Activision and EA CEOs Appear on List of "Most Overpaid" in the US

Nunu said:

Unfortunately, not many would work for that amount these days. The larger the business, the more they will pay. For startups or small size places, that may work. Everything else, not a chance. Heck , a few nonprofits pay their execs close to those numbers. And most companies know this.

Click to expand...

Really? So why is it that CEOs were content to earn 20x to 30x their average workers salary from 1965 to 1985, yet suddenly required 200x to 300x from 1997 up to today? Why the 10x increase? Because they can get away with it. That's it. These new execs aren't 10x smarter than the previous generation. They're simply being paid 10x more.

You feel that every competent, intelligent business exec out there would turn his nose up at earning only $1.5 million a year? That's utter nonsense and I can't even begin to comprehend the thought process of someone who could say that with a straight face. The average CEO was working for 10x less for decades. The only reason it increased by 10x is that people got greedy and could get away with it. Not because they magically became 10x smarter or worked 10x harder than their predecessors.

Laowai said:

Great reply, guy.
Besides the fact that you don't know what an opinion is, it's great!

Your earlier comment that these two CEO's don't deserve their pay because they're not doing their jobs well is absolutely an opinion because it's based on your feelings.
My statement that their respective Boards and shareholders are not unsatified with their performance is a reasonable conclusion to make based on the available facts.

1. They remain employed by their respective companies/Boards.
2. There is no credible reason to believe that their asses are on the chopping block that I've seen.
3. Activision is showing record profits and that is not generally a reason for a CEO to lose their job.

Click to expand...

I never said they didn't deserve their pay maybe read first and rage second... but hey keep fighting the good fight those CEO's really need your support. Enjoy screaming into the wind man

kinjo said:

I never said they didn't deserve their pay maybe read first and rage second... but hey keep fighting the good fight those CEO's really need your support. Enjoy screaming into the wind man

Click to expand...

You're right. That was SuperchargedZ06 or something. My mistake confusing you two. You were the pinko who thinks the US is unfair and oppressive.
I seem to be having a hard time keeping track of who spewed what insanity in this thread.

Creig said:

Really? So why is it that CEOs were content to earn 20x to 30x their average workers salary from 1965 to 1985, yet suddenly required 200x to 300x from 1997 up to today? Why the 10x increase? Because they can get away with it. That's it. These new execs aren't 10x smarter than the previous generation. They're simply being paid 10x more.

You feel that every competent, intelligent business exec out there would turn his nose up at earning only $1.5 million a year? That's utter nonsense and I can't even begin to comprehend the thought process of someone who could say that with a straight face. The average CEO was working for 10x less for decades. The only reason it increased by 10x is that people got greedy and could get away with it. Not because they magically became 10x smarter or worked 10x harder than their predecessors.

Click to expand...

If you have ever worked in a large corp, then you would understand why that 1.5 million will not attract top level talent for any big business. If you do work in one, head to your HR department and ask them what the ceo is getting paid. Smaller ,regional MD's , not ceo's make that salary - 4-500k base, year end bonus and options boost. Again, I don't set the prices, the market does. If you don't want to comprehend this fact you're just wasting your time.

Companies are offering these packages to prospective employees because they want to get their services. Everyone is competing for the best, in all categories. If you somehow think some conspiratorial cabal is out to hurt Joe Shmoe's feelings by offering and paying more money, then I can't help you there. And lastly, if you are not a shareholder , you are way to invested in what other people/businesses do with their money.

Nunu said:

If you have ever worked in a large corp, then you would understand why that 1.5 million will not attract top level talent for any big business. If you do work in one, head to your HR department and ask them what the ceo is getting paid. Smaller ,regional MD's , not ceo's make that salary - 4-500k base, year end bonus and options boost. Again, I don't set the prices, the market does. If you don't want to comprehend this fact you're just wasting your time.

Click to expand...

This is only part of the truth. Companies wanted the best people for the job back in the 50s to 80s also. CEO to worker pay was around the 20:1 then. It's over 300:1 now. Worker pay has stayed roughly the same (when adjusted for inflation), CEO pay has gone up over 1,400%. Just a weird coincidence? You talk about not comprehending facts, but that's a pretty critical one to gloss over. Like you said, the market determines pay, and LAWS partially determine what the market does.

The reality is CEO pay began being tied to stock options, and stock buybacks became legal. Those two changes led to CEO salaries entering the stratosphere. Once performance is tied to stocks instead of company profit, massive manipulation becomes possible and it changes the entire priorities of the CEO and thus, the company. I guarantee you if stock buybacks were made illegal again and if CEOs went back to being paid based on actual company earnings and not stock performance the salaries of CEOs would starting floating back down to earth REGARDLESS of how good the talent was.

I am not glossing over that fact, but you said it, it's not illegal. Share buy backs certainly added to their rise, probably more than half of what they make, but not all companies use that as incentives for rewards. Some do, a few don't. I think Fed ex, TW, and IBM disclose the potential of buybacks on performance/reward metrics and do not include them. They still pay their ceos well over the 20:1 ratio people seem fixated on.

You should also remember, buybacks are often used for important reasons , not just to spike a ceo's pay. Google "reasons for share buybacks" and see. Shareholders along with the fatcat ceos also do well in that scenario. The bottom line for me has always been the same. If both parties involved are happy with the outcome, I see no reason for anyone not directly part of that to interfere.

tetris42 said:

This is only part of the truth. Companies wanted the best people for the job back in the 50s to 80s also. CEO to worker pay was around the 20:1 then. It's over 300:1 now. Worker pay has stayed roughly the same (when adjusted for inflation), CEO pay has gone up over 1,400%. Just a weird coincidence? You talk about not comprehending facts, but that's a pretty critical one to gloss over. Like you said, the market determines pay, and LAWS partially determine what the market does.

The reality is CEO pay began being tied to stock options, and stock buybacks became legal. Those two changes led to CEO salaries entering the stratosphere. Once performance is tied to stocks instead of company profit, massive manipulation becomes possible and it changes the entire priorities of the CEO and thus, the company. I guarantee you if stock buybacks were made illegal again and if CEOs went back to being paid based on actual company earnings and not stock performance the salaries of CEOs would starting floating back down to earth REGARDLESS of how good the talent was.

Click to expand...

Stop making so much sense, it waters down the kool-aid.