A letter from the CEO of my company.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just as I have to go before my boss and justify any pay rise that I want, I think a CEO should be able to justify their salary also.

Not only that. The shareholders should have a vote on the executive's compensation. They are, after all, the owner of the company and thus the executive's employer.

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

I'm pretty free-market capitalist when it comes to wages. (See Gary, I'm not the flaming liberal you think I am!) I do have an issue with CEO wages for one reason though. I't been said a couple of times in this thread that anyone can raise themselves up and earn a bigger piece of the pie. Very true. But, there is only so much pie to go around. And logic dictates that the more pie any one individual takes, the less there is to share between the others.

There has to be some justification for paying a CEO 416 times the amount his median employee earns (and yes, I did pull the number out of my rear end because I can't be arsed to go and look right now), otherwise the distribution of renumeration simply goes crazy. It's almost akin to a womans 70 cents on the dollar - what is the justification for such a huge discrepancy? I understand that a CEO has great and often ultimate responsibility, but if he's a good CEO he will surround himself with people who are expert in their field and can take some of that burden of responsibility. So what is he doing that makes him worth $500K or $500mil a year? Just as I have to go before my boss and justify any pay rise that I want, I think a CEO should be able to justify their salary also.

But I digress.

I don't think it's wrong to be dissatified with your life or your country. Sure, appreciate the good things. But dissatisfaction lies at the root of any change - otherwise change would be unnecessary. And while the US may be a good place to live, it is not the perfect place to live. Change can be both positive and negative, and it can be both things at the same time to different people. One of the biggest problems to making meaningful change here in the US, as I see it, is that everything is so polarised. There is a middle ground, shades of grey. A place where Gary and Steven will find something they can both agree on. The US needs to find and utilise that middle ground to make the country better for everyone; and that won't happen unless people are dissatisfied with something.

JMHO, of course.

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost in the he said/she said, you f'in liberal, you stoopid conservative bashing extravaganza.

Yeah, you heard me!

[GaryC 7]

I'm pretty free-market capitalist when it comes to wages. (See Gary, I'm not the flaming liberal you think I am!) I do have an issue with CEO wages for one reason though. I't been said a couple of times in this thread that anyone can raise themselves up and earn a bigger piece of the pie. Very true. But, there is only so much pie to go around. And logic dictates that the more pie any one individual takes, the less there is to share between the others.

There has to be some justification for paying a CEO 416 times the amount his median employee earns (and yes, I did pull the number out of my rear end because I can't be arsed to go and look right now), otherwise the distribution of renumeration simply goes crazy. It's almost akin to a womans 70 cents on the dollar - what is the justification for such a huge discrepancy? I understand that a CEO has great and often ultimate responsibility, but if he's a good CEO he will surround himself with people who are expert in their field and can take some of that burden of responsibility. So what is he doing that makes him worth $500K or $500mil a year? Just as I have to go before my boss and justify any pay rise that I want, I think a CEO should be able to justify their salary also.

But I digress.

I don't think it's wrong to be dissatified with your life or your country. Sure, appreciate the good things. But dissatisfaction lies at the root of any change - otherwise change would be unnecessary. And while the US may be a good place to live, it is not the perfect place to live. Change can be both positive and negative, and it can be both things at the same time to different people. One of the biggest problems to making meaningful change here in the US, as I see it, is that everything is so polarised. There is a middle ground, shades of grey. A place where Gary and Steven will find something they can both agree on. The US needs to find and utilise that middle ground to make the country better for everyone; and that won't happen unless people are dissatisfied with something.

JMHO, of course.

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost in the he said/she said, you f'in liberal, you stoopid conservative bashing extravaganza.

Yeah, you heard me!

I'm done here. Said everything I need to say. Carry on please.

[Lurker 0]

I'm pretty free-market capitalist when it comes to wages. (See Gary, I'm not the flaming liberal you think I am!) I do have an issue with CEO wages for one reason though. I't been said a couple of times in this thread that anyone can raise themselves up and earn a bigger piece of the pie. Very true. But, there is only so much pie to go around. And logic dictates that the more pie any one individual takes, the less there is to share between the others.

There has to be some justification for paying a CEO 416 times the amount his median employee earns (and yes, I did pull the number out of my rear end because I can't be arsed to go and look right now), otherwise the distribution of renumeration simply goes crazy. It's almost akin to a womans 70 cents on the dollar - what is the justification for such a huge discrepancy? I understand that a CEO has great and often ultimate responsibility, but if he's a good CEO he will surround himself with people who are expert in their field and can take some of that burden of responsibility. So what is he doing that makes him worth $500K or $500mil a year? Just as I have to go before my boss and justify any pay rise that I want, I think a CEO should be able to justify their salary also.

