I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs

>>2980440
Btw, I know you didn't watch anime and are simply posting "anime girl" but I ought to inform you. Megumin hates frogs.

Good luck getting an answer that doesn't involve bootlicking or temporarily embarrassed millionaire mentality.

Because the board of directors hired them for that amount of money. CEOs are just another employee and can be hired and fired whenever for whatever amount of money. The big shareholders are the ones who truly wield money and authority.

File: 1497297981603.jpg (53KB, 435x452px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 435x452px

wtf do CEOs even do
I mean like for real
seems like a mafia and money laundering scam
all those old money families appoint each other as CEOs to skim off the top while wagecucks and middle managers keep the company afloat
7 times out 10 CEOs are collosal fuck ups who make out with a generous golden parachute while wrecking the company
it's wild man I'm 100% it's a WASP/Jewish mafia scam considering CEOs fuck up way more than they don't

>>2980440
>I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
Because that's what happens under capitalism. The ones who have the least choice and the most pressure to make a living get a shitty job with shitty pay. The ones who don't have that pressure and who have shown that they're the most beneficial to the quarterly revenue of the company can barter for obscenely high salaries, and actually get them. The devil always shits on the highest pile.

>>2980440
Let's say, not the CEO but the owner of the company, that way it's all his money, no shareholders or any other authority. You're the owner, you get all the profit, you could invest all the profit to make more, you could pay your employees more, you could donate to charity, or you could buy bitches and cocaine. The choice is, and it should always remain, your choice, not the government's, because it's your money, not the employees or anyone else's.

File: Harvey_Reginald_Specter.jpg (84KB, 449x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 449x600px

>>2980440

Simple, because CEOs create more value to the firm than the average employee.

Unlike the average employee which works 9-5, the CEO is basically married to the firm 24/7, including weekends.

With this amount of dedication to their work, a CEO has an intimate understanding and knowledge of the entire business.

Theres a lot of complex human interaction, negotiations and tough decisions involved that the average employee would probably commit suicide if they were in the CEO's shoes for 1 week.

On top of that, the CEO has to answer to a daily shit storm from shareholders on why the firm's quarterly profits dipped by 0.1% last week, and SJWs from the media on why he's laying off 1000s of workers and taking a $5 million bonus at the same time.

A CEO job is not a work in the park, despite all the negative backlash you here in the lamestream media. It involves ungodly long hours, sleepless nights, and stress from inevitable relationship troubles / divorces that kind of lifestyle would toll..

Hence in that respect, a compensation of 500 - 1000 times the average employee salary is entirely justified.

>>2980512
cuck

>>2980517
reddit/pol/sjw tier debate tactic #1

"if you don't have an argument call them a name"

americans are disgusting
they praise ppl who shit on them and look down on them, moreover they hope they believe theyll "make" it
absolutely disgusting

>>2980512
High level CEOs are sinecurists from rich old money share holder families.

>>2980512

No it's not

10-30 times the annual salary of regular worker seems fair
Fairly lavish payment in company stock seems fair, if he fucks up, he gets hurt

Anything above that is beyond ridiculous

>>2980512
Why would someone take such a job if they have no time to spend that money? Doesn't matter if you're a millionare if you're too busy to actually do anything with that money.

>Theres a lot of complex human interaction, negotiations and tough decisions
Such as?

>On top of that, the CEO has to answer to a daily shit storm from shareholders on why the firm's quarterly profits dipped by 0.1% last week, and SJWs from the media on why he's laying off 1000s of workers and taking a $5 million bonus at the same time.

Maybe that CEO shouldn't take the bonus if things aren't doing well.

>stress from inevitable relationship troubles / divorces that kind of lifestyle would toll.

Sounds like you shouldn't get married at all if you're planning on becoming a CEO. No time for relationships since you are married to the firm.

File: 9u3__harvey_on_pinterest.jpg (10KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x236px

>>2980527
>>2980536

>10-30 times the annual salary of regular worker seems fair

Do you honestly believe that CEOs just hoard all that money and don't spend it?

