure no one really enjoys being a CEO, its stressful and hard work and most importantly, even if you work really hard and dedicate your whole life to becoming one you will still probably fail. The only way to get rational people to strive up the corporate ladder (and earn the shareholders lots of dosh along the way) is to put an absolutely enormous financial prize at the top.

Now if one looks at the situation from an ethical stand point then of course CEOs are overpaid, but this is the real world and that’s how things work. In an ideal society, I guess people would earn what they deserve according to their marginal product but it's not like that.

[QueenAdrock]

Actually, I said nothing of the kind. I certainly couldn't do a CEO's job - because I don't have the necessary education or background that would enable me to do so.

is that the only reason. is the only thing that sets you apart from them, just education and experiance?

Bush went to Harvard (or was it Yale?), ran huge businesses and was a governer of a state....
you think he's a good President?

Granted, education + experience does not always = good businessmen/leaders (Bush was a terrible businessman, and a worse governor/President in my opinion). However, to become a CEO = needing a good education + experience, which I think Schmeltz was trying to say. You won't see someone with their Associate's degree from community college work his way up to CEO, because they need their foot in the door first - their degrees are what provides this leg up. The community college graduate may be MORE insightful and thoughtful, full of good ideas that could benefit the company more so than some boring and bland Harvard grad - but they'll be overlooked in favor of someone with a higher education.

[Qdrop]

It should be noted that a CEO is not paid in order to reward him for the benefit he personally adds to the company. Instead his pay is a carrot that is being dangled in front of the noses of the senior management beneath him to encourage them to work hard (actually its dangled in front of the noses of all the employees). In most corporate structures, an individuals pay is dependant on many factors including their individual output. But a significant part of an individuals pay is to motivate employees lower down the chain.

After all, Im sure no one really enjoys being a CEO, its stressful and hard work and most importantly, even if you work really hard and dedicate your whole life to becoming one you will still probably fail. The only way to get rational people to strive up the corporate ladder (and earn the shareholders lots of dosh along the way) is to put an absolutely enormous financial prize at the top.

Now if one looks at the situation from an ethical stand point then of course CEOs are overpaid, but this is the real world and that’s how things work. In an ideal society, I guess people would earn what they deserve according to their marginal product but it's not like that.

excellent points, man.
really well said.

[Pres Zount]

....and i said much more than what you listed.
uhhhhhh....no. Just because you say you did, doesn't actually mean you did. You have said nothing other than "anecdotal evidence"; (shit anecdotal evidence) "My CEO worked hard and he talks to us all the time and the company is better off". Shut your stupid face.

Here is ONE example of a factory being run without a CEO.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3750

There are hundreds of others. Give me ONE example of a factory being run wihtout any workers.

In an ideal society, I guess people would earn what they deserve according to their marginal product but it's not like that.


excellent points, man.
really well said.

So you've bassically changed your point of view, CEO's are overpaid then?

[STANKY808]

Check out this documentary...

http://www.thetake.org/

[valvano]

you guys know what happened to Bill Ford Jr today, right?

[Bob]

he got stabbed through the heart by a stingray? no, wait, i know this one, let me think....oh, hell, why don't you just tell us?

[Qdrop]

uhhhhhh....no. Just because you say you did, doesn't actually mean you did. You have said nothing other than "anecdotal evidence"; (shit anecdotal evidence) "My CEO worked hard and he talks to us all the time and the company is better off".
first hand account of a CEO acting opposite the manner you portray.


Shut your stupid face.
hahah....listen to you.
you soilded yourself, little boy.


Here is ONE example of a factory being run without a CEO.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3750

There are hundreds of others. Give me ONE example of a factory being run wihtout any workers.
? that article does nothing to bolster your case that a company can be run well and efficiently with no hierarchy of management. jesus, all they did was liquidate thier inventory and some assets for quick cash and then turned the machines back on. there was no time to establish any kind of accounting records that show better productivety or proof that is was sustainable.
i'm not even saying it couldn't be...but that article is no proof that it was.

shit man, i'm not against such a "bossless" system. if it works or works better...sign me up.
but there really isn't much evidence to support that claim.


and obviously not every business if large enough to actually require a CEO per say.
in cases such as that, you can replace "CEO" with "head boss" or "owner", whatever.
the underlying system is a hierarchy of management.

show me some links showing businesses or factories without a CEO or "head boss" (making a higher wage) outperforms those that do...on the average.
hell, find one.


So you've bassically changed your point of view, CEO's are overpaid then? i don't believe i even once stated in this thread that i didn't think they were overpaid (in fact i said the opposite)...i just presented the question...before the debate quickly turned to the need for CEO's in general.

from post #28
"i do think they deserve to be paid more, if not the most...but many of the current salaries seem incredibly outlandish."

another example of you building strawmen and arguing against your stereotype of me, rather than me.
idiot.

you're another one of those posters that i've owned so many times...i could charge you rent just to breathe.

[Pres Zount]

first hand account of a CEO acting opposite the manner you portray.

I didn't potray CEO's having any manner. I said they were not as important as workers, which you dissagreed with. So, you've just given a first hand acount of a CEO... for no reason. You're not owning anyone.

You think CEO's are more imnetgral to a company than workers, show me an example. I showed you one - to be fair, I just grabbed the first one that popped into my head (it was in the movie stanky linked to) - but it still lasted without CEO's or "head bosses" or any heirachy. The workers can run the factory machines and run the bussiness.

Now show me CEO's doing the same. It doesn't have to be done well, like I said, I just grabbed any old example.

If you can't find one, I guess you will have to concede that workers are a more vital organ in the running of a company than a CEO.

[Qdrop]

I didn't potray CEO's having any manner. I said they were not as important as workers, which you dissagreed with. So, you've just given a first hand acount of a CEO... for no reason. You're not owning anyone.

You think CEO's are more imnetgral to a company than workers, show me an example. I showed you one - to be fair, I just grabbed the first one that popped into my head (it was in the movie stanky linked to) - but it still lasted without CEO's or "head bosses" or any heirachy. The workers can run the factory machines and run the bussiness.

Now show me CEO's doing the same. It doesn't have to be done well, like I said, I just grabbed any old example.

If you can't find one, I guess you will have to concede that workers are a more vital organ in the running of a company than a CEO.

that's an incredibley simple line of reasoning you got there, pres....allow me to tear you apart...AGAIN.

