Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

[Gipper]

Our whacky liberal friend does have ONE good point. That is many senior level executives in large organizations make vastly more money than middle and lower level employees. Much of this is legitimate, but much is not. Often a person's connections have garnered them lucrative positions in large organizations, but their qualifications and experience do not warrant such a position. Anyone who has worked in large corporations has seen this.

What I will never understand about lefties is their amazing ability to recognize and condemn the injustices in the private sector, but they fail or refuse to recognize the worst offender of injustice OF ALL KINDS is big government...

 

[Texas_tea]

What I will never understand about lefties is their amazing ability to recognize and condemn the injustices in the private sector, but they fail or refuse to recognize the worst offender of injustice OF ALL KINDS is big government...

Welcome to the uneducated, IRRATIONAL thinking, hatred filled world wacko liberals live in.

 

[Dr.Who]

Our whacky liberal friend does have ONE good point. That is many senior level executives in large organizations make vastly more money than middle and lower level employees. Much of this is legitimate, but much is not. Often a person's connections have garnered them lucrative positions in large organizations, but their qualifications and experience do not warrant such a position. Anyone who has worked in large corporations has seen this.

What I will never understand about lefties is their amazing ability to recognize and condemn the injustices in the private sector, but they fail or refuse to recognize the worst offender of injustice OF ALL KINDS is big government...

I have no doubt that many people get positions and earn money based in part on who they know. This can only hurt the company which could have hired the BEST person for the job instead of a merely qualified nephew. But if any company at all wants to make poor decisions that is their right to do. It will just help the competition.

Now as you say, when the gov does it, now that is a different story.

 

[Gipper]

I have no doubt that many people get positions and earn money based in part on who they know. This can only hurt the company which could have hired the BEST person for the job instead of a merely qualified nephew. But if any company at all wants to make poor decisions that is their right to do. It will just help the competition.

Now as you say, when the gov does it, now that is a different story.

It certainly is a private company's right to hire whomever they wish. But it is indisputable that senior management, in large organizations/corporations, have vastly larger salaries/benefits than those in other levels of the organization. This vast discrepancy creates a morale problem for those in the lower levels.

Senior management in most large entities are all about cutting employee costs, which negatively effects employees in the middle and down. Yet those employees see the huge salaries and wasteful spending of senior management. They also see the connections and nepotism that often exists within senior management, along with some senior managers being incompetent. Lower level employees often become jaded due to all of this.

This is all part of the dysfunction of large American businesses. This recent survey reflects the problem...

Americans hate their jobs, even with perks

If you hate your job, you're not alone. But having in-office access to catered meals, a pingpong table or free massages may not make you any happier at work.
Just 30% of employees are engaged and inspired at work, according to Gallup's 2013 State of the American Workplace Report, which surveyed more than 150,000 full- and part-time workers during 2012. That's up from 28% in 2010. The rest … not so much. A little more than half of workers (52%) have a perpetual case of the Mondays — they're present, but not particularly excited about their job.
The remaining 18% are actively disengaged or, as Gallup CEO Jim Clifton put it in the report, "roam the halls spreading discontent." Worse, Gallup reports, those actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. up to $550 billion annually in lost productivity.
No wonder companies have been looking for ways to make workers happier.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/30/americans-hate-jobs-office-perks/2457089/

 

[steveox]

Cops like their jobs. Their perks is to break traffic laws and never have to pay for tickets and their auto insurance rates never go up. Even off duty officers will never get tickets from one of their own. Off Duty officers even can get drunk behind the wheel and they will never go to jail but YOU WILL! If a off duty cop is pulled over and intoxicated their buddy officers will just take them home instead to jail and they leave car on highway until when their shift is over they drive car to0 their fellow officers home

MIAMI (AP) -- Internal affairs is investigating why an off-duty Miami-Dade police officer wasn't taken to jail after authorities say he was found passed out drunk in his patrol car.
Police Director Jim Loftus says he gave explicit orders that 32-year-old Fernando Villa be treated like anyone else after he was found Tuesday at a West Kendall intersection. But the Miami Herald ( http://bit.ly/shsmsk ) reports that Villa was not handcuffed and booked into jail. Instead, he was allowed to go home after signing a form promising he would appear in court. Loftus says internal affairs will find out who altered his instructions.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/...fernando-villa-charged-with-dui-in-patrol-car

See it goes with the perks

 

[Dr.Who]

It certainly is a private company's right to hire whomever they wish. But it is indisputable that senior management, in large organizations/corporations, have vastly larger salaries/benefits than those in other levels of the organization. This vast discrepancy creates a morale problem for those in the lower levels.

