With all the income inequality talk how come no one ever...

[All Tell]

...talks about:

 

Professional athletes-They make absurd amounts of money while the peanut vendors and ticket takers at the venues they perform at get squat. And how much does it cost to attend a major sports event?

 

Big-time college coaches-same as above but support staffs at those institutions work many, many hours a week for relatively small salaries.

 

Hollywood elite actors-They make millions but the "little guy" who works at the theater get next to nothing. Ticket prices are also ridiculous.

 

If CEU's are going to be vilified for making the money that someone is obviously willing to pay them why not these groups?

 

And I'd be willing to bet that all the stuffed shirt politicians, pundits and general rabble-rousers who do most of the complaining live pretty high on the hog and would SCREAM BLOODY MURDER if someone suggested they get less. I know John Yarmuth (our own loony liberal) lives pretty well and income inequality is one of his rallying cries. Of course he has hemorrhoids from Nancy reaching in to control his mouth.

Edited July 18, 2015 by All Tell

[InItToWinIt]

They do talk about those things in terms of Male athletes/coaches vs female athletes/coaches.

[mcpapa]

Yep. There's a gender gap just about everywhere.

 

But then again, the term "supply and demand" just popped into my head.

[Jumper_Dad]

To AT's point we always here screams about how much this CEO or that CEO makes compared to other workers for that company. Yet no one questions with any real vigor the amount made by star athletes, actors and musicians compared to their support staff and those doing the work around them.

 

The argument is always well if someone is willing to pay player X this much money more power to him, he should be able to earn all that he can. Players for example are selling their "Skill" to the highest bidder, right? Well CEO's kinda do the same thing, the best CEO's are compensated to either stay where they are or leave to run another company because of their "Skillset".

 

CEO's don't set their own pay, the Executive Committee or Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors does that. The job of those committees is like that of a GM, to keep the best talent possible while paying the least amount possible to retain that talent. Some CEO's just like players have incentives worked into their salaries and many CEO's may go years without hitting the incentives hard, but once they get a company going in the right direction they can clean up based on incentives that were put in their contract hoping that the company would perform well enough to have to pay them.

[Jim Schue]

That's an interesting analogy, JD. Doesn't it start to break down a bit when you look at why a person buys a product?

 

For example: An NBA arena for a struggling team probably rarely sells out unless one of the best players in the game is visiting town. (LeBron, MJ, etc.) By the same token, a Reds game over the next few months would likely see low attendance, but with slight upticks when certain teams/players are in town. A lot of big baseball fans would make a point to go to GABP to see the Dodgers when Kershaw is pitching.

 

It's fair to say that a large legion of Apple devotees became such because of Steve Jobs' leadership/vision. But he's far and away the exception in this world. There are no rock-star CEOs.

 

I don't buy Cottonnelle TP because of who the damned CEO is. Can't even name the person. I buy it because it's the best one, and because the people who actually make the stuff are the ones who make it that way, not some number-cruncher in some big office somewhere.

 

In that light, I question how much actual work the CEOs of the world are really doing to add value to the products they represent. A fair argument could be made that they do more harm than good when they fire workers — invariably damaging the production process and the final product — to save a buck rather than asking for a reduction in their own gross pay to help cover for the company's slow time.

[Jumper_Dad]

That's an interesting analogy, JD. Doesn't it start to break down a bit when you look at why a person buys a product?

 

For example: An NBA arena for a struggling team probably rarely sells out unless one of the best players in the game is visiting town. (LeBron, MJ, etc.) By the same token, a Reds game over the next few months would likely see low attendance, but with slight upticks when certain teams/players are in town. A lot of big baseball fans would make a point to go to GABP to see the Dodgers when Kershaw is pitching.

 

It's fair to say that a large legion of Apple devotees became such because of Steve Jobs' leadership/vision. But he's far and away the exception in this world. There are no rock-star CEOs.

 

I don't buy Cottonnelle TP because of who the damned CEO is. Can't even name the person. I buy it because it's the best one, and because the people who actually make the stuff are the ones who make it that way, not some number-cruncher in some big office somewhere.

