0

Good day boys & girls...So is it fair?? Is it fair for CEO's/executives to receive millions yearly while the mass of the employees of the companies at times doesn't get near what theses executives get. Some say its fair & they're just being rewarded for their work and school. Others say it's corporate greed. So what do you think?

17
Contributors
44
Replies
45
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by briansmall
Featured Replies
  • 1
    Narue 5,707   10 Years Ago

    Life isn't fair. Personally, I'm wondering why you chose CEOs to bash for making obscene amounts of money and not professional athletes or actors. Read More

  • You should really stop starting your threads with "Good day, boys and girls". Read More

  • 1
    Dani 1,665   10 Years Ago

    Most DaniWeb members are not kids or teenagers. The average age of a DaniWeb user is 32 and the median age is in the 30s, as well, although I don't remember the exact number offhand. Read More

1

Life isn't fair. Personally, I'm wondering why you chose CEOs to bash for making obscene amounts of money and not professional athletes or actors.

Votes + Comments
totally agree!
0

Life isn't fair. Personally, I'm wondering why you chose CEOs to bash for making obscene amounts of money and not professional athletes or actors.

You are so correct! I guess entertainment is more important than anything else.

0

yes, it's fair. They put in more hours than most if not all of their people, they run the greater risk (financial and legal both) in case things go wrong, and their job is extremely stressful.

And as Narue said already: life ain't fair. If your boss makes more than you because he's the boss, so be it.
If you don't like it, become your own boss and see if you can do better (you almost certainly can't if you think things should be "fair").

0

yes, it's fair. They put in more hours than most if not all of their people, they run the greater risk (financial and legal both) in case things go wrong, and their job is extremely stressful.

And as Narue said already: life ain't fair. If your boss makes more than you because he's the boss, so be it.
If you don't like it, become your own boss and see if you can do better (you almost certainly can't if you think things should be "fair").

Sounds convincing to me! Besides, if you are young and work hard enough, you have an incentive to eventually replace the old boss.

0

Life isn't fair. Personally, I'm wondering why you chose CEOs to bash for making obscene amounts of money and not professional athletes or actors.

I agree. Life's a bi***. Get over it. And as Narue has said, athletes receive a much higher salary than most CEOs. And what for? Physical activity? Hell, most athletes get paid more than doctors.. more than congressmen.. more than the president! It doesn't make much sense. I'm all for taking half athletes' salaries and distributing it out to doctors(or engineers ;)) and other professionals who actually contribute to society.

0

We live in a capatilistic (sort of anyway) society. CEOs should get whatever companies are willing to pay them, even if its millions of $$$ and lots of benefits.

0

So you believe that everyone who works at the company ... from the President, to VPs, to CEOs, to CFOs, to managers, to sales personnel, to tech support personnel, to code monkeys, to the janitors, should all be paid equally ... regardless of experience level, education, the stress level of the job, the amount of time they devote to the job, and how much money they make for the company?

0

That would be communism.. and that is not fair. You spend twice the time in college as someone else, have twice the experience, but get paid the same? Hmmm...

1

You should really stop starting your threads with "Good day, boys and girls".

lol....thought people would appreciate being called young...but i guess some people are proud of their grey hairs...Seriously...I apologize to anyone who feels offended by my introduction...Will bear that in mind for future threads.

Votes + Comments
nothing wrong with a few grey hairs or calling children (people under 21 years old) young.
I was greatly offended.
No harm done.
-1

... they run the greater risk (... legal ...) in case things go wrong, and their job is extremely stressful.

Apparently you haven't heard the meaning of the word "corporation". ???

Your justification is weak. How many more hours per week than mine justify a wage 1000 times mine? As for greater risk, well, for some, yes, but anyone making the type of bucks we're talking about probably has the risk covered in a number of ways.

Fair is (just) a human concept that has nothing to do with the natural mechanisms of existence.

My point is that there really is no such thing as "fair", there is only our desire for certain behavior in others.

The question of whether something is fair is not an issue that somehow exists out there, rather, it's a question of whether we wish we had more.

Votes + Comments
not you again.
0

Like everything in this world, it comes down to the law of supply and demand. If your skills are in demand, and there are few people capable of what you can do, you can charge more for your services.

It's not necessarily how many extra hours per week justify a wage 1000X yours, as you say. It's what everyone does during those working hours. If not very many people are business saavy enough or skilled enough or good enough negotiators or whatever the case may be to do what the CEO does, then he is all that much more valuable to the company.

Suppose there are negotiations for a corporate acquisition and some C-level executive is able to negotiate buying another company for $10 million dollars. Now suppose some random mid-level manager or lowly code monkey was put into their shoes for the day. Without inherent business saavy and with subpar negotiating skills, they can only talk the company down to a $20 million dollar acquisition. The C-level executive, because of their business and negotiating skills, saved the company $10 million dollars in a single day. They are worth that much to the company.

0

Good day boys & girls...

Some (many) people use that greeting not to be offensive but to be humerous -- like the military drill sergeant who calls raw male recruits ladies. And people under the age of 21 years old are still technically children, or "boys and girls" -- which applies to at least half DaniWeb members.

1

So you believe that everyone who works at the company ... from the President, to VPs, to CEOs, to CFOs, to managers, to sales personnel, to tech support personnel, to code monkeys, to the janitors, should all be paid equally ... regardless of experience level, education, the stress level of the job, the amount of time they devote to the job, and how much money they make for the company?

It's been tried in that small country they call the USSR...
In fact the situation was worse there, management got paid less there because physical labour was deemed more worthy and politically correct than management.

As a result they of course got only incompetent managers, and all the workers did whatever they could to prevent promotion so went out of their way to not do anything to get noticed (like actually doing anything).

Votes + Comments
Bad Josh, bad Josh.
And that's relvant, how, Josh?
Banning people is quite rude.
0

I accept that, AD. Though, I think most of these users would prefer to be called teenagers/adolescent rather than boys and girls. Not certain what irked me about it, to be honest. Maybe I should post in the "what annoys you most" thread. Also the definition of an adult is different depending on where you're from. At 18 people are adults here, 21 in the States. Also, if over half of the users on the forums are guys does that mean that it's OK to call everyone male? ;)

1

Most DaniWeb members are not kids or teenagers. The average age of a DaniWeb user is 32 and the median age is in the 30s, as well, although I don't remember the exact number offhand.

Votes + Comments
I think you need to redo that survey.
0

Like everything in this world, it comes down to the law of supply and demand. If your skills are in demand, and there are few people capable of what you can do, you can charge more for your services.

You would be entirely right if supply and demand of human resources were the only reason that the ratio of wealth distribution is in place.

But human resources (managerial ability) are not the only issue at play. The notion of ownership of natural resources underlies the business paradigm in it' many forms. This ownership does not reflect a "fair distribution" of wealth, rather, it reflects a wholly different premise. Wealth in virtally all of its forms can be seen to derive from ownership of that which is extracted from the earth, air and sun.

In a fair world, the natural resources would be shared, equally, as needed. Then you'd see exactly how many people had these abilities you speak of. But when the resources are tightly controlled, only a few can percolate to the top.

Wealth is not shared according to ability or effort. Those who have it certainly often are intelligent and industrious. But so are many others who don't have it. Timing and placement are everything.

Well, almost everything. Fair is not much of the equation.

-1

It is as futile to measure Life by the stick of fairness as it is to measure Light in liters.

Votes + Comments
What?
0

One thing that often seems to be overlooked is that corporations -- and by extension CEOs -- try to maximize profits for investors. But the image of the investor is all too often thought of as "some rich guy". What is left out is people who have 401(k)s and IRAs and other retirement plans. In the process of making a company more profitable, there are also thousands of people who get their retirement income from it who rather enjoy it as well.

0

The salaries of CEOs are hight to attract the best person, that makes the best decisions for the company. If the company thrives, so do the workers.

There are exceptions of course.

0

The salaries of CEOs are hight to attract the best person, that makes the best decisions for the company. If the company thrives, so do the workers.

There are exceptions of course.

it is not my view that high ceo salaries helps anyone except the ceo. it seems to me that the higher the salary, the more likely it is that there is corruption occuring, that damage is being done to the workers, the populace, and or the environment.

businsess is often used as a means of theft. how can you not know that?

as for attracting the best person, that's an unsupported statement. you have not shown the equation between best and insanely high salaries to exist.

0

as for attracting the best person, that's an unsupported statement. you have not shown the equation between best and insanely high salaries to exist.

It is no more unsupported then your statement that says "they make alot of money because of corruption"

Answer this: If a CEO made the same amount as a bagger at a grocery store, what incentive would there be to take the job as a CEO? If you have 2 equally paying jobs, people will take the job that requires the least amount of work.

Offering higher salaries attracts more people to the position. Take a look at Google. They supposedly have a lot of work perks and a good work enviroment etc. Because of this they get a lot more resumes which means they have more to pick from. This ensures they will get the best.

Supply and demand also has an effect. How many people are qualified to be a CEO vs customer service rep? When you have skills that are in low supply you will get paid more.

With that said, I hate CEO's that snub the little guy. The reason CEO's can make that much money is because of the worker bees at the bottom doing all the work. Without them, they would be out of business.

0

In a fair world, the natural resources would be shared, equally, as needed. Then you'd see exactly how many people had these abilities you speak of. But when the resources are tightly controlled, only a few can percolate to the top.

Please define 'shared equally'. Obviously, one or more people went to the effort of obtaining those resources; is there any reason they should have done so, unless they expect to be compensated for their efforts before any form of sharing takes place? If not, then why should they bother doing so? Especially as some resources are hazardous to obtain, and impose additional risk upon those who seek to obtain them for use?

0

> only a few can percolate to the top.
I don't believe that the people who are most successful got that way purely by accident. You guys talk about how lucky the selected few are to hold such high-paying positions but at what cost? The majority of executives worked towards their careers at the cost of families, friends, any sort of social life, etc.

I think that if any one of you decided today that you wanted to give up your entire life for the sake of your career, then in 10 years from now, it wouldn't be [financially-speaking] in vain.

0

I think that it is fair...

The people that get paid the millions of dollars get that money because they worked hard to get to where they are. Why should they suffer because other people failed to put the same amount effort towards their career?

-1

"Answer this: If a CEO made the same amount as a bagger at a grocery store, what incentive would there be to take the job as a CEO? If you have 2 equally paying jobs, people will take the job that requires the least amount of work."

Wrong. People will take a job that suits their personalities. They will compete for control.

Higher wages are one thing, (I do not believe in socialism) but someone making 50 to 200 times as much as the person sitting outside their office is simply a vulgar display of corporate greed.

There are many more people who are capable of the job than who are paid for it. That is, if you take certain elements out of the picture, such as extreme self-serving behavior and simple greed.

Running a company is not as hard as you want us all to believe. When a company gets big enough to pay the wages we're talking about an there is, after all, a hierarchy of support, the top dog certainly must know how to wheel and deal, and smooze, and understand the business to a great degree.

That's not the issue here, it's the "type" of person who does this that is at issue. Who in the name of God said that the sort of corporations that pay these sorts of wages can be shown to be a "good" thing for mankind anyway?

The entire notion of corporation is ... dare I say it... evil (in a sense). Yes, it's evil because it removes personal responsibility for the actions of the principles. For the most part, they cannot be touched as they plunder and abuse resources and people.

I don't mind someone making $250,000 per year to my $40,000 .. that's not the issue here, and it covers your average executive salary. But when it gets to 1.5 mil, or 12 mil a year, well, that tells me that greed is in charge, and if you look closely you'll see that it doesn't stop with the wage.

Votes + Comments
Ha. Corporations are evil. Can't say I've heard that one before! Seriously though, your arguments are extreme and expose your simple logic.
0

> only a few can percolate to the top.
I don't believe that the people who are most successful got that way purely by accident. You guys talk about how lucky the selected few are to hold such high-paying positions but at what cost? The majority of executives worked towards their careers at the cost of families, friends, any sort of social life, etc.

I think that if any one of you decided today that you wanted to give up your entire life for the sake of your career, then in 10 years from now, it wouldn't be [financially-speaking] in vain.

And you don't think there's something wrong with that equation? Those are the people you want to reward, people who abandon their families for corporate advancement? These are the people you want influencing government behavior towards the very people that they have abandoned? And you support the notion that they "should" have millions to your thousands?

Whew. I never cease to be amazed at the attraction of the dollar for the majority of the middle class.

This attraction overwhelms all other compassionate regard for and consideration of their fellow man, tainting all values and principles.

0

I believe that people should be rewarded for their hard work, whatever their passion may be. Not everyone in this world has the ambition or desire to be a family man or housewife and raise 2.5 kids with a minivan, golden retriever, and white picket fence. If that's your passion, that's going to be where your main focus is. If your career is your passion, you're going to excel in that ... not everyone in the world was cut out to raise a family.

People don't need to abandon their families for their work. There are lots of people who don't have families to begin because they have always focused on their careers.

Case in point: Microsoft's 55 year old co-founder and $18 billion dollar man Paul Allen is a never-been-married bachelor. In fact, this is so common that there's actually a Forbes Billionaire Bachelors list of never married men over 40.

> This attraction overwhelms all other compassionate regard for and consideration of their fellow man, tainting all values and principles.

In conclusion, you cannot apply your values and principles to everyone in the world.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.