Senior management in most large entities are all about cutting employee costs, which negatively effects employees in the middle and down. Yet those employees see the huge salaries and wasteful spending of senior management. They also see the connections and nepotism that often exists within senior management, along with some senior managers being incompetent. Lower level employees often become jaded due to all of this.

This is all part of the dysfunction of large American businesses. This recent survey reflects the problem...

Americans hate their jobs, even with perks

If you hate your job, you're not alone. But having in-office access to catered meals, a pingpong table or free massages may not make you any happier at work.
Just 30% of employees are engaged and inspired at work, according to Gallup's 2013 State of the American Workplace Report, which surveyed more than 150,000 full- and part-time workers during 2012. That's up from 28% in 2010. The rest … not so much. A little more than half of workers (52%) have a perpetual case of the Mondays — they're present, but not particularly excited about their job.
The remaining 18% are actively disengaged or, as Gallup CEO Jim Clifton put it in the report, "roam the halls spreading discontent." Worse, Gallup reports, those actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. up to $550 billion annually in lost productivity.
No wonder companies have been looking for ways to make workers happier.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/30/americans-hate-jobs-office-perks/2457089/

I have no doubt that the guy earning nine dollars per hour dislikes the fact that the ceo makes 90 thousand per year. They may become unhappy and disgruntled too. Nevertheless, the choice about how much to pay whom belongs solely to the owners of the company and employees who complain about it are just spinning their wheels. they would be wise instead to focus on means to increase their own skills and therefore salaries while ignoring what the ceo's make. To let the decision on how much to pay the ceo effect ones morale is self destructive, self defeating, illogical, and none of their business. Anyone who respects freedom needs to respect the freedom of the owners to pay whatever they want to whomever they want whether that decision is good or bad.

 

[Gipper]

I have no doubt that the guy earning nine dollars per hour dislikes the fact that the ceo makes 90 thousand per year. They may become unhappy and disgruntled too. Nevertheless, the choice about how much to pay whom belongs solely to the owners of the company and employees who complain about it are just spinning their wheels. they would be wise instead to focus on means to increase their own skills and therefore salaries while ignoring what the ceo's make. To let the decision on how much to pay the ceo effect ones morale is self destructive, self defeating, illogical, and none of their business. Anyone who respects freedom needs to respect the freedom of the owners to pay whatever they want to whomever they want whether that decision is good or bad.

You misunderstand. My comments/opinion applies only to large firms, such as Fortune 500 firms.

For example, lets say you are a mid-level executive busting your ass every day for the corporation. You are under constant stress to perform and your job duties are regularly expanded as the corporation, under the top guys direction, eliminates staff...and the politics are brutal. You commonly work weekends and regularly fly for business on Saturday or Sunday...taking many red eye flights. Your salary is $100k.

But, the c-level executives make somewhere around $50-$100 million a year...with tons of perks. You see these guys traveling first class on the corporate jet and chauffeured in limos. Staying in the worlds most expensive hotels and dinning like kings and queens. They often attend retreats at exclusive resorts in exotic places...where they claim to be attending senior management meetings. In other words, spending vast sums of the corporation's money with little concern. Those same c-level guys then demand those under them reduce their business expenses. They also give you a 1-2% annual raise and maybe a piddly bonus of $5k.

The big shots often hire friends and family who make a hell of a lot more than you, but many are incompetent.

Now do see my point regarding morale problems?

 

[Dr.Who]

You misunderstand. My comments/opinion applies only to large firms, such as Fortune 500 firms.

For example, lets say you are a mid-level executive busting your ass every day for the corporation. You are under constant stress to perform and your job duties are regularly expanded as the corporation, under the top guys direction, eliminates staff...and the politics are brutal. You commonly work weekends and regularly fly for business on Saturday or Sunday...taking many red eye flights. Your salary is $100k.

But, the c-level executives make somewhere around $50-$100 million a year...with tons of perks. You see these guys traveling first class on the corporate jet and chauffeured in limos. Staying in the worlds most expensive hotels and dinning like kings and queens. They often attend retreats at exclusive resorts in exotic places...where they claim to be attending senior management meetings. In other words, spending vast sums of the corporation's money with little concern. Those same c-level guys then demand those under them reduce their business expenses. They also give you a 1-2% annual raise and maybe a piddly bonus of $5k.

The big shots often hire friends and family who make a hell of a lot more than you, but many are incompetent.

Now do see my point regarding morale problems?

I certainly see that people could suffer poor morale. I still say too bad! When you or they are the boss (or in the case of fortune 500's the shareholders and the board) then you will make those decisions.

 

[Gipper]

I certainly see that people could suffer poor morale. I still say too bad! When you or they are the boss (or in the case of fortune 500's the shareholders and the board) then you will make those decisions.