 

In that light, I question how much actual work the CEOs of the world are really doing to add value to the products they represent. A fair argument could be made that they do more harm than good when they fire workers — invariably damaging the production process and the final product — to save a buck rather than asking for a reduction in their own gross pay to help cover for the company's slow time.

 

You don't buy Cottonnelle because of the CEO you are correct. But without an effective CEO, Cottonnelle isn't developed by the company, it isn't advertised to let you the consumer know how cottony soft it is, it isn't produced in a way to keep up with demand, it isn't sold to the local grocery store, it isn't delivered and there is no coupon in your Sunday paper to save 55 cents off your next purchase. A CEO's job is to manage and oversee every aspect of the company to ensure that it is functioning at the highest level possible. A CEO also has to manage the business so that the Cottonnelle stock that your retirement fund has invested in returns a gain on your investment. A CEO that does all of that is worth what he's getting paid.

 

Walmart for example

Worth the money

Sam Walton

David Glass

Not worth the money

Mike Duke

Ron Mayer

Push

Lee Scott

 

A Good CEO is worth what they make, a poor one you pay to go away!

[Jim Schue]

You don't buy Cottonnelle because of the CEO you are correct. But without an effective CEO, Cottonnelle isn't developed by the company, it isn't advertised to let you the consumer know how cottony soft it is, it isn't produced in a way to keep up with demand, it isn't sold to the local grocery store, it isn't delivered and there is no coupon in your Sunday paper to save 55 cents off your next purchase. A CEO's job is to manage and oversee every aspect of the company to ensure that it is functioning at the highest level possible. A CEO also has to manage the business so that the Cottonnelle stock that your retirement fund has invested in returns a gain on your investment. A CEO that does all of that is worth what he's getting paid.

 

Walmart for example

Worth the money

Sam Walton

David Glass

Not worth the money

Mike Duke

Ron Mayer

Push

Lee Scott

 

A Good CEO is worth what they make, a poor one you pay to go away!

 

The problem is, we see all the time where massively-huge companies fail and are still paying executives obscene sums for little more than running the company into the ground. And when the company gets run into the ground, somebody else in the good-ol'-boy network picks that CEO back up and sets his buddy up with some other ridiculously high-paying gig that he doesn't deserve. And the cycle repeats itself.

 

On the bolded part — The actual people working in the departments you mention, doing real work (R&D, marketing/promotions, production, distribution), are having a far bigger impact on the quality of the product than some clown in a big office who's never spoken to any of the grunts along that chain. I'm sorry, but I think the world grossly overestimates how important a CEO of a major company is. If he's so damned important, let him get his hands dirty and do real work. And let him take the financial hit when the company fails. But that never happens.

[75center]

The importance of the CEO cannot be overestimated, only underestimated as happens on here a lot.

[woodsrider]

The problem is, we see all the time where massively-huge companies fail and are still paying executives obscene sums for little more than running the company into the ground. And when the company gets run into the ground, somebody else in the good-ol'-boy network picks that CEO back up and sets his buddy up with some other ridiculously high-paying gig that he doesn't deserve. And the cycle repeats itself.

 

On the bolded part — The actual people working in the departments you mention, doing real work (R&D, marketing/promotions, production, distribution), are having a far bigger impact on the quality of the product than some clown in a big office who's never spoken to any of the grunts along that chain. I'm sorry, but I think the world grossly overestimates how important a CEO of a major company is. If he's so damned important, let him get his hands dirty and do real work. And let him take the financial hit when the company fails. But that never happens.

to keep with sports comparison...how this any different then a team signing a player to a huge contract only to have them never live up to their potential. The team is still on the hook for the contract. Same with companies, they sign the CEOs to contracts and are obligated to honor the contract even if the ceo turns out to be a dud.

[woodsrider]

The importance of the CEO cannot be overestimated, only underestimated as happens on here a lot.

Without a doubt.