If you reduce their salaries, you would just decimate entire industries for private jets, mansions, horse racing, private islands, jewelry, designer suits, sports cars etc, all of which hire hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

Even Private Jets have be built by someone and flown by someone, who has to get paid at the end of the day.

>>2980543
This attitude is exactly why you are not going to be successful in life.

>>2980440
The actions of the CEO can make or break the company. CEOs do in fact have a lot of decisions to make, and if they make a wrong move they can very easily tank an entire company. Contrary to what movies tell you CEOs do not just sit around doing jack shit all day. And like another anon said, the shareholders and board of directors have the real power.

>>2980552
>If you reduce their salaries, you would just decimate entire industries for private jets, mansions, horse racing, private islands, jewelry, designer suits, sports cars etc, all of which hire hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

>Even Private Jets have be built by someone and flown by someone, who has to get paid at the end of the day.

Are you telling me that if you gave that money to the workers of the company they wouldn't spend it? That money would just go to different industries. Some industries, like the ones you listed would shrink, but others would grow.

>>2980552
the attitude will give him a long and peaceful life, while youll die in cancer chasing shekels, shitstain

>>2980440
This is /his/. Also if you have a problem with this method, then become a CEO and do it your way. Too bad you fags have an inferiority complex and just see money, then get all greedy.

File: 54354746436534.jpg (38KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x300px

>>2980583
>Are you telling me that if you gave that money to the workers of the company they wouldn't spend it?

Spend it on what? Private jets? kek

>Some industries, like the ones you listed would shrink, but others would grow.

So you're fine with tens of thousands of people losing their jobs as long as le ebil CEOs get their pay cut?

>people are actually biting
/his/ is so pathetic

File: 1410306196838.png (101KB, 539x468px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 539x468px

>>2980552
>Even Private Jets have be built by someone and flown by someone, who has to get paid at the end of the day.
In the past rich people had a few expectations on them before getting praise like investing and making the economy more efficient.
Now cucks will literally praise them for buying dumb shit so they can make other rich people richer.
Though my first guess will be that you're the spoiled rich kid in question.

>>2980623

Capitalism is entirely within the humanities domain for /his/ discussion.

>>2980440
>why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
The probably shouldn't. That seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. Also it's actually really hard to judge a CEO's performance, because the full consequences of their actions usually aren't obvious until years after the fact.

t. MBA student

File: umbrella.jpg (113KB, 900x938px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 900x938px

>>2980440
I don't know about CEO's, but the owners of a business need to have a really strong incentive to make the risk of trying to build a business or else ending up in debt.

>>2980645
>That seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon.

Interesting, cause so is economic success.

Because in creating the company he took 500-1000 times the risk as the employee will

>>2980476
They're in charge of strategy and resource allocation you mongoloid.
>They fuck up seven times out of ten
Source: anon's asshole

Everyone knows the CEOs of big corporations don't deserve what they're paid, but they do actually have responsibilities.

>>2980468
She looks like she is faking her happiness

>>2980552
>you would just decimate entire industries for private jets, mansions, horse racing, private islands, jewelry, designer suits, sports cars etc
Doesn't sound all that bad to be honest.

>>2980748

>creating the company

"CEO" doesn't mean "created the company." People who start their own business sometimes give themselves the title of CEO, but CEO doesn't mean "company founder," it means "chief executive officer." You can bring in a CEO for existing companies at any point in the company's lifespan.

>>2980512
You sound like jordan peterson

>>2980440
Companys want good CEOs, because a CEO's decisions can make or break a company. Companies can poach each others' CEOs by offering them more money. Hence companies need to pay their CEOs generously to keep them from being poached, and it becomes a salary arms race.

>>2980440

I find it hilarious that people in this thread feel like they have the right to dictate what a CEO is or isn't paid. Their salary is a function of the free market and what their company's revenue and board will allow for. Your feelings stem from a combination of pathetic jealousy, discontent with your life, and the inevitable realization that you simply can't compete.