I do not believe the shareholders or the board of directors in most Fortune 500 firms have much say in the day to day operations of the firm. The c-level guys pretty much do as they please, which means in many cases, they give themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits, while making extraordinary demands of those under them.

The board in most of these firms consist of friends of the c-level guys and rubber stamp whatever the c-level guys do. The shareholders only care about share price.

This is the dysfunction of American big business.

Happy employees are productive employees. Conversely, unhappy employees are unproductive employees. As the article I posted proves, many unhappy employees actively work to sabotage their employer. Not a good situation.

 

[Cruella]

Gip, according to the WSJ, only 74 people had an income of $50 million and above, and there were 50% fewer of them, than in 2007. Those figures are from a 2010 IRS report.

 

[Gipper]

Gip, according to the WSJ, only 74 people had an income of $50 million and above, and there were 50% fewer of them, than in 2007. Those figures are from a 2010 IRS report.

I am talking about the Fortune 500 companies. So, that includes just 500 people....the CEOs. But keep in mind, that all executives on c-level in the Fortune 500 make huge money.

This from Forbes...shows average CEO compensation is $10.5 million and the highest paid CEO make $131 million.
Average Income

Forbes magazine reported that the average total compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO as of the 2012 Fortune survey was $10.5 million. This broke down as $3.5 million in salary and bonus, $3.8 million in other compensation such as personal perk packages and $3.2 million from exercising vested stock options and awards. The combined compensation for the 500 CEOs was $5.2 billion.
Highest-Paid

The best-compensated chief executive in the 2012 survey was John H. Hammergren of health-care company McKesson, according to Forbes. His total compensation of $131.2 million included $6.3 million in salary and $112 million from exercising vested stock options. The second-highest-paid CEO was Ralph Lauren of his eponymous fashion house, whose compensation was $66.7 million. Five CEOs took a mere $1 in salary, but four of the five are already billionaires, and most were compensated in other ways.
Pay Trends

The Fortune 500 CEOs' compensation in the 2012 report was up 16 percent over the previous year's report, according to Forbes, including an 8 percent increase in salary and bonus. Most of the compensation was not actual pay and bonuses, as exercised stock options and vested stock awards added up to 61 percent of the total. Fortune 500 CEO compensation peaked in the 2007 report, $17.1 million on average, before a three-year decline to $8.5 million, on average, in 2010, according to Forbes.
http://work.chron.com/average-income-ceo-fortune-500-company-5348.html

 

[Dr.Who]

I do not believe the shareholders or the board of directors in most Fortune 500 firms have much say in the day to day operations of the firm. The c-level guys pretty much do as they please, which means in many cases, they give themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits, while making extraordinary demands of those under them.

The board in most of these firms consist of friends of the c-level guys and rubber stamp whatever the c-level guys do. The shareholders only care about share price.

This is the dysfunction of American big business.

Happy employees are productive employees. Conversely, unhappy employees are unproductive employees. As the article I posted proves, many unhappy employees actively work to sabotage their employer. Not a good situation.

It is still none of your business nor mine if they are paid a lot or a little. That really is between the board and the ceo and if the board chooses not to care that the ceo is paid too much then that is their right.

 

[Gipper]

It is still none of your business nor mine if they are paid a lot or a little. That really is between the board and the ceo and if the board chooses not to care that the ceo is paid too much then that is their right.

I do not disagree. But the consequences of this dysfunction are unhappy and disgruntled employees, which leads to poor morale within the firm. That is my point.

It is not unlike how some Americans see our political class. This class believes and acts as if they are entitled to do anything they wish without consequence. They are above the law. The result is the people are most unhappy and disgruntled.

 

[Dr.Who]

I do not disagree. But the consequences of this dysfunction are unhappy and disgruntled employees, which leads to poor morale within the firm. That is my point.

It is not unlike how some Americans see our political class. This class believes and acts as if they are entitled to do anything they wish without consequence. They are above the law. The result is the people are most unhappy and disgruntled.

I am not convinced that high ceo salaries are a dysfunction.

Regarding the disparity between ceos and entry level workers: if you took all of the salary of ceo's and gave it to the workers they would each get less than one cent apiece.

If you took every ceo and replaced him with two co-ceo's each making half as much would they be as productive as the one guy? Clearly the board of directors does not think so or they would do just that. The same goes for three co-ceo's, and four and five...

But just why do ceo's make so much? well in part because they are paid by how much the stock of the company goes up after they start. That is the absolute proof that they are worth their pay.

And just what skills do they bring? well for one they have contacts with people who can help the company. But it would be too simple to just say that they have contacts. They have multiple skills/assets that only a very few people in the whole country have. Simply put, they cannot be replaced by very many other people or even multiple other people.