How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People More

[OMG!WTF!]

There are some reasons to pay ceo's crazy amounts. If Tim Cook left Apple due to compensation the stock would lose thousands of times his salary in value over the following months as a rudderless ship paddled by cheap skates. CEO's create value simple due to their reputation...we see that time and again in Calgary's oil and gas sector...someone drills a hole and puts money in your account. Now he wants to do it again. Instant credibility and instant share value and instant start up money. There are lots of useless, over paid dolts too. But their money comes at the expense of shareholders not employees.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Your original example was "What about Bill Gates, he's done a lot of good!", which is a non sequitur because Bill Gates being a CEO had very little to do with the wealth he is now voluntarily redistributing. I don't know that CEOs do give a disproportionate amount of their wealth away: maybe they do, maybe they don't. I also don't know that "who is to say?" is supposed to be an argument, which it really isn't.

Gates did make a lot of money as CEO in the form of a salary, stock options, etc, etc. Similar to basically every other CEO on the planet. Just because Gates also had the added benefit of being the founder of Microsoft which made him very rich doesn't mean that the CEO of Rogers, who makes $30 million per year, isn't doing a lot of 'good' with that $30 million.

He just can't do it at the scale that Gates is. Which of course makes sense since he isn't actual a billionare.

I find it a bit strange that all the people who complain about overpaid union and government workers who don't "deserve" their inflated pay aren't equally annoyed with executives being grossly overpaid for their contribution. Why does a fair wage only apply to the middle class?

No idea why this is even brought up here. We are talking about CEO pay as compared to how a company preforms and its employees are paid. Nice dodge though.

Again, these are EMPLOYEES we are talking about. Employees whose contributions are difficult to quantiry, but for whom the vast preponderance of evidence is that the contribution is negligible or non-existent. I've yet to see a convincing argument in favour of their wages being fair, just that they don't seem too unfair. What an amazing endorsement.

There are probably 10 companies constantly in the spotlight of having excessive CEO pay while the normal employees make a bit more than minimum wage, etc, etc. However, if one looks at average CEO pay, its quite evident that the 'excessive CEO pay problem' that people love to complain about doesn't really exist like they think it does. That has already been pointed out in this thread. You are just ignoring it.

Ultimately fair wages will be determined by market value.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There are some reasons to pay ceo's crazy amounts. If Tim Cook left Apple due to compensation the stock would lose thousands of times his salary in value over the following months as a rudderless ship paddled by cheap skates. CEO's create value simple due to their reputation...we see that time and again in Calgary's oil and gas sector...someone drills a hole and puts money in your account. Now he wants to do it again. Instant credibility and instant share value and instant start up money. There are lots of useless, over paid dolts too. But their money comes at the expense of shareholders not employees.

No, you don't understand. Those CEOs making $50 million per year are just a bunch of stupid schmucks and anyone could do their job. They never have to make decisions that literally affect thousands of employees are have billions of dollars worth of risk. All they do all day is sit in their ivory tower and laugh at all the poor, miserable morons doing all the work for them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There are some reasons to pay ceo's crazy amounts. If Tim Cook left Apple due to compensation the stock would lose thousands of times his salary in value over the following months as a rudderless ship paddled by cheap skates. CEO's create value simple due to their reputation...we see that time and again in Calgary's oil and gas sector...someone drills a hole and puts money in your account. Now he wants to do it again. Instant credibility and instant share value and instant start up money. There are lots of useless, over paid dolts too. But their money comes at the expense of shareholders not employees.

So the workers who actually provide a defined non speculative contribution to the company only deserve whatever this individual decides they should get because right now he is making an artificial impact on the company and padding the shareholders' wallets? And then when he doesn't succeed in running the company well long term, the shareholders who bought low and sold high before the stock was impacted get out scot free, the beleaguered CEO gets his likely massive severance package and the investors who bought at the wrong time get to suffer as well as the employees who's careers may be in jeopardy. Yeah they have great responsibility and huge risks associated with their job, except financially they always seem to come out on top.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So the workers who actually provide a defined non speculative contribution to the company only deserve whatever this individual decides they should get because right now he is making an artificial impact on the company and padding the shareholders' wallets? And then when he doesn't succeed in running the company well long term, the shareholders who bought low and sold high before the stock was impacted get out scot free, the beleaguered CEO gets his likely massive severance package and the investors who bought at the wrong time get to suffer as well as the employees who's careers may be in jeopardy. Yeah they have great responsibility and huge risks associated with their job, except financially they always seem to come out on top.

Yeah. Cause that happens literally all the time. I think you should come over and day trade with me tomorrow. We'll show those 1%'ers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah. Cause that happens literally all the time. I think you should come over and day trade with me tomorrow. We'll show those 1%'ers.

That outcome doesn't need to happen all the time for someone to be opposed to the fact that it is even a possibility.

[Jason14h]

That outcome doesn't need to happen all the time for someone to be opposed to the fact that it is even a possibility.

But in that scenario the CEO wouldn't make his money as almost all CEO compensation is tied to stock price/options.

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. Go become a CEO and earn these big $$$ and raise your employees salaries. It's very simple I imagine!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

You don't have to pretend that wasn't you, Dion.

I got a free coffee out of it

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But in that scenario the CEO wouldn't make his money as almost all CEO compensation is tied to stock price/options.

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. Go become a CEO and earn these big $$$ and raise your employees salaries. It's very simple I imagine!

Your opinion clashes with facts:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/ceo-p...ices-dont.html

http://fortune.com/2014/06/02/ceo-pay-raises/

[Jason14h]

Your opinion clashes with facts:

Did you read the article? It says they have to give high 'uncertain' bonuses tied to stock and performance over guaranteed salary.

It's exactly what I stated.

Again, I don't know what you are arguing other then you think "A position that has his compensation set and voted on by shareholder - THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE COMPANY, is too high in your opinion"

Then don't invest in those companies.....??

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But in that scenario the CEO wouldn't make his money as almost all CEO compensation is tied to stock price/options.

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. Go become a CEO and earn these big $$$ and raise your employees salaries. It's very simple I imagine!

Honestly I think the issue doesn't even exist and is only brought up because of a select few companies not dealing with it very well.

Of course to the public that means every corporation is evil.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But in that scenario the CEO wouldn't make his money as almost all CEO compensation is tied to stock price/options.

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. Go become a CEO and earn these big $$$ and raise your employees salaries. It's very simple I imagine!

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Did you read the article? It says they have to give high 'uncertain' bonuses tied to stock and performance over guaranteed salary.

It's exactly what I stated.

Again, I don't know what you are arguing other then you think "A position that has his compensation set and voted on by shareholder - THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE COMPANY, is too high in your opinion"

Then don't invest in those companies.....??

You stated that a CEO would not be compensated if the company performed poorly, explaining that almost all CEO compensation is tied to performance. The article I quoted explains that they are well compensated regardless of performance. So no it's not exactly what you stated, in fact it's quite different,, maybe you meant to say that and poorly worded it. But I doubt very much that is what you meant with your post as it would not make much sense given the fact that you were responding to my post saying this happens and in my opinion is a problem.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So the workers who actually provide a defined non speculative contribution to the company only deserve whatever this individual decides they should get because right now he is making an artificial impact on the company and padding the shareholders' wallets?

Your arguments are so patently absurd. There's so many in this thread and I just generally disengage its not worth it. We get you think everyone should get paid a lot of money no matter their skillset.

No person goes and decides what wages should be. CEOs do not dictate anything about wages, in any company or any industry.

Where there is high demand for hard work, even where lots are willing to do it but not all can, wages go sky-high. Example: Roughnecks.

Where there is a high demand for work but anybody can do the job, the labour comes cheaper. Example: Wal-mart.

[GGG]

After reading some of the arguments here I think I am convinced that CEO pay shouldn't be regulated and taxation is where government can ensure fair contributions.

Though I think the notion that compensation is set by the shareholder while true in theory is not true in practice to do large institutional ownership, and in-groups that make of the group of potential CEO's and board members across various industries.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Honestly I think the issue doesn't even exist and is only brought up because of a select few companies not dealing with it very well.

Of course to the public that means every corporation is evil.

The first sentence is a little confusing. You think that the issue doesn't exist is only brought up because there are examples of it existing?

The second sentence is a very nice exageration, based mainly on your opinion. There is a big difference between opinion and fact. Fact is some of the public can and have taken that position, another fact is that some choose to look deeper into the issue and make a more informed decision. Opinion is when you say that they all feel a certain way, and it's not very relevant or helpful to the discussion.

Just because one corporation makes a poor decision and grossly over compensate their CEO doesn't mean all corporations do. Same can be said about unions, small businesses, politicians etc.. But to just assume that because you don't feel something is an issue, without any real facts to back it up seems like a poor way to establish your position. Again I'm not saying every company and every corporation is bad and does only bad things that I don't agree with, but the fact is some of them do and I don't feel they should be ignored or considered as a couple of "bad apples" while we blindly assume no one else is potentially doing the same things. When people with power are increasingly getting ahead of everyone else, including their shareholder, one has to question how and why this is happening so consistently in one area of business.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Your arguments are so patently absurd. There's so many in this thread and I just generally disengage its not worth it. We get you think everyone should get paid a lot of money no matter their skillset.

No person goes and decides what wages should be. CEOs do not dictate anything about wages, in any company or any industry.

Where there is high demand for hard work, even where lots are willing to do it but not all can, wages go sky-high. Example: Roughnecks.

Where there is a high demand for work but anybody can do the job, the labour comes cheaper. Example: Wal-mart.

I watch you consistently make ad-hominem attacks towards this poster, often with the promise of returning later to properly substantiate or elucidate an argument only to return in a different thread to again attack this specific poster.

It makes you look like a partisan idiot with precious little to offer, as far as I am concerned. I would take you more seriously if walked the walk a bit more and talked the talk a bit less when it came to discussions of a political or cultural context.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Your arguments are so patently absurd. There's so many in this thread and I just generally disengage its not worth it. We get you think everyone should get paid a lot of money no matter their skillset.

No person goes and decides what wages should be. CEOs do not dictate anything about wages, in any company or any industry.

Where there is high demand for hard work, even where lots are willing to do it but not all can, wages go sky-high. Example: Roughnecks.

Where there is a high demand for work but anybody can do the job, the labour comes cheaper. Example: Wal-mart.

You disagree with my position, I can appreciate that. However to say what I'm saying is absurd is merely your opinion, so thanks for your input.

I'm assuming your claim that I think everyone should be paid a lot of money regardless of their skillset is based on my position that the minimum wage should be raised? You are simply basing your statement on your opinion. I do believe workers should be fairly compensated for their contributions and not be kept in poverty if they are working full time, but if you consider $15/hour a lot of money maybe you should try living off that wage and see what that kind of life looks like.

No one should dictate what wages should be? You clearly have an opinion on what they shouldn't be, do you feel as though no one has the right to disagree with you on this?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

but if you consider $15/hour a lot of money maybe you should try living off that wage and see what that kind of life looks like.

That's the problem with most of your posts. You start with the presumption of what people need to be paid. That's not how businesses get rolling. You start with an idea, determine what it can sell for and what it costs to produce, and if you can make money on it, you take the risk and invest.

If you start with the presumption of what people need to be paid, you wind up with nothing. No business. Might as well have a directed economy.

As for Flash Walken I have and will continue to ignore him, at least iggy_oi states a position, and yes I attack it because I find the position offensive to the free market. Flash Walken doesn't even get that far however.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's the problem with most of your posts. You start with the presumption of what people need to be paid. That's not how businesses get rolling. You start with an idea, determine what it can sell for and what it costs to produce, and if you can make money on it, you take the risk and invest.

If you start with the presumption of what people need to be paid, you wind up with nothing. No business. Might as well have a directed economy.

As for Flash Walken I have and will continue to ignore him, at least iggy_oi states a position, and yes I attack it because I find the position offensive to the free market. Flash Walken doesn't even get that far however.

Why have a minimum wage at all then?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why have a minimum wage at all then?

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you don't start by saying what someone needs to get paid then build a business plan from there. It has to come from market forces, otherwise it never works in the long term. Some form of minimum to help along certain parts of society, but the analysis has to come from a different direction.

The advocacy I've seen here suggests businesses should price their labour at a certain rate and then if that doesn't work, they shouldn't even have a business. That is completely backwards.