But I digress.

I don't think it's wrong to be dissatified with your life or your country. Sure, appreciate the good things. But dissatisfaction lies at the root of any change - otherwise change would be unnecessary. And while the US may be a good place to live, it is not the perfect place to live. Change can be both positive and negative, and it can be both things at the same time to different people. One of the biggest problems to making meaningful change here in the US, as I see it, is that everything is so polarised. There is a middle ground, shades of grey. A place where Gary and Steven will find something they can both agree on. The US needs to find and utilise that middle ground to make the country better for everyone; and that won't happen unless people are dissatisfied with something.

JMHO, of course.

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost in the he said/she said, you f'in liberal, you stoopid conservative bashing extravaganza.

Yeah, you heard me!

I'm done here. Said everything I need to say. Carry on please.

Agreed....move along...nothing to see here.

[ChristinaM 0]

I go to the effort to come up with a sensible, considered response, and you can't even be bothered to reply?

Ah well, I guess reason doesn't compete with a good flame war, does it?

Just as well since I'm going out now anyway

Edited January 31, 2007 by ChristinaM

[Alex+R 0]

I go to the effort to come up with a sensible, considered response, and you can't even be bothered to reply?

Ah well, I guess reason doesn't compete with a good flame war, does it?

Just as well since I'm going out now anyway

I liked your post!

Maybe it was so sensible there was nothing to say

[DelcoCouple 1]

Not every CEO has worked hard to get where they are. Like James Murdoch, for example.......

Nor does every CEO wastes his or his staffs time forwarding spam "globally" either. You might like to re read the original post where it is clearly stated

I am sure many of you may have seen the attached comments but a friend sent it to me

and then take a look HERE

It seems the OP hero worships spammers. Just how much credibility as a manager does a spammer have?

Oh what foresight and vision he has in his leadership skills that the best inspirational e mail for a Monday morning he can come up with is not relevant to the business, nor is it self written, or his thoughts on words of wisdom by a recognised leader in their particular field but instead a forward of spam mail? :lol:

One wonders what the staff handbook says re company policy in acceptable computer usage and spam?

Thanks to the OP for the best unintentional foot in mouth I have seen in a while

Dude you make no sense at all. He clearly stated that it was sent to him. It sounds like you can't fault what he says so you have to bash where it came from. Pretty weak of you there.

What part of he is a spammer do you have a problem understanding? :lol:

How can I fault what HE SAID when HE didnt say it, someone else did?

I am sure that IS how it sounds to YOU. Hearing and understanding the message are not always the same thing, but hey you may not be able to make sense of that particular concept

Anyway you forgot to tell us what the companies official policy is on acceptable computer use and the forwarding of spam. Please let us know TIA

[GaryC 7]

Not every CEO has worked hard to get where they are. Like James Murdoch, for example.......

Nor does every CEO wastes his or his staffs time forwarding spam "globally" either. You might like to re read the original post where it is clearly stated

I am sure many of you may have seen the attached comments but a friend sent it to me

and then take a look HERE

It seems the OP hero worships spammers. Just how much credibility as a manager does a spammer have?

Oh what foresight and vision he has in his leadership skills that the best inspirational e mail for a Monday morning he can come up with is not relevant to the business, nor is it self written, or his thoughts on words of wisdom by a recognised leader in their particular field but instead a forward of spam mail? :lol:

One wonders what the staff handbook says re company policy in acceptable computer usage and spam?

Thanks to the OP for the best unintentional foot in mouth I have seen in a while

Dude you make no sense at all. He clearly stated that it was sent to him. It sounds like you can't fault what he says so you have to bash where it came from. Pretty weak of you there.

What part of he is a spammer do you have a problem understanding? :lol:

How can I fault what HE SAID when HE didnt say it, someone else did?

I am sure that IS how it sounds to YOU. Hearing and understanding the message are not always the same thing, but hey you may not be able to make sense of that particular concept

Anyway you forgot to tell us what the companies official policy is on acceptable computer use and the forwarding of spam. Please let us know TIA

Yep, I had you right.

[DelcoCouple 1]

Yep, I had you right.

