• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do CEO's make som much?

snakestretcher said:
And sitting around doing not very much is worth millions in salaries? You try sitting around at work, doing nothing, and see how long you last in your job.
Click to expand...

Try posting something real. Your fantasy is a poor way to support an argument.
 
That's now how our economic system works KLATTU.
Rules shape how supply and demand occur, and the rules are incredibly imbalanced in favor of the CEO (Board and executives too).
The answer is to tweak those rules.

CEOs take so much of a company's profit, whether directly or through stock, at the highest levels, primarily as a result of the imbalance of power in the corporate structure.
Labor has zero power, organization, information, about the company they invest their life into. Add in their enormous influence of politics, and you're basically nothing to them.
The CEO has substantial power, organization (literally at the top + the board) and all the information about the company they invest their life into.

Good reforms to this involve ensuring one of two things.
1. the workers, labor, who make the company possible, and earn the vast majority of the profits in terms of labor output, should have more power and organization so they can have a better negotiation position with the elites who hoard the money at the top of the company.

2. We simply let companies run this way, but we tax them in the back-end, and fund programs that benefit everyone (including all that labor and their families, etc.).

Republicans will cry that #2 is hand-outs, but you can see its really just one solution in how to address the imbalance of power in larger corporations.
And unions are the #1 way for labor to organize, and corporations have gutted them over the past decades because the elites in corporations want it all for themselves.

You can also use a mix of those, which is maybe better since it's both more resilient, and doesn't over-power labor or make taxes quite as relied on.
 
ocean515 said:
If they didn't provide 350 times the value, they wouldn't be paid that much.
Click to expand...

This is a myth. They are sometimes valuable and sometimes average and sometimes worthless. Compensation is loosely tied to value but, not directly in my experience. For example, at my last job, they kept throwing more onto my plate, so I was producing more for the company while making the same wage I was hired at. I was producing an extra $500+ dollars in goods per week and I made the same wage as when I was producing $500 dollars less per week. How would someone who holds your beliefs in economics reconcile that?
 
Winston said:
This is a myth. They are sometimes valuable and sometimes average and sometimes worthless. Compensation is loosely tied to value but, not directly in my experience. For example, at my last job, they kept throwing more onto my plate, so I was producing more for the company while making the same wage I was hired at. I was producing an extra $500+ dollars in goods per week and I made the same wage as when I was producing $500 dollars less per week. How would someone who holds your beliefs in economics reconcile that?
Click to expand...

It's not a myth. It's a fact.

While the hiring and monitoring of CEO's is a little different between public and private corporations, they both are subject to the findings of the Board of Directors, who are bound by the law to meet their fiduciary duty to the Corporation.

Some CEO's fail, and the Corporation is legally bound to live up to the Contract they entered into with the CEO.

It would appear your bias and anger drives your conclusions.

You aren't worth as much as the CEO who heads the company. Not by many multiples of 10. That's just a fact.
 
ocean515 said:
It's not a myth. It's a fact.

While the hiring and monitoring of CEO's is a little different between public and private corporations, they both are subject to the findings of the Board of Directors, who are bound by the law to meet their fiduciary duty to the Corporation.

Some CEO's fail, and the Corporation is legally bound to live up to the Contract they entered into with the CEO.

It would appear your bias and anger drives your conclusions.

You aren't worth as much as the CEO who heads the company. Not by many multiples of 10. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

That's not answering my question, it's just an explanation of how corporations are organized.

My assertion is that compensation isn't tied to value. I gave you an example. Do you care to address why compensation wasn't tied to value in that case?
 
ocean515 said:
If they didn't provide 350 times the value, they wouldn't be paid that much.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it work that way in other countries?

pay-gap-between-ceos-and-average-workers-in-world-by-country.jpg
 
Winston said:
That's not answering my question, it's just an explanation of how corporations are organized.

My assertion is that compensation isn't tied to value. I gave you an example. Do you care to address why compensation wasn't tied to value in that case?
Click to expand...

Compensation is always tied to value. Why do you think CEO's get replaced?

Your example doesn't mean anything. There is no context.

A CEO runs the company, commits it's assets, and oversees future planning that looks years into the future. They have a fiduciary duty to function in a manner that is beneficial to the company. They could be sued, and jailed, if they fail to do that.

A worker clocks in, and clocks out every day.

A CEO clocks in once, and never clocks out until they no longer work for the company.
 
ocean515 said:
Compensation is always tied to value. Why do you think CEO's get replaced?

Your example doesn't mean anything. There is no context.

A CEO runs the company, commits it's assets, and oversees future planning that looks years into the future.

A worker clocks in, and clocks out every day.

A CEO clocks in once, and never clocks out until they no longer work for the company.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you have no explanation. :shrug: wasn't expecting one anyway.
 
ocean515 said:
Compensation is always tied to value. Why do you think CEO's get replaced?

Your example doesn't mean anything. There is no context.

A CEO runs the company, commits it's assets, and oversees future planning that looks years into the future.

A worker clocks in, and clocks out every day.

A CEO clocks in once, and never clocks out until they no longer work for the company.
Click to expand...

And then he loses millions of dollars and get a huge bonus
 
ocean515 said:
Ok, so you have no response to my post. Resorting to Ad Hom is the typical end to a failed effort.
Click to expand...

Your post was refuted in my first reply to you. Compensation isn't tied to value and I gave you an example illustrating that.

ad hom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom