Both the CEO and a low-level employee are they may get fired for performing badly (or some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Both the CEO and a low-level employee are they may get fired for performing badly (or some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.
Joe Blow in accounting has 1/100th of the risk, responsibility, pressure, and exposure that the CEO has. If Joe Blow quits, nothing happens to the company. If Joe Blow makes a decimal mistake error, the next guy up the line catches it and nothing happens to the company.
Cisco has had close to 15k layoffs since 2009. That takes real leadership, and only a qualified CEO that deserves millions for his leadership could make those kind of smart decisions.
Both the CEO and a low-level employee may get fired for performing badly (or for some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.
Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.
You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.
This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.
I was responding to claim that the "risk, responsibility, pressure" of a CEO was much greater than for lower-level employees. It's a pretty fascicle claim to suggest so that the employee who is at risk of losing access to food, shelter, and health care, undergoes "1/100th the risk, responsibility, pressure".If the CEO performs badly, tens of thousands of low-level employees may end up homeless and hungry as a result.
I didn't say anything about it not being fair. I was just pointing out typically the risk to low-level employees for doing a bad job is much greater than for CEOs.Not good enough, huh? It's still not fair to the little guy, huh?
Chambers' salary rose 1.9 percent from last year, to $382,212
In fiscal 2010, Cisco's sales rose 10.9 percent, and net income increased 26.6 percent, from fiscal 2009
I was responding to claim that the "risk, responsibility, pressure" of a CEO was much greater than for lower-level employees. It's a pretty fascicle claim to suggest so that the employee who is at risk of losing access to food, shelter, and health care, undergoes "1/100th the risk, responsibility, pressure".
In fact, I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around.
I didn't say anything about it not being fair. I was just pointing out typically the risk to low-level employees for doing a bad job is much greater than for CEOs.
Perhaps you want to look up all the studies which positively correlate income and general health?Perhaps you want to look up health incidents such as heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart attacks in CEO's vs. the rest of the population?
Yes I do. My designs end up in medical equipment among many other things which can kill people. Why do you think his conscience over a creating faulty product which kills people is any more stressful than mine?Further than that, in the medical technology field like my father's, do you have any idea what it's like having patient's lives ride directly on the performance of your company's product?
Do you have any idea what it's like having 3 meetings a day where millions upon millions of dollars ride on your shoulders?
Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.
You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.
This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.
Perhaps you want to look up health incidents such as heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart attacks in CEO's vs. the rest of the population?
Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.
You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.
This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.
OkToBeR[hocp];1036169398 said:Cisco is overpriced. In short, Cisco is the Monster of network hardware. Ride the advertisement and product name placement train till its over.
Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.
You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.
This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.
Do you have any idea what it's like to know that you are going to lose your house and potentially starve to death as a result of losing your job? You really think the risk of losing someone else's money is 100 times more stressful than the risk of entering absolute poverty where you may not be able to provide basic life needs for yourself or family? That seems delusional to me.
We really need to get rid of this bullshit notion that everyone can be a CEO/executive if only they just keep trying. It's no coincidence that 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 95%. That's the way they want it, and the corporations and the rich people who run them have no intention of sharing any of that wealth with the rest of us.
Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.
You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.
This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.
That's not what I asked. I asked if "you have any idea what it's like to know that you are going to lose your house and potentially starve to death as a result of losing your job?". And it sounds like you haven't.Yup. My family had to rely on donations for food for a period after my father's first two businesses went under.
Maybe you do have a better understanding, but alleging that I couldn't understand the situation having not been in it, when your own involvement is peripheral at best, is pretty atrocious reasoning.
Note that I haven't made any comment on whether CEO compensation is fair or not. I've only objected to your claim that the higher pay is in part justified by higher stress levels 100 times greater.
I stand by my objection that a 100 times greater stress level is absolutely absurd given that:
1) Well paid CEOs risk on failure is limited to probably not getting richer - basic living considerations are a non-issue in the worst case scenario. In fact life will probably be far more comfortable than the vast majority of the people.
2) A low-level worker may literally be losing what society considers basic life necessities, such as shelter, food, clothing, etc. They may additionally be losing their ability to provide these things to family dependents.
Therefore it is unreasonable to suggest low-level workers feel "1/100th" the stress that CEOs feel. I think any reasonable analysis of these factors would show they are at least in the same order of magnitude, if not higher stress for the low-level worker.
And to add to that, THAT is why he is worth the most. Joe Blow in accounting has 1/100th of the risk, responsibility, pressure, and exposure that the CEO has. If Joe Blow quits, nothing happens to the company. If Joe Blow makes a decimal mistake error, the next guy up the line catches it and nothing happens to the company.
When a CEO fucks up, that is not the case. Millions of dollars are lost, and thus millions of employees livelihoods are at risk as well. Just sleeping every night knowing thousands of people's livelihoods are riding on your performance is grounds enough for being the highest paid employee in the company.
CEO's for the most part are immune to cutbacks when the company starts going bad. They eliminate all hourly workers they possibly can first thing intead of eliminating the execs standing around talking to each other all day making 4 or 5 times what them hourly workers did.
The people at the bottom pay for price for the decisions of those at the top while the top execs are usually immune to their bad decisions.
Just wanted to add that they eliminated 15,000 jobs and what did they do with their paychecks? Gave every single dime to the CEO to put in his personal bank account while telling those that they laid off to go fuck themselves cause they don't have the money to pay them. Sounds like a great company to work for.
Just wanted to add that they eliminated 15,000 jobs and what did they do with their paychecks? Gave every single dime to the CEO to put in his personal bank account while telling those that they laid off to go fuck themselves cause they don't have the money to pay them. Sounds like a great company to work for.
Yup. My family had to rely on donations for food for a period after my father's first two businesses went under. Lost our home twice. Which is yet another reason why CEO's have more risk.
Everyman can't be a CEO, but it has nothing to do with the top opressing the bottom. It has to do with the fact that most people like the intelligence, drive, vision, and ability to be a successful CEO.
Now for those people that do have the intelligence and drive, you absolutely can be a CEO. Go start a company that society needs and you've just made yourself one. My father has no college degree and came from a poor family yet is the COO and EVP of the worlds largest medical imaging storage company. It took a shitload of hard work, intelligence, perseverance, and support from the entire family, but he did it.
No reason you can't. Unless of course, you lack the intelligence ,drive, ambition, and ability to become a successful CEO. In which case your entire argument about CEO's not deserving to be paid significantly higher than an average worker completely falls apart.
First of all, I never said that a CEO doesn't deserve a higher pay rate, so that's a strawman. I said that it's ridiculous that CEO pay has ballooned while the wages of regular workers have stagnated.
Your father's story is quite touching, but most wealth in this country is not earned, it's inherited. There are people like your father who come from modest beginnings and become wealthy, but that's the exception, not the rule. For everyone who does, like your dad, there are countless others who don't get anywhere near that far, and the reason is that everyone doesn't have the same starting point. The rich control everything in this country, and as such things are set up to keep them rich without giving anyone else a chance to get a piece of the pie. I realize that this is going off on another tangent, so I'll leave it at that.
The point that I'm really trying to make, and I'll stress it again, is that CEO's do deserve a higher pay rate, but it certainly shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else never seeing a real pay raise. I don't see where there's any question about it being ridiculous that a few are paid enough to afford four mansions and a car for every day of the week while everyone else is getting just enough to get by, and sometimes not even that.
If there's enough money to pay a CEO such a large amount, then there's enough to give everyone else a fair share as well.
My Krugman post brought a lot of emails asking about my assertion that “the vast majority of today’s rich didn’t inherit their money, but made it themselves.”
For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.
So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.
So no, the rich aren't preventing you from grabbing a slice of the pie. Sure make a convenient scapegoat though, don't they?
Sure they do, at least rich corporations and the people that run then tend to be rich themselves. Manipulative business practices like those that got Microsoft into trouble, off shoring of labor to low cost countries, ridiculous patents, etc.
Not saying that the rich are evil or anything but like anyone they protect their interests and they have the means to do it effectively and at the expense of others.
It's called life and it's never been fair.
Of course. But my point was that using the rich as a scapegoat for why you are not wealthy or successful is a bunch of crap. There's nobody actively holding you down, or actively holding he working class down, for that matter. Well, except welfare pork barrel programs.