When I first started roaming the Internet many years ago I remember reading a post that said something along the lines of "when some people are unable to construct a reasoned response they just toss out a nonsensical one liner to avoid a question they are unable to deal with (in the rather absurd hope that none of the other readers will ever spot it as such), hidden as it is within those thousands of rhetoric inspired previous posts that are big on volume, political partisanship, alleged personal experience, opinion, soundbites and pure unadulterated rubbish which is adequately counterbalanced by a lack of empirical evidence, accepted accurate statistical analysis, any professionally recognised knowledge or expertise, an inability to engage in reasoned discourse, and an exceptionally poor comprehension of the world outside the posters limited experience of life. Such people are known as trolls, lunatics or opinionated a$$holes depending on how charitable you the reader wish to be. My advice is to play with them as long as it amuses you but remember a battle of wits with an unarmed man is unfair " .

Of course I may be wrong and I didn't read it on a message board at all. It could after all have come to me in spam mail.

Edited February 1, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Cristina pulled 416 times the median salaru out of her ####### but I don't think it's too far off the mark. Christ, even Warren Buffett claims executive pay has reached obscene levels. I guess he must be "jealous"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, coming from a conservative...I have to say that calling the opposition names probably won't get them to listen to you, or better yet, win them over to your side. I realize it can be entertaining, but in a debate, one of the points is to get the other party to understand and agree with your point of view. I don't see how that could happen if they're being called names.

Just an observation.

Sorry, I have to come up with some sort of "collective" name for the group of people I am referring to. If lib is a derogatory label then I will find another. I realize that it's painting with broad brush but that is the best term I could come up with. Tell you what, for the next 20 posts they can call me "conservative pig".

Liberalism and conservatism are constantly used as a derogatory terms by people who don't know what they really mean, and can only frame their terms of reference in black and white.

It was pointed out a while ago that supporters of the free market sans price controls, who are anti-union are actually expressing a liberal point of view, but I guess that's irrelevant here. Economic Liberalism as it is practiced in the US affords employees next to no job security (my contract for instance, says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason.... and people wonder why there are so many lawsuits....) and allows unscrupulous companies to deny/restrict their workers access to benefits that directly impact on their quality of living.

Recognising that there are people living in real poverty is like waving a ####### under someone's nose at a black tie dinner. There are no jobs "that americans not prepared to do", there is however an underclass of the population who are currently doing those jobs and who are living at the lowest levels of poverty.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hey, Gary! I like your CEO's letter and agree with you about taking control of your life instead of whining about not being able to get the system to treat you as entitled. IMO, It's the difference between accepting my own responsibility to change my life as a glass as half empty or half full. I long ago chose the latter.

Some of these folks need to rush out and watch "The Pursuit of Happyness". I recommend #######!

Thanks for sharing, bro

Edited February 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Just as I have to go before my boss and justify any pay rise that I want, I think a CEO should be able to justify their salary also.

Not only that. The shareholders should have a vote on the executive's compensation. They are, after all, the owner of the company and thus the executive's employer.

How do you figure that the shareholders don't vote on the executive's compensation? The Bd of Dir is an elected group, voted in by the shareholders. If the shareholders have confidence in their board (and they should if they're voting them in), the directors' determinination of the executive compensation is on behalf of all stakeholders.

Aside from some very transparent accounting shenanigans that have plagued some of the more popular Fortune group, performance-based compensation is most often the type of remuneration a CEO gets. That, in principle, works for the company just as it benefits the executive. This aligns the interests of the person running the company (CEO) with those of the shareholders. A large portion of compensation is typically tied to meeting earnings goals and unless earnings figures are intentionally inflated, (as is and was the case in some companies that have hit front page news of late) and actual earnings restated are indeed lower than earlier reported, then the compensation has been earned, and legitimately earned.

Granted, there are some very well compensated CEOs. Some could say over compensated, perhaps, but where an employee has the need to justify his or her wage or pay rise, so does a CEO and there's more than one job on the line if the individual doesn't meet the task!

[Fandango 1,440]

I think it's sad that Gary's boss was so unfairly maligned for having a positive outlook.

What a bunch of ####### this is...pullin apart his every word..throwin all sorts in the mix. You don't like this guy? Then don't you fkin work for him..

Edited February 1, 2007 by LisaD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's sad that Gary's boss was so unfairly maligned for having a positive outlook.

What a bunch of ####### this is...pullin apart his every word..throwin all sorts in the mix. You don't like this guy? Then don't you fkin work for him..

Well his "positive outlook" does include a veiled indictment of alleged liberals and the media.

That gets a big yawn from me.

Edited February 1, 2007 by erekose