First, if discusssing the value of a CEO in an organization...you are essentially
disuccing the value of a head Boss among a group of workers....as companies and businesses are of varying sizes, and small business of say 10 workers may not have and actual CEO...but rather an owner or head boss of sorts.
so you are asking about the value of the head person at the top of the management hierarchy and if a company can survive if he suddenly disapeared....

if you want a technical example of company running with only a CEO and no under-labor....then i would give you the example of any self-employed person who runs thier own business on thier own...they are the "CEO" and the labor.
if you are going to start squawking "no, i mean show me a business that runs without labor!"...well, then you're just being childish. of course labor of some sort (even if it is one person) is required to execute.
and on that same note...even the CEO is "labor" of some sort....as he can and does execute actions, perhaps even physical labor in some examples.
to try and completely separate the CEO from labor can ultimately become a logical impossibility.

now as you are obviously coming from the incredibley simplistic stance of "a CEO sits in his office and barks orders and guides the company through it's widget production, and the labor lifts and buildes all the heavy widgets"....then your reasoning is that "the laborers can still lift widgets even if the CEO doesn't tell them to"... is STILL flawed...
without a leader, would there even be any "widget" orders?
how fair would it be if a CEO guides and builds the company...increasing customer base and investment....and then the labor saying "ha...labor doesn't need you....you're fired!"
labor wouldn't have any work to do if the CEO hadn't built the company to the heights it is.
and labor alone likely couldn't guaruntee future growth and widget orders down the road.

so could the labor even GET STARTED or BECOME labor without a "CEO-type" initiating the business?

you assume that the average labor is plenty smart and business savy...and he could do all the business planning and "stuff" when he's not pulling the widget lever.
yeah...it's that easy.
any guy running the widget conveyer belt could put together a business model during his lunch break....who needs college?

[Pres Zount]

In the example I gave you the workers voted on desicions. There is no "head boss". So whether it is a CEO, a "head boss" or just the whole heirachy of managment, it is not as important as workers. The company can survive without them. The workers are able to step up to the plate to make bussiness decisions, nobody said it was easy, just possible.

You have your classes wrong, a small self employed bussiness owner is middle class, a CEO is Capitalist class and the workers are working class. A self employed person is the labour. DUHHHH. It's not childish, it's calling you out on terms you think you undertand.


The workers can run a factory without the CEO. The CEO cannot run a factory without the workers.

Can your CEO lift enough widgets to meet quota? To turn a profit? To even survive? Or maybe you could get alot of CEO's together to run the company. You could get hundreds of them, they could work the machines needed for production, and since they're full of vision and leadership, they wouldn't need and "head boss" to tell them what to do. That way they would really be earning those millions. They wouldn't be classed as workers because that would be childish.

You can try to sidetrack the argument again by dealing with the morality of expropriation, but it wont wash, becasue I don't care what you have to say on that matter.

[Documad]

while many of these anecdotal stories have a ring of truth to them...
why pretend this is the norm?
have you been that brainwashed by the media and cultural-backlash?

do all Catholic priest abuse boys too?

do all blacks commit crimes?

are all southerners racist?

are all muslims terrorists?

so why paint a picture, word of mouth anecdotes that all CEO's are corrupt, ineffective, and useless?
You gave one personal example to prove your point, and you criticize me? What do you think you're on about? What you do isn't a thoughtful discussion and it's certainly not a debate just because it looks like tit for tat.

What I said has been thoroughly discussed in the news. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is shrinking, corporate profits are growing at an enormous rate without any pro rata investment in things that made the US great, like accessible colleges, science, and innovation. And the vast majority of these CEOs didn't invent anything. At least Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, and Carnegie, et al, took chances, or at least had a new idea. The oil barons of today are just lucky. And the people who got rich on dot coms when there isn't even a real product . . . don't get me started. I was in business school during the junk bond craze. :rolleyes:

It's interesting that the few CEOs who did invent something are the ones who are giving back to society.

I don't begrudge anyone what they make, but saying that CEOs aren't overpaid for what they do is patently ridiculous.

[HAL 9000]

I think there are two ways of approaching the issue of CEOs pay and I think the two sides in this argument are approaching from completely different angles,

- One can ask whether the CEO is paid the optimal amount of money in order to maximise shareholder return. As this is probably the main factor determining CEO pay, I think it’s the most appropriate approach to take to the question. I think for the reason outlined n my earlier post, that CEOs on the whole are correctly paid from this point of view.

- The alternative view is to ask what does the CEO deserve for the work that they do? Well what someone is deserving of is a very difficult question to ask. Most of us in the western world command good pay because of the fortunate circumstances of our birth, there is wealth around and there is access to education systems that allow us to make huge investments in our human capital with out any great effort. Do I deserve more money than say, a goat herder? I don’t work any harder and although probably better educated I may well not be any more intelligent?

So the best way to approach this is to consider one pay compared to marginal product – do I earn a far wage compared to what I am earning the shareholders? The answer is generally that it depends, but in general when one is junior/young one tends to earn less than marginal product and when one is older/senior one tends to get paid more. This is due to the reasons set out in my last post but basically the higher returns come later in ones career to encourage you to work hard and not shirk at the start. (This explains why people get pay rises without promotion and why a 50 year old bus driver will get paid more than a 25 year old for doing the exact same job).

So with regards to the question, I think that, CEOs are basically paid the correct amount to ensure the optimal performance of the employees of the firm and so are (with certain exceptions) correctly paid.

But, CEO's like many people, within the firm, are paid greater than their marginal product (although there are sound economic reasons why this happens).

So I think everyone here is basically right but they are approaching from differing points of view. What I think needs to be discussed is what does being 'overpaid' actually mean in this debate?

[Qdrop]

In the example I gave you the workers voted on desicions. There is no "head boss". So whether it is a CEO, a "head boss" or just the whole heirachy of managment, it is not as important as workers. The company can survive without them. The workers are able to step up to the plate to make bussiness decisions, nobody said it was easy, just possible. yeah, and 'possible" is all that matters.
never mind efficiancy or ability to compete with other companies...

oh, wait....you're a socialist/communist.....you don't really believe in free market competition, do you?
just rub everyone on the shoulders and say "do your best", and the state will pick up the slack.
that's worked SO well throughout history.
ask the former USSR, or India....

You have your classes wrong, a small self employed bussiness owner is middle class, a CEO is Capitalist class and the workers are working class. you're just making up your own definitions an classifications to suite you ideologies.

A self employed person is the labour. DUHHHH. It's not childish, it's calling you out on terms you think you undertand. no, it's you not realizing that completely separating managment from labor is often a logical/philosophical impossibility....but tha's usually ignored by socialists.

The workers can run a factory without the CEO. The CEO cannot run a factory without the workers. withouth a CEO or higher managment...there probably wouldn't be much work for the labor to do.
particularly if it was trying to compete/exist in free market system.

now if you talking about such an enterprise existing in a state-run ecomomy...
gee, i dunno...ask the former USSR and India and virtually every other state-run economy nation how that panned out.

why do socialists/communists always remind me of creationists?
is it because both refuse to look at the historical facts staring them in the face, and just hold on to blind faith?
yes, that must be it.

Can your CEO lift enough widgets to meet quota? would there even be a quota for the laborers to fill without the CEO or management?

To turn a profit? To even survive? same answer as above.