>>2980848
>>2980440
Likewise, 'moral' is a much more nebulous concept that is hard to invest in without a great measure of 'good faith'. Each bottom-end worker is basically impossible to account for. You can hire them, you can fire them, but you can't control what they really do. You can hope that they'd work more efficiently for more money, and I'd like to think most people would, but most companies just aren't willing to invest in them to find out, especially while they're competing with other companies.

Since its the norm to pay low-end employees so little, they realize that those employees probably won't leave to go somewhere else to make more for quite some time (because they'd have to find that place) and companies are willing to give small raises across the board just to keep the illusion that they're worth staying with, but only what is calculated as just enough to keep them from seeking employment at some other shitty job.

Basically the concept of paying low end employees very little monopolizes the job market in a sense - Making your ability to compete for your own wage extremely rare unless you have a very unique or valuable skillset outside of the majority.

I don't have a problem with CEO pay, I have a problem with obscene bonus schemes and golden parachutes, which get paid even if he ran the firm into the ground. Case studies: AIG and Lehman Brothers, and basically every major bank that had a role in 2008 crisis.

>>2980862
It actually has more to do with the fact that most people are ungrateful shit bags and higher wages simply do not scale with increased efficiency/productivity.

>>2980876
Soubds like something a factory owner from 1800s would say.

>>2980855
Why should I be pissed off some chad from a rich well connected family is making out like a bandit while wages have been stagnant for 20 years and companies kick their wagecucks to the curb the moment things get real but CEO chad walks away with a 10 million golden parachute

Why are you so cuck brained?

>>2980885
Because that has nothing to do with Chad you imbecile

>>2980883
No it's something that anyone that has actually tried to operate a business in the United States would say

>>2980885
the CEO is literally never some dickbrained chad. you just believe they are to compensate for your own shortcomings. stop being so pathetic

>>2980875
No banks should have been bailed out. That was a fucking terrible mistake.

>>2980903
Now they blame immigrants and poor people

>>2980525
>he insulted me
>let's chimp out and put a social democrat government!
Let's see how long do you last without USA gibs

>>2980599
>chasing shekels
Lmao this is what people actually believe

File: socrates 2.jpg (3MB, 4320x2880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2880px

>>2980440
>>2980512
Let's accept for a moment that CEOs are truly worth what they are paid: a thousand times more than the average employee. This implies that CEOs are paid based on fair markets prices: it is really the market that determines how much they are paid. Let's just accept those things as true for a thought experiment.

Now imagine a CEO's job is split into a thousand pieces. Each of those pieces is delivered to an average employee working an eight hour shift. You fully employ these people doing nothing else but 1/1000th of the previous CEO's responsibilities each, in something like an assembly line. Even if the CEO's job is impossibly difficult, and only the best minds of the world could handle it all at once, surely an average person could handle just 1/1000th of the job.

This new system being an assembly line, and knowing what we know about assembly lines, the workers might even get more efficient, doing the work of two CEOs. You could probably assign clients their very own employee, have five people making contacts at conferences instead of just one, have a hundred people working on collaborations with other companies, etc. The business would become more efficient. Or, each of the employees could all work for ten hours a week, and you could pay them less. Or, you could fire all the below-average performers, that is, exactly half of them, and redistribute their work to the remaining above-average performers, and save on the payroll.

So, if both of our original assumptions are true, why do businesses not eliminate their CEO positions and redistribute their work to 1000 people? It would be better for the business in every way -- they either get a more efficient business or more money. But no businesses do this. So there must be a flaw in our original assumption. It simply MUST be true that CEOs are not worth what they are paid, and therefore the market does not really determine the pay of CEOs.

>>2980512
>>2980552
>>2980619
>>2980855
>>2980899
>>2981154

>muh free market prices

CEOs can pay themselves such high salaries because they simply can thanks to zero regulation on limits to their bonuses.

Without any government regulations, the "free market" would drive worker wages right down to zero and implement slavery or indentured servitude.

>>2981154
>Now imagine a CEO's job is split into a thousand pieces.
Here's your problem. The "worth" of the CEO is derived largely from their responsibility to the whole corporation and every employee, at least in theory. If your company shits the bed, the board kicks YOU to the curb, even if it was the result of logistics/employee misconduct/whatever. Of course, in real life, CEO's often find workarounds to get out of this responsibility.

>>2981154
>why don't the passengers fly the plane

>>2981154
>Now imagine a CEO's job is split into a thousand pieces. Each of those pieces is delivered to an average employee working an eight hour shift. You fully employ these people doing nothing else but 1/1000th of the previous CEO's responsibilities each, in something like an assembly line.

This is what plebs think about the matter:
>if my job which consists in menial, monkey sees, monkey does activities, therefore other people's jobs must be structured in the same way!

File: d94f36ef02acf5e7da93c69f147b1796.jpg (32KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x540px

>>2981209

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for punishing any criminal activity committed by CEOs such as fraud or money laundering.

But to punish a CEO just because some exogenous black swan event negatively affected his firm's 3rd quarter results is just retarded. How would you feel if you worked long stressful hours, 7 days a week, and then get told you won't get paid for the rest of the year just because you couldn't predict 6 months into the future with 100% accuracy?

>>2981260
Well that's my point, the reason why they get paid so much is because they're constantly at risk of being held liable for anything that goes wrong.

>>2980772
no that would be the CSO you mong, CEO is literally just a title for personality (tim cook, mark zucc)

>>2981260
And yet he cashes out the bonus anyway or gets fired and gets cushy severance deals :^)

>>2981300

kek most companies don't even have a "CSO"

ITT: Resentful poorfags

If you spent the time whining about how others are rich doing shit that'd make you money you'd actually be somewhere instead of shitposting on 4chan about how rich people are meanie poo poo heads.

>>2981220
>implying there is anything separating the pilot and passenger other than education
remember that fighter pilot was a real job during wartime that was open to just about anyone that wanted it, and I bet you it was considerably more difficult than modern day auto-pilots

>b-but, muh CEO genes!
show me where they are in the genome

>>2980903
>implying the banks didn't pay the loans back with interest the following day

Fuck off

>>2981209
>CEOs are paid billions to take the risk of getting fired for things that aren't their fault
you realize basically every employee is at risk for getting fired for things that aren't their fault, right?

my father, who is an old-school programmer, once almost got fired for strongly advocating RAID systems. bosses chose to ignore him, very important data failed, guess who the punishment landed on? not the bosses!

>>2981379
>Muh anecdotal evidence!

>>2981379
>once almost got fired
What a horror story. The difference is that your boss not liking you is not inherent to the structure of a corporation, whereas the CEO being liable is.

File: 3.jpg (2MB, 1900x2447px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1900x2447px

>>2981243
What century are you from? Are you advocating a return to the guild system? A fundamental aspect of capitalism is splitting complex work into simpler jobs to be done by a larger number of lower paid employees.

Go back to burning mechanical looms, Luddite.

>>2981379

>I deserve a safe and secure job

Employees don't deserve anything other than what they are worth on the free market.

File: democritus.jpg (11KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x300px

>>2981381
>he can't recognize instances in which anecdotal evidence is relevant

>>2981393
>>2981407
Which is it, boys? It's not inherent or it is?

>>2981378
>>implying the banks didn't pay the loans back with interest the following day
They didn't you stupid fuck. Besides they were not loans, they were capital injections, which were used to pay bonuses for the leadership that fucked everything up in the,first place.

>>2981413
The position of CEO is "worth" a very high wage because the structure of a corporation depends on the CEO being liable. Any given individual employee is "worth" the wage that they accept upon employment. These things aren't contradictory. I'm not sure what your point is.

You get paid what you are worth to the company or what you consider yourself worth to the company.

I work and I get paid fuck all, but I know that the company doesn't value me more than that so I will not ask for more than what I value myself and in my opinion what the company should value me

>>2981378

Objectively false

>>2981379

>My dad's specific experience at his specific company should reflect on nation-wide policy regarding CEOs

>>2981357
>that was open to just about anyone that wanted it,
lol no

>>2981357
It may well be possible to train 99% of the population to fly a plane and have everyone fly rented single seater planes everywhere but it would not be economical. The equivalence still stands.

The analogy demonstrates "division of labor", even K Marx recognized this as a thing. It is not a conspiracy to keep you down, trust me, it is an example of how material conditions affect society.

>implying there is anything separating the pilot and passenger other than education
Most CEOs have many peers with similar education but who are nowhere near as successful. There are other factors at play.

If you want to lower "obscene inequality", the best way to do it is by cultivating ubermensch virtues amongst the populace and helping them learn what it means to be an American. Instead of just Zuck pioneering some new technology you'd have about 50 others with the same gogetum attitude, it would be highly competitive and ol' Zuck or whoever gets the top dog position wouldn't have quite such a large share of the new business.

>>2981381
>>2981393
>>2981474
>I have not experienced this undue blame, furthermore I have heard the experiences of so few people that I cannot recognize that this undue blame happens to many people frequently
Seriously, have any of you ever worked... anywhere? This complaint is so frequent that at every job at which I have ever worked, even the ones at which there were fewer than five employees, at least one person if not several people have complained about receiving punishment for a crime they did not commit. Sometimes I could see it happening to my coworkers before my very eyes. For some, this injustice jeopardized their job security to the point of expulsion from the workplace.

I mentioned my father's specific case because it brought the human element to a counterargument based in evidence I assumed to be universal. In other words, I mentioned my father because otherwise my counterargument would have been overly simple and boring, as if I was merely stating facts. So, I don't understand the nature of your objections. I might as well have told you an experience I had with brushing my teeth, and you came back requesting I supply evidence than anybody brushes their teeth.

>>2980440
>NEET thinks he has the right to dictate what people earn.

Seriously go take a long look at yourself in the mirror.

>>2981546
>I don't understand the nature of your objections.
Yeah clearly, because you responded with this pompous word salad bullshit. My post has nothing to do with your shitty dad story. Your point was that employees are also liable for things that go wrong. Yeah no shit. MY point is that the CEO is responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong. That's built into what it means to be a "corporation." An employee being mistreated is NOT built into what it means to be a corporation.

>>2981491
>the analogy demonstrates "division of labor"
I am not quite sure we are discussing the same thing here. Sure, a pilot flies a plane for the price of $100,000/yr. And for this price, it really IS more economical to have one person fly planes instead of us all learning to fly our own planes. That is a correct identification of division of labor.

But that is not a valid refutation of my argument. My argument was that the position of CEO is exactly an instance in which it is not more economical to have one person do the work. For the price of 1000x the average employee's wage, it would be profoundly LESS economical to hire that person than to split up the labor of that person into a thousand smaller pieces, to be done by a thousand easier to find, and less skilled/experienced/educated people. What you'd gain from this trade is perhaps a lower cost per employee, fewer employees to pay, or greater business efficiency by more people having less on their plate to stress over.

>If you want to lower "obscene inequality", the best way to do it is by cultivating ubermensch virtues amongst the populace and helping them learn what it means to be an American.
As far as this goes, just listen to yourself.

>>2981587
>An employee being mistreated is NOT built into what it means to be a corporation.
That seems to be an unreasonable assertion to me. If it's NOT built into what it means to be a corporation, why is being punished for crimes someone did not commit, what you call "an employee being mistreated," a nearly universal experience for those who work? Are you telling me it's a random occurrence that happens to everyone, everywhere, all at once, but is NOT systematic?

>>2980440

I think it boils down to the pool of people who are appropriately skilled and connected (emphasis on the latter) essentially have a collusion that enables that wage level.
Those wages probably aren't that large in proportion to company expenses that it seriously affects the company competetiveness. Could be that regulatory environment gives large corporations the kind of edge they wouldn't have in a more laissez-faire environment so that their wages don't get competed downwards.

>>2980440
Distributism is the superior system. It's more effective if businesses are run locally and sustainably. And people work harder when they control their own economic destiny. We wouldn't have useless CEO's taking massive sums of money for little value.

>>2981546

you and your dad sound like cucks that let people talk shit to them. If someone blames you for something in which you have no blame you stand up and say so.

I would also blame everything on you because apparantly you just stand there and take it

File: ceo.png (93KB, 650x462px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 650x462px

>>2980512

>>2981651
>If someone blames you for something in which you have no blame you stand up and say so.
Not that guy but have you ever like... had a real job? The boss has the finger on the trigger, he doesn't fucking care that you're shouting at him. It's like charging a machine gun nest alone with a knife. He has all the power. You're worth less then dirt to them.

I've seen this shit happen all the time. You're naive if you don't think people stand up to it. I've never meet anyone where it actually worked.

>>2981651
It's not a matter of not standing up to defend oneself, it's a matter of the management believing you

>>2981596
>For the price of 1000x the average employee's wage, it would be profoundly LESS economical to hire that person than to split up the labor of that person into a thousand smaller pieces
This sentence made sense until about half way through.

If you are asking why not fire the CEO and hire someone potentially more talented for 1/10 of the price, that is an interesting question, which is an intriguing dilemma.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/112013/executive-pay-how-much-do-shareholders-really-care.asp

However you seem to unironically believe it is more economical to split the labor of a CEO into 1000 pieces.

The kind of "labor" of a CEO is administrative and executive, it is an intellectual task. Imagine if a computer finds the average movement of the joystick of 100 people playing a video game and makes the same movement in the aircraft's controls and only presses a button when 51 people press that button. Or imagine too many cooks in the kitchen.

>just listen to yourself
I realize it sounds far fetched, perhaps even shocking, but as I said the CEO has been educated to the same degree as many others so there are other factors at play. Luck plays a role, but even luck can be mitigated by the market. The more people probing possible avenues for economic growth, banks acting like insuance companies, covering the losses of unsuccessful businesses with the profits of the successful thereby allowing more risk-taking.

There are many ways to do this that would be much more succesful than hardcore Stalinism, if only more people would change their attitude to capitalism.

>>2980440
It is better spent like that and most businesses know that. The ones that do that peroform better than ones who don't. It's usually only large established businesses with their hands in the government that get plundered like that.

>>2981651
Alright, David, we know you're very brave for standing up to giants but some of us have mouths to feed and other things to worry about besides pride

>why should they get X
Because they run shit.
It's that simple. You do not need to justify your income when you're one of the top dogs.

>>2981735
Sometimes it's not even that. It's also a matter of, who's more useful to them.

>>2980522
shouldn't you be prepping the CEO to fuck your wife?

>>2981716
>>2981735
>>2981752

You get bullied because you allow yourself to get bullied.

>>2980440
You cannot make $500,000,000 per year if nobody is willing to pay you $500,000,000 per year.

No matter how "greedy" you are, you have to find someone willing to pay you that $500,000,000 in order to make $500,000,000.

So if you can get 500,000,000 people to pay you $1 each, you're golden.

>>2980552
>private jets
you know private jets cost several hundred thousand dollars in fuel to fly long distances? if the atrocious amount of money wasted on jet fuel was instead paid to workers, a shit ton more industries than saudi and other oil corporations would benefit.

>>2981742
>However you seem to unironically believe it is more economical to split the labor of a CEO into 1000 pieces.
Yes, truly. Why is this not the case? Of course, one who weaves clothes by hand has many responsibilities, and it is rare to find in one person all the skills needed at a very high level. Perhaps that one person, who has mastered all the elements of his trade, from the original design to the marketing of the end product, is deserving of high pay for quality goods. But that does not mean his work cannot be split into numerous smaller parts, able to be done by those will less experience or devotion to the art.

A college professor is, by nature, doing novel work. He works tirelessly to publish brand new studies in his field. It is the shining example of an "administrative, executive, intellectual" task. Yet, he never does it alone. He has a fleet of students behind him preparing the test tubes. Even so, he never publishes studies alone -- it is almost always the case that numerous professors collaborate to put together even the simplest study. We could find and pay the Saint of Science one thousand times the salary of the average college professor, but instead, we've decided to split up this fictional Saint of Science's job into a thousand smaller pieces, done by smart-enough people. And I reckon these thousand people are advancing their fields much more than any one man, even a demigod, could do, and maybe even for less pay on the whole as well.

Every conceivable job that may have once existed has been split into smaller pieces. The Wright Brothers created airplanes themselves, now airplanes are crafted by thousands of people at once. Countries were once led by individual rulers, now they are large bureaucracies managing all the previous responsibilities and more. If CEOs are like any other position in capitalism, that is, subject to innovation, assembly lining, and the market, then why are CEOs exempt from this trend?

>>2980619
>So you're fine with tens of thousands of people losing their jobs as long as le ebil CEOs get their pay cut?
luxury industries don't employ nearly as many people as other industries because rich people can only spend so much and so-called luxury items are really not all that special except to flaunt wealth

>>2981831
What if the increase in efficiency yielded by private jets (i.e. high-ranking decision makers can travel anywhere they need to at will) balances out the fuel expense?

>>2981845

Please tell me what you think a CEO does.

>>2980739
define "success". by all accounts our middle class is not nearly as strong as other western countries anymore, our healthcare is atrociously expensive, education is also expensive as well. wages have stagnated for 40 years

>>2980440
>but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?

Because they can?

No offense, but there are certain things you can do to stop it.

For example, help and join unions, and start campaigning against unskilled immigration.

>>2981851
i bet you it doesn't

>>2981906
Well do the math and get back to me

>>2981855
I have no idea what a CEO does, in the same way I have no idea what anybody does, except for me and people of my profession. All I know is that every other conceivable job has been split into thousands of pieces, streamlined, industrialized, no matter the original difficulty, except for CEOs.

Holy shit when did I start posting on /lit/ again? Delete this fucking shit thread already

>>2981915
>All I know is that every other conceivable job has been split into thousands of pieces, streamlined, industrialized, no matter the original difficulty, except for CEOs.

So when you call a plumber, you have a thousand plumbers show up at your door? When you go to the store there are a dozen cashiers, each checking out a single item for you? I could keep going for ages like this but I hope I have already impressed on you the retardation of your argument.

File: 1497969110278.jpg (24KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x484px

>>2981915
I lost a few IQ points from this thread

>this meme of CEOs working like dogs 16 hours a day 7 days a week
Where did this come from? Aside from handling a crisis they don't work more hours per week compared to your average assembler who works long shift or does frequent overtime.

File: Thank God we have such a talented CEO.jpg (49KB, 997x739px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 997x739px

>>2980512

>Simple, because CEOs create more value to the firm than the average employee.

File: the_overestimated_workweek-_revisited_graphic_006.jpg (171KB, 2421x2172px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 2421x2172px

>>2982141

Apparently working "long hours = hard working", and "short hours = lazy welfare scrounger", so its a very just-world type of outlook.

So overestimation of working hours is normally used as a defensive measure to avoid creating the impression that one is lazy.

Its just basic human competitive nature tbqh

>>2981809
t. spoiled rich faggot

>>2982148

>reg stockreturn ceopay

solid econometrics right here lads

>>2981999
>>2982018
Not that guy but the plumber brought tools he didn't make, probably an appointment he didn't personally take down, etc etc.

In the military it is said for one soldier on the field there are ten others supporting him behind the frontlines. I think that is what that anon is trying to say

>>2981999
>When you go to the store there are a dozen cashiers, each checking out