Or maybe you could get alot of CEO's together to run the company. You could get hundreds of them, they could work the machines needed for production, and since they're full of vision and leadership, they wouldn't need and "head boss" to tell them what to do. you mean forgoe any idea of division of labor?
yeah, that's natural.

That way they would really be earning those millions. They wouldn't be classed as workers because that would be childish. division of labor is essential.
not everyone can be equal or earn the same wage.
that's life.
that's economics.

You can try to sidetrack the argument again by dealing with the morality of expropriation, but it wont wash, becasue I don't care what you have to say on that matter. you care enough to continue this debate for days on end.
you fuckin love me.

[Qdrop]

You gave one personal example to prove your point, and you criticize me? What do you think you're on about? What you do isn't a thoughtful discussion and it's certainly not a debate just because it looks like tit for tat. oh don't be jealous....

What I said has been thoroughly discussed in the news. the news never has any bias or filters. it's like the bible.

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is shrinking, corporate profits are growing at an enormous rate without any pro rata investment in things that made the US great, like accessible colleges, science, and innovation. valid debates, sure...

And the vast majority of these CEOs didn't invent anything. like you need to invent new technology to be a good CEO?

At least Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, and Carnegie, et al, took chances, or at least had a new idea. yeah, ideas only come in technology. nothing else matters. yeah.
fuck leadership, business models, etc....if you haven't created a warp engine, then shut the fuck up! right?

The oil barons of today are just lucky. you're not bias.
and why focus on Oil? because it's the easier target?

It's interesting that the few CEOs who did invent something are the ones who are giving back to society. yeah, cause non of the other ones do.
and you know all this....you've researched those statements...huh?

I don't begrudge anyone what they make, but saying that CEOs aren't overpaid for what they do is patently ridiculous.
as i've said numerous times in this thread....i do think thier salaries are often ridiculous.
but keep pretending that i didn't, like everyone else. strawmen make you feel better, right?

[Pres Zount]

no, it's you not realizing that completely separating managment from labor is often a logical/philosophical impossibility....but tha's usually ignored by socialists.
Philosophicaly impossible? What the fuck are you talking about? I gave you ONE example that it is possible, and it is succesful. You can't show an example of the opposite. Philosophicaly impossible?! WTF?

The heirachy of managment is not as important as the workers who run the factory, and the only card they apparantly have over the workers is that they have vision and leadership, both of which the workers can have.

You might not commit to it, but we all know you think CEO's aren't overpaid because of a few casual glances through that always open office door send your heart racing.



you mean forgoe any idea of division of labor?
yeah, that's natural.
division of labor is essential.
AHAHAHA You moron, the Division of Labour is a term used to describe the splitting up of work for amongst a group of workers. One worker puts the door in place, another workers puts the window in, and yet another screws them in place. That's Division of Labour, not "earning different wages" HAHAHAHA. That's economics.

Again, Qdop showing a complete lack of awarness on something he is trying to destroy me with. Yeah, I just made these terms and ideas up, for the sole purpose of arguing with you.



you care enough to continue this debate for days on end.
you fuckin love me.
It's hardly a 'debate'. you try to sidetrack things away from a point that you are obviously embarrassed about, and everyone else dumps on you.

[chrisd]

Intellectuals prove that you can be absolutely brilliant and still have no idea what's really going on.

- Woody Allen

[Qdrop]

Philosophicaly impossible? What the fuck are you talking about? to say that the CEO, or upper management provide no labor is often innaccurate. i wouldn't expect you to understand that.

I gave you ONE example that it is possible, and it is succesful. successful? how was it successful? as i already mentioned: "that article does nothing to bolster your case that a company can be run well and efficiently with no hierarchy of management. jesus, all they did was liquidate thier inventory and some assets for quick cash and then turned the machines back on. there was no time to establish any kind of accounting records that show better productivety or proof that is was sustainable.
i'm not even saying it couldn't be...but that article is no proof that it was."

read, shithead.

You can't show an example of the opposite. self employed worker for one.
and you're still sitting on a strawman.
you seem to be fixated on the point that if a company can run without upper management, even for a very brief amount of time before it runs into ground....but a CEO can't operate without labor....and that somehow proves that labor is more important and perhaps a horizontal workforce could be more efficient?
that's just ridiculous....

The heirachy of managment is not as important as the workers who run the factory, and the only card they apparantly have over the workers is that they have vision and leadership, both of which the workers can have. but the workers can't do both. not efficiently. which would make them management by default.
you can't escape that.

you're pathetic example you keep refering to, does shit to bolster your claim...as i keep slapping you in the face with.

You might not commit to it, but we all know you think CEO's aren't overpaid because of a few casual glances through that always open office door send your heart racing. i've stated the opposite...but if you want to be a complete asshole and say the otherwise (because you just "know" it to be true)....well, that speaks volumes about your ability to carry on a debate.


AHAHAHA You moron, the Division of Labour is a term used to describe the splitting up of work for amongst a group of workers. One worker puts the door in place, another workers puts the window in, and yet another screws them in place. and others manage, create business models, plan, order...etc...let's not leave that out, idiot.

That's Division of Labour, not "earning different wages" it certainly can. where are you getting you info from?


It's hardly a 'debate'. you try to sidetrack things away from a point that you are obviously embarrassed about, and everyone else dumps on you. what point am i embarrassed about? and who else is dumping on me?
it's just you, man.
the undereducated idealist from spazmania.

[bilbo]

Wow, over 12,000 posts. That's damn near 15 posts a day!
This is perhaps the dumbest thread ever started. The subsequent commentary is equally brilliant:rolleyes:

Word.
See you next month..............maybe:cool:


I'd like to strike my comment from the record. I tend to lean towards Pres Zount in this argument, but my criticism of this thread was a bit premature, and thus unwarranted.

That is all.

[D_Raay]

I think there are two ways of approaching the issue of CEOs pay and I think the two sides in this argument are approaching from completely different angles,

- One can ask whether the CEO is paid the optimal amount of money in order to maximise shareholder return. As this is probably the main factor determining CEO pay, I think it’s the most appropriate approach to take to the question. I think for the reason outlined n my earlier post, that CEOs on the whole are correctly paid from this point of view.

- The alternative view is to ask what does the CEO deserve for the work that they do? Well what someone is deserving of is a very difficult question to ask. Most of us in the western world command good pay because of the fortunate circumstances of our birth, there is wealth around and there is access to education systems that allow us to make huge investments in our human capital with out any great effort. Do I deserve more money than say, a goat herder? I don’t work any harder and although probably better educated I may well not be any more intelligent?

So the best way to approach this is to consider one pay compared to marginal product – do I earn a far wage compared to what I am earning the shareholders? The answer is generally that it depends, but in general when one is junior/young one tends to earn less than marginal product and when one is older/senior one tends to get paid more. This is due to the reasons set out in my last post but basically the higher returns come later in ones career to encourage you to work hard and not shirk at the start. (This explains why people get pay rises without promotion and why a 50 year old bus driver will get paid more than a 25 year old for doing the exact same job).

So with regards to the question, I think that, CEOs are basically paid the correct amount to ensure the optimal performance of the employees of the firm and so are (with certain exceptions) correctly paid.

But, CEO's like many people, within the firm, are paid greater than their marginal product (although there are sound economic reasons why this happens).

So I think everyone here is basically right but they are approaching from differing points of view. What I think needs to be discussed is what does being 'overpaid' actually mean in this debate?

The proper way to understand CEO pay is to look at it as a winner-takes-all market. A small increase in ability, or luck, results in massively greater earnings. So whether or not CEOs are overpaid depends on how you define "overpaid." Winner-takes-all markets happen to be a naturally occurring phenomena, but if you define "overpaid" as meaning someone makes far more money than someone else without actually contributing any additional value to the economy, then yes, CEOs are certainly overpaid.

We don't even know how good the selection criteria are for CEOs. Maybe the skills and abilities needed to get hired are not the same skills and abilities need to do the job? In fact, it seems likely to me that in order to make the really big bucks as CEO one must focus on self-promotion at the expense of the interests of shareholders. So by the very nature of the selection process, the highest paid CEOs are inevitably not the best people for the job.

[kaiser soze]

Q is a tool

nuff said

[Documad]

oh don't be jealous....

the news never has any bias or filters. it's like the bible.

valid debates, sure...

like you need to invent new technology to be a good CEO?

yeah, ideas only come in technology. nothing else matters. yeah.
fuck leadership, business models, etc....if you haven't created a warp engine, then shut the fuck up! right?

you're not bias.
and why focus on Oil? because it's the easier target?

yeah, cause non of the other ones do.
and you know all this....you've researched those statements...huh?


as i've said numerous times in this thread....i do think thier salaries are often ridiculous.
but keep pretending that i didn't, like everyone else. strawmen make you feel better, right?
Qdrop, I apologize. I don't read your posts with multiple quotes. I tried and I can't. I can't track fragments of sentences out of context and try to track them back to where they came from. Some kind of mental block I guess, or just not how my brain works.

If you said that CEOs' salaries are ridiculous, then I did miss it. I am glad that we agree but I don't understand why you started the thread then.

In business school, you do a lot of case studies. That's how they taught management at my school at least. I tend to think in terms of individual stories but I've certainly noticed patterns. Your article mentioned the same patterns I noticed.

I never studied oil companies in school. I used the oil company example because I heard that the biggest US corporation is an oil company. My point is that it's difficult to measure success of CEOs and profits don't do it because profits for some industries (like oil) have nothing to do with who's running the company and everything to do with congress, the weather, and the politics in the mideast.

I wasn't talking about just inventions. I'd like to see a CEO come up with any kind of innovation. The ones I object to are the class of corporate executives that started in the 1980s and continue today. The ones who don't actually make or do anything. Whether they are corporate raiders who sell off the pieces of companies they bought or the ones whose only contribution is playing games with balance sheets to make their corporation's stock price go up, they don't help society.

I work with top level people and I have a corporate executive in the family, so I have no bias against big shots. :p

[Documad]

The funny thing (to me) about CEOs is that ones we studied when I was going to business school were thought, at that time, to be the best of the best. Most of them tanked since I studied them. Anyone remember People Express? It was a big hairy deal back in the day. :)

[yeahwho]

I think the wrong question is being asked. The question should be;

Are CEO's really serving the consumers needs?

Because the real purpose of the CEO is shareholder value, they are paid to do what must be done legally to achieve maximum dollar value out of everything in that corporation.

I find it repulsive when CEO's get awarded for selling out ethics to gain profit. So yes many are grossly overpaid, they've done more damage to the World economy than helped.

[Pres Zount]

the undereducated idealist from spazmania.

Type "division of Labour" into google. Try wikipedia.

It doesn't matter wich economist you choose (marx, mises, adam smith...) Division of labour is still the same, i.e not "different wages".


Your "self employed" person is closer to a worker than a CEO. Hence the term "middle class". No, I'm not making this up!

Workers can run companies by themselves, CEO's cannot. The factory in thne example I gave you lasted over a year until the government shut them down. I'm not sure of the current situation. I would see that as succesful. Especially in this cut throat free market system where it is survival of the fittest. A company with no workers couldn't last a few days. you can't escape that point.

If you said that CEOs' salaries are ridiculous, then I did miss it. I am glad that we agree but I don't understand why you started the thread then.

He didn't say anything. He posted a link to a 'study' without any personal commentary then immediatley went on the defensive, of course everybody sees Qdrop as agreeing with the link (since he posted it) and since he gives examples of how great CEO's are. Then denies having a different opinion once he sees how wrong he is.

You also have ot ignore most of his cut and paste and quote and '...'. It's all tehre to overwhelm you with redundant information. Sidetracking from the point at hand is Qdops ace up his sleeve.

[chrisd]

not if you account for the intangible jealousy they have to deal with from embittered haters who'd rather sneeze into the communist manifesto then be able to invite their woman for a drink

[Qdrop]

I think the wrong question is being asked. The question should be;

Are CEO's really serving the consumers needs?

Because the real purpose of the CEO is shareholder value, they are paid to do what must be done legally to achieve maximum dollar value out of everything in that corporation.

I find it repulsive when CEO's get awarded for selling out ethics to gain profit. So yes many are grossly overpaid, they've done more damage to the World economy than helped.

yeah, that's a good topic offshoot....

The Corporation was a good eye-opener into how SOME CEO's and business run.

i have not doubt that the climate in today's business world produces what amounts to figure heads in the CEO chair....guys who have credible enough names to boost investor confidence...
others who are hired to take the fall, but get paid a nice windfall accordingly...
there is plenty of nasty shit that goes on.

but just like hearing about some black men robbing liquor stores does not mean all black people are criminals....
hearing about corrupt or inept CEO's does make all CEO and hierarchy management suspect or corrupt.

i find it sad that some on this board hypocritally pick and choose when to believe in stereotypes, and when to chastize them as being evil...

[Qdrop]

Type "division of Labour" into google. Try wikipedia.

It doesn't matter wich economist you choose (marx, mises, adam smith...) Division of labour is still the same, i.e not "different wages". there is absolutely no reason to expect that division of labor must equate to identical wages either.
you certainly couldn't take a basic premise like that, and espose it as some kind of socialist maxim...considering it has been discussed in excess by the likes of Adam Smith and others, that hardly seems fair.

in it's most naked sense, division of labor is rather devoid of wage payment one way of the other- it speaks of efficiency....
but, unless you are a socialist (hmmph), it would stand to reason that not every position in divided labor is equal work, so nor does it require equal pay.


Your "self employed" person is closer to a worker than a CEO. Hence the term "middle class". No, I'm not making this up! well in a sense...we both are "making this up"...there is no standard right or wrong to what a self-employed person is "closer to".
it's opinion.
and we differ.

Workers can run companies by themselves how efficiently? and for how long?...that is where this debate stemmed from: which model is more efficient. then you veered of into "at least it's possible...so that makes workers more valuable...nani nani booboo.."

neither can function well without the other, if at all.
the problem with your stance of "labor is more important" or "should be making as much or more then a management" is that while even if you say the labor (in it's whole) is as important, OR EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, that cannot be said of any one individual laborer.
labor works as a unit. any one member of labor could not be consider to be worth more than the whole. it is only as a whole unit that you can claim any equitable value to that of CEO or high manager.
so how could any one laborer be thought to be equal to one CEO...or to be paid the same?

few would argue that, on the average, any one laborer isn't FAR more replaceable than any one CEO or upper management.

when we fire a laborer at my plant...we have a replacement in 1 or 2 days.
it took us 4 months to find a new plant manager when the other left the position.
why is that?

the best you could say, is that the ENTIRE labor salary (the sum) should be at least equal to the salary of the CEO or high management ( a system Costco uses basically).

The factory in the example I gave you lasted over a year until the government shut them down. any info on thier efficiency or success in profit?

I'm not sure of the current situation. I would see that as succesful. few others would.

Especially in this cut throat free market system where it is survival of the fittest. A company with no workers couldn't last a few days. you can't escape that point. but it doesn't bolster your stance.
it doesn't really matter if a factory with no CEO can last longer than a factory with no labor. that doesn't make them more important.
both are necessary.
you are arguing this point like a 6 year old.


He didn't say anything.

ummm:


from post #28
"i do think they deserve to be paid more, if not the most...but many of the current salaries seem incredibly outlandish."
and was stated by me numerous other times...
but hey, don't let reality get in your way.
socialists never do.

He posted a link to a 'study' without any personal commentary yes, to start some discussion. it worked. that's the point of a message board, right?

then immediatley went on the defensive, about CEO's not being important or worthy of higher pay....not about many of the ridiculously high salaries.

of course everybody sees Qdrop as agreeing with the link (since he posted it) and since he gives examples of how great CEO's are.
i love when you post statements like that. it makes you look so much more pompous and idiotic than i ever could.

just give them enough rope...

Then denies having a different opinion once he sees how wrong he is. wow...you can read minds!

[Pres Zount]

So, Ceo's are overpaid, Division of Labour isn't about diferent wages, and workers can run a factory without 'Heirachy of Managment'.

[Documad]

Qdrop needs to re-read the article he posted. The statistics in the article say that the salary spread between CEO and worker is about four times higher than it was ten years before. The article says that maybe it's more difficult to run a business now and they play with the statistics, but it's pretty telling.

Are CEOs of today four times better than they were ten years ago? Even twice as good? Clearly no.

And in true racist form of saying that some of my friends are black, it's time for me to disclose that I have a close family member who is a top executive at a top corporation. :p

[Documad]

I'm sorry. It needs to be said. It's spreading to other threads and this keeps getting bumped so it's on the front page all the time.

"CEOs" in the thread title is plural, not possessive.

"CEOs on average are overpaid." (plural)

"My CEO's house is lovely." (possessive)

See the difference? It's like when we talked about how some foreign restaurants make the mistake of saying that there are "onion's" in my favorite dish, when it's really "onions" in the dish.

(not a swipe at Q -- everyone's doin' it -- it's been driving me mad)

[Qdrop]

So, Ceo's are overpaid, many could be yes...never argued that.
but not all...and not none.

Division of Labour isn't about diferent wages, but it certainly plays a role in assigning wages, doesn't it?

and workers can run a factory without 'Heirachy of Managment'. how the fuck do you know? that article is useless.

[Qdrop]

Qdrop needs to re-read the article he posted. yeah...and you need to re-read all of my posts in thier entirety...rather than skimming over them and filling in the blanks with your pre-concieved notions about my stance.

The statistics in the article say that the salary spread between CEO and worker is about four times higher than it was ten years before. The article says that maybe it's more difficult to run a business now and they play with the statistics, but it's pretty telling. uh, yeah.
thanks for the summary.

if anything, i've taken the stance that many CEO likely are overpaid...

Are CEOs of today four times better than they were ten years ago? Even twice as good? Clearly no. i don't know about "clearly"...but i don't think many of the exorbitant salaries are justified.

you really would rather swallow Pres's misleading strawman attacks on my stance, than read through my posts yourself?
hmm...the GOP has a place for you, dear.

[Pres Zount]

how the fuck do you know? that article is useless.

er, I know that it can be done, because, well it is being done.

[Qdrop]

er, I know that it can be done, because, well it is being done.

hahahhha.....
you "know" only because Stanky posted a link to a recent documentary about one little factory in Argentina that tried it for less than a year before the gov't shut them down....
they had liquidated assets to fund, had no evidence of a business model, profit report, or business outlook.
shit, all us managers could leave my plant for a month...fill the plant with 10 year olds with a modicum of training...and just let it "run".
then you could scream "SEEE!?!? IT COULD BE DONE...TEN YEAR OLDS RAN IT WITH NO MANAGEMENT!!
the efficiency, the profit margin...BAH...who cares? it COULD be done is all that is important.

typical, idealistic socialist.
you had nothing to cling to until stanky threw you a bone....which you now cling to like it's a crackpipe.

[Qdrop]

So, Ceo's are overpaid, Division of Labour isn't about diferent wages, and workers can run a factory without 'Heirachy of Managment'.

(so allow me to now over-simplify and summarize the debate in a biased and misleading context to garner support for my stance:)


So, I never stated that many CEOs salaries aren't exorbitant, Division of labor presents a logical variation on wages and salaries based on responsibility and market value, and there is no evidence that a factory can run without a "heirarchy of managment" with higher efficience, profit, or even positive outlook in the market place.


hey Pres...how many time do you want to get your ass chewed out?
this is a political board...not a felching brothel.

[Pres Zount]

Actually, I posted the link before stanky posted his. I don't really want you to eat out of my arse at all, you can eat shit anytime you want, just don't bother me for it.

The brukman factory ran for four years. With a higher efficiency than before it was worker controlled - the reason it was occupied and taken over was because the managers had sent it bankrupt and had not paid the workers for several weeks.

So, you have capitalists with a huge economic potential and thousands of dollars beind them, versus workers who only have the money they can make day to day that do not have the support of the government or any political or economic power.

And the capitalists run the company into the ground.

[Documad]

you really would rather swallow Pres's misleading strawman attacks on my stance, than read through my posts yourself?
hmm...the GOP has a place for you, dear.
I don't understand

[Qdrop]

Actually, I posted the link before stanky posted his. I don't really want you to eat out of my arse at all, you can eat shit anytime you want, just don't bother me for it. uh...so you did, you beat him to the punch. my bad.


The brukman factory ran for four years.
"On April 18, 2003, 16 months after workers reoccupied Brukman, the government sent hundreds of police to evict workers and an example of struggle."

With a higher efficiency than before it was worker controlled were are you getting that from?


And the capitalists run the company into the ground. the people who ran if before clearly were terrible businessmen...

but the workers who took over after:
"After a month of occupation, workers sold the factory's inventory with the goal of generating enough money to reinitiate production. The workers began to organize in an open assembly and commissions to deal with tasks such as accounting, media relations and security. Shortly before the eviction the workers decided in an assembly to hire five workers showing that production was viable."

so they sold a bunch of inventory, probably put themselves in the red....and hired 5 fucking workers.
5 workers, pres.

5 workers for the factory.

they were really on the road to profitability.

but it's possible, right?! it's possible!!

[chrisd]

try a simple equation

c e o = ? ... chief executive officer

so... take a situation where you are paid to do something (doesn't have to be money, can be like cds or wheed, whateva)

ok... in this situation you are also the one deciding what is being done

now

you is a, your pay is e and what you're payed to do is y

plus k parameter for the responsibility

then you get the equation e = you times your responsibility over what's being done

it follows: e = a * k / y

now if your responisibility is as big as your job then

e = a and since a person is not really accountable you can pay him an ever growing amount

QED (yes post number 69)

[chrisd]

see math is the way to go guys, language is just so interpretable

[Pres Zount]

"On April 18, 2003, 16 months after workers reoccupied Brukman, the government sent hundreds of police to evict workers and an example of struggle."
I have no idea why I typed that. My bad.

were are you getting that from?
It's logical. If a company is forced to bankruptcy, it is obviously being run less efficiently than if it were not being forced to bankruptcy.


the people who ran if before clearly were terrible businessmen...

Oh, ok, only comapnies with 'terrible businessmen' go under. right. A good businessman can make anything work.

And why do you find it ok to look at bosses on a case to case basis, but it's not ok to look at the workers in the same light? I've admited that the Brukman factory was the first thing that came to my head, and that it probably wasn't as succesful as other worker collectives, but it was still more succesful than what the bosses did with it.

You said it was logicaly (and philisophicaly, wtf??) impossible. Now you have admitted it is possible. Success can vary from case to case, but when you have the full weight of the Argentine government and worldwide capitalism weighing down on you, it's not going to be the best it can be.

But it was still better than the 'terrible businessmen' who ran it before.



STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

[Qdrop]

It's logical. If a company is forced to bankruptcy, it is obviously being run less efficiently than if it were not being forced to bankruptcy. how do you know the worker collective wouldn't have run it back into bankruptcy as well?
we have no idea.
but considering thier initial business practice of liquidating inventory and only hiring a tiny workforce of productivity....it didn't look too promising.


Oh, ok, only comapnies with 'terrible businessmen' go under. right. A good businessman can make anything work. not necessarily.
there are a thousand variables.

And why do you find it ok to look at bosses on a case to case basis, but it's not ok to look at the workers in the same light?
hey, perhaps there are some factory laborers with the smarts and ingenuity to run a business without a CEO.
but then they would be management....
wait, that's hierarchy management...

but they'd all get paid the same, right? and share in the equal profit or whatever?
but..then....what's the incentive for the management types to take a much more difficult job...when they could just pull the widget lever on the floor for the same pay?
how do you decide who gets to be the management type?
you can't make all decisions by voting on everything...that would be incredibly inefficient and take forever...particulary if some have a far lesser understanding of business, markets, production, etc...
so one or few must make the business models and decisions.
who? why them?
and you may only get one shot to do it right before the business goes under.

who wants that kind of responsibility and stress when they get paid no more then the guy sweeping the floors?

can you see why this system you are proposing hasn't won out in the free world?
people don't really want it.
it just doesn't work....not efficiently enough to compete with the alternative.


I've admited that the Brukman factory was the first thing that came to my head, and that it probably wasn't as succesful as other worker collectives, but it was still more succesful than what the bosses did with it. you don't know that.

You said it was logicaly (and philisophicaly, wtf??) impossible.
yes speaking to the idea of completly separating management from labor.
it's really never as easy as "these guys sit in thier offices and smoke cigars and sign papers and fire people...and these guys lift the heavy boxs and pull the levers".

Now you have admitted it is possible. Success can vary from case to case, the initial debate was that it can't compete the system of hierarchy management and pay, etc.
possibility does not equal success.

but when you have the full weight of the Argentine government and worldwide capitalism weighing down on you, it's not going to be the best it can be. Argentina is very select case....that economy was run like shit from the get go....

But it was still better than the 'terrible businessmen' who ran it before. you don't know that.

[Pres Zount]

how do you know the worker collective wouldn't have run it back into bankruptcy as well?
we have no idea.
but considering thier initial business practice of liquidating inventory and only hiring a tiny workforce of productivity....it didn't look too promising.

I have no idea, but you have no idea also. Like i said, if you want to lok at CEOs on a case by case basis, you have to do the same for collectives. There are thousands of worker collectives all over the world. It just so happens tha tnot every single on of them has a website or is as famous as the Brukman textile factory.




hey, perhaps there are some factory laborers with the smarts and ingenuity to run a business without a CEO.
but then they would be management....
wait, that's hierarchy management...

er, no. It's "some factory laborers with the smarts and ingenuity to run a business without a CEO". Not managment. Managment as a verb, not a noun I suppose.

but they'd all get paid the same, right? and share in the equal profit or whatever?
I remember I asked a teacher in primary school what communism was, "everyone gets paid the same" was the answer. Wrong, but an answer enough for a nine year old. I've tried to steer the conversation away from your misconceptions of socialism - not everybody has to get paid the same.
Again, trying to sound like you know something, but still coming across at a primary school level.



yes speaking to the idea of completly separating management from labor.
it's really never as easy as "these guys sit in thier offices and smoke cigars and sign papers and fire people...and these guys lift the heavy boxs and pull the levers".

the initial debate was that it can't compete the system of hierarchy management and pay, etc.
possibility does not equal success.


The initial debate was that CEOs are paid to much. You conceded that they are. It swung to what what Division of Labour means and then to the "impossibility" of worker collectives. Both of wich you conceded.

Now you are trying to say that all collectives are unsuccessful, without listening to your own arguments for the support of the bosses. ie that some bosses are ":terrible" adn some are not. The same can be applied to worker collectives on a case by case basis.

and

"there are a thousand variables."

there are a thousand variables on worker collectives as well. The biggest being political and economic power, wich capitalists have, and workers lack.

[Qdrop]

I have no idea, but you have no idea also. Like i said, if you want to lok at CEOs on a case by case basis, you have to do the same for collectives. There are thousands of worker collectives all over the world. It just so happens tha tnot every single on of them has a website or is as famous as the Brukman textile factory. so no one knows...and it's pointless to discuss...


er, no. It's "some factory laborers with the smarts and ingenuity to run a business without a CEO". Not managment. Managment as a verb, not a noun I suppose. why is this system not the norm?
why can it not compete with the alternative?

it couldn't be a conspiracy....

I remember I asked a teacher in primary school what communism was, "everyone gets paid the same" was the answer. Wrong, but an answer enough for a nine year old. I've tried to steer the conversation away from your misconceptions of socialism - not everybody has to get paid the same.
Again, trying to sound like you know something, but still coming across at a primary school level.
mkay...so....labor would be divided....and salaries would be adjusted based on level of responsibility....some would manage, some would not...

please explain how "your" system is differant than the norm...


The initial debate was that CEOs are paid to much. You conceded that they are. "conceded"? i never said they weren't. not once.

It swung to what what Division of Labour means and then to the "impossibility" of worker collectives. Both of wich you conceded.
i made my point about how division of labour directly connects to wage differances....and you just "conceded" above that not everyone should be paid the same. division of labor and level of responsibility would play the primary role in that.

and your "you said it was impossible" attack is getting super fuckin stale.
as i already stated....just because a collective CAN run a company without a CEO, does not mean it can do it well or successfully...or compete with the alternative.

person A: I can fly.

person B: no you can't, that's impossible.

person A: yes i can, i will jump from this ledge and fly straight down to the ground.

person B: no, that's just falling.

person A: no, i'm flying straight down. by the definition of "flying", i am flying...straight down.

person B: are you serious?

person A: yes, i can fly straight down...admit it. I can fly. it IS possible. you must concede that i can fly.

person B: but what about when you hit the ground and break your back? your "flying" isn't very successful or useful...

person A: but it IS possible that i can fly! concede that point!

person B: what is wrong with you? fine, you can fly...

person A: HAH! you conceded!

Now you are trying to say that all collectives are unsuccessful, without listening to your own arguments for the support of the bosses. ie that some bosses are ":terrible" adn some are not. The same can be applied to worker collectives on a case by case basis. which system is more successful? and why?
who cares if it's "possible"?



there are a thousand variables on worker collectives as well. The biggest being political and economic power, wich capitalists have, and workers lack.
so it's a capitalist conspiracy that keeps socialist collective business from succeeding and competing on large scales?

[Documad]

I still don't understand the remark about me following Zount or joining the GOP. If anyone understands I'd appreciate some help. I don't understand how the two go together and neither applies to me at all, so is it a joke that I'm not getting?

[yeahwho]

I still don't understand the remark about me following Zount or joining the GOP. If anyone understands I'd appreciate some help. I don't understand how the two go together and neither applies to me at all, so is it a joke that I'm not getting?

The thread title is hilarious.

[Pres Zount]

You say it is poinless to discuss the success of this collective, yet you continue to prompt me with questions about it's sucess? I don't think you read your own posts.

You wonder why collectives cannot compete with the capitalists of the worl? I have already told you that "The biggest [variable for failure] being political and economic power, wich capitalists have, and workers lack. "

Also, you are getting into the realms of Productive and Unproductive Labour. (don't worry q, I don't expect you to know what that is). It bassically means that what might be productive to one class, may not be considered productive to another. So, what is producing enourmous wealth for the capitalists, is not producing anything near that for the workers. It can also be applied to what is unsuccseful in a capitalist system, may be succesfull in a non-capitalist system, and vice versa. A lord managing a farm would be succesful in a feudal society, not so much in a capitalist one.

Once again you have misunderstood the division of labour. It is not giving people different jobs, it is dividing one job into several tasks. I gave the example of a car factory conveyor belt-like system. The division of worker and boss is not division of labour, they both have seperate jobs and tasks.

As well as this you have incorrectly acounted that wages are directly linked to division of labour. This is not the case. Most workers in a factory (or anywhere for that matter) have different jobs or different tasks, but their wages are ussually the same. You can have division of labour without different wages, and you can have no division of labour with different wages. The two can be linked, but they are not inseperable, or 'directly linked'.



And yes, it is capitalism that prevent collectives from being entirely "succesful", (all the while remembering the law of succesful and unsuccesful production). It's not a conspiracy, if you don't think capitalists don't want a socialist society then you are an idiot. Did you know that it took hundreds of years for the bourgeoise revolutions to work out? Does that mean that feudalism was a better social structure?

[Qdrop]

You wonder why collectives cannot compete with the capitalists of the worl? I have already told you that "The biggest [variable for failure] being political and economic power, wich capitalists have, and workers lack. "
why do they have more power?
is it because the capitalist system is simply more efficient and produces more wealth?

and why can't workers be capitalists?

what am I? a worker or a capitalist?


Also, you are getting into the realms of Productive and Unproductive Labour. (don't worry q, I don't expect you to know what that is). It bassically means that what might be productive to one class, may not be considered productive to another. So, what is producing enourmous wealth for the capitalists, is not producing anything near that for the workers. It can also be applied to what is unsuccseful in a capitalist system, may be succesfull in a non-capitalist system, and vice versa. A lord managing a farm would be succesful in a feudal society, not so much in a capitalist one.
oh, i understand this just fine....
as a matter of fact...in very small community....i think a collective system (communist, etc) WOULD be best....the variables are so low....it would probably work the best by far.

but when you start getting into state and national levels...with complex economies and markets....collectives, planned economies....they can't work.
they aren't reactive, nor pro-active....they can't adapt fast enough to the unpredictable variables....
planned economies can't "plan"...

but we're jumping topics here....


Once again you have misunderstood the division of labour. It is not giving people different jobs, it is dividing one job into several tasks. I gave the example of a car factory conveyor belt-like system. The division of worker and boss is not division of labour, they both have seperate jobs and tasks.

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM

As well as this you have incorrectly acounted that wages are directly linked to division of labour. This is not the case. Most workers in a factory (or anywhere for that matter) have different jobs or different tasks, but their wages are ussually the same. not in my factory.
seniority aside...differant jobs among the workers get differant pay based on level of responsibility.

You can have division of labour without different wages, sure...but what if each division has a differant level of responsibility, etc...why shouldn't they get paid more...and if not, why would they want that position.
to pretend that every job within a "perfect" division of labor would be exactly equal in skill and responsibility is ridiculous.

and you can have no division of labour with different wages. sure, and what are those differant wages based on.

The two can be linked, but they are not inseperable, or 'directly linked'. in the real world they are, man.
get your head out of the philosophy and look at the real-world practice.



And yes, it is capitalism that prevent collectives from being entirely "succesful", (all the while remembering the law of succesful and unsuccesful production). It's not a conspiracy, if you don't think capitalists don't want a socialist society then you are an idiot. Did you know that it took hundreds of years for the bourgeoise revolutions to work out? Does that mean that feudalism was a better social structure?
eh...that's a faulty comparison and you know it.

bourgeoise was better than feudalism...so socialism must be better than capitalism...

and yes yes....socialism just needs more time....more time...just wait...it will work...it must needs more time.

socialism isn't being oppressed, pres....it just can't compete.
it's not be forcibly beaten down by capitalist pigs....the people within the socialist systems just demanded more, when the system failed them.

the KEY disconnect that capitalists and socialists have...is what the motivations IS vs. what the motivation SHOULD be.
(motivation being what makes the people tick in any economic system).

motivation IS profit and wealth.

socialists think it SHOULD be equality.

that "IS" will beat the "SHOULD" every time.

socialists will never except that.

reality vs. philosophy.

[Pres Zount]

why do they have more power?
is it because the capitalist system is simply more efficient and produces more wealth?

and why can't workers be capitalists?

what am I? a worker or a capitalist?

They have more power because we live in a capitalist society. I figured you would have known that. We live in a society where the rule of law defends the right of the capitalist to own the means of production.
Workers can't be capitalists becasue then they would be capitalists. Do I have to tell you what a capitalist is? You ca be a capitalist that works, I suppose, if that is what you are asking. I don't know why, it really has nothing to do with anything.

What are you? I don't know. Do you own a factory or do you work? jesus. You are going to have to explain to me this one. I don't know what in the fuck you are leading to. Maybe you could answer documad too.

but we're jumping topics here....
Oh, it's we now is it?

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM
"But in the way in which this business is now carried on, not only the whole work is a peculiar trade, but it is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades. One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head: to make the head requires two or three distinct operations to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them."

Post what piece you wanted me to look at, 'cause a few paragraphs in seems to be on my side. Maybe it changes a few more in but I can't be bothered to read all that. Do you want me to link to Das Kapital and tell you to read it all? This isn't homework you know.

All your 'arguments' trying to tie division of labour "directly" to wage rates are garbage. Wages are set by other elements, you give one yourself, "seniority", or responsibility, or any number of things. Division of labour is in an entirely different category of thought. If worker (a) puts the nut in the machine, and worker (b) presses the button on the machine, you are saying that their dividing up of tasks should directly set their wages? That makes no sense.

This is real world practice. Once again; Division of labour can have an affect on wages, but wages are not directly linked to division of labour - wages come from any number of oustide elements.

Your sarcasm is pathetic. You give no facts or reasons. Apparantly unfunny sarcasm is suffice. Do you think I want to discuss socialism with you? Sarcasm and "..." is all you have. You've butchered economic science with your faulty terms, I called you out, let it go.

[Qdrop]

They have more power because we live in a capitalist society. I figured you would have known that. We live in a society where the rule of law defends the right of the capitalist to own the means of production.
Workers can't be capitalists becasue then they would be capitalists. Do I have to tell you what a capitalist is? You ca be a capitalist that works, I suppose, if that is what you are asking. I don't know why, it really has nothing to do with anything.
missed the point...again.

why are we a capitalist society?
luck of the draw?
why are capitalist societies more powerful and produce more wealth for ALL?
why?
luck?

stop dodging.
you know exactly what i'm leading to.


Maybe it changes a few more in but I can't be bothered to read all that.
it will take you 5 minutes, you lazy bastard.
he speaks of the overall complexity of systems which divide labor, and goes far beyond the simple anecdotal story you cherry picked.
actually, if you read it....you may see that we *gasp* could find some common ground in our take on division of labor.


All your 'arguments' trying to tie division of labour "directly" to wage rates are garbage. Wages are set by other elements, you give one yourself, "seniority", or responsibility, or any number of things. Division of labour is in an entirely different category of thought. If worker (a) puts the nut in the machine, and worker (b) presses the button on the machine, you are saying that their dividing up of tasks should directly set their wages? That makes no sense. it depends on what task each is doing, how much training and responsibility is involved...that is an UNAVOIDABLE element in division of labor.

This is real world practice. Once again; Division of labour can have an affect on wages, but wages are not directly linked to division of labour - wages come from any number of oustide elements.
wages ARE directly linked to division of labor BECAUSE of any number of outside elements and that link cannot be broken in real world practice.
jesus, this is exactly what i've been screaming about....and you, 4 pages later, just repackage what i said in your own words- as if YOU just introduced it.
how underhanded....

Do you think I want to discuss socialism with you? you've done it for 4 pages...so i'd say you do.

I called you out, let it go.
your defending an economic system that has led nations to ruins or near ruins over the past century, and has been out-produced by capitalism in the world market consistently,
you repackage my own statements as if they were your own,
you won't read small passages i link to because "you don't have the time",
...and you're declaring YOURSELF the victor?
you're so brave.

[Pres Zount]

So you are employing the "we wouldn't be a capitalist society if it wasn't for the best" argument. right.

you are right on one thing though, I have fallen right into the q drop trap of thinking a debate with you can actually lead anywhere. I don't want to discuss it with you anymore.

PS read this before you can effectively judge anything remotley linked to this discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/introduction.htm

[sumdummonkey]

(snipped) do either of you think any old guy off the floor could have done the same?I guess we'll never know, since no one ever asks them. That may have something to do with their lack of connections.yeah, it's just lack of oppurtunity....
it was his leadership and vision attributes that led him to push a broom for a living.



I wouldn't be so quick to knock the lowly entry-level guy, as that's how a few CEO's or otherwise successful business types got their start.

Frank Clark (http://www.exeloncorp.com/aboutus/management/default.htm#clark), chairman and CEO of ComEd, started in the mailroom (http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=85&category=businessMakers).

As did Kenneth G. Barnes - President / CEO of Upper Mohawk. (http://www.uppermohawkinc.com/co_execteam.asp)

American Idol's Simon Cowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Cowell)started in the mailroom at EMI. Of course, no one was asking his opinion on anything back then. Nor did anyone see any of his “leadership and vision attributes" while he was sorting through all those letters and packages (sure, it’s not the same as pushing a broom, but does it seem anymore glamorous or respectable?).

Nowadays, thousands of auditioning kids every year practically live and breathe by his opinion.

Then again, his father was an executive at the company at the time, so I may be playing into Stanky808’s argument about “connections”.

Nepotism? Nahhh!

Back to your original question: No.

Simply no.

Extreme examples being the exception, the answer is generally no. CEO’s usually aren’t overpaid.

is that the only reason. is the only thing that sets you apart from them, just education and experiance?

Bush went to Harvard (or was it Yale?), ran huge businesses and was a governer of a state....
you think he's a good President?


Microsoft founder Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard after his third year or so, but he was a far better academic student then Bush.

Still, it might have benefited his woes with anti-trust laws and other legal entanglements if he stayed in school. (http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-1998/jw-07-idgns-school.html)


Bush went to Yale, BTW. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush)

[Qdrop]

PS read this before you can effectively judge anything remotley linked to this discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/introduction.htm


oh i dunno:

but I can't be bothered to read all that.
right? :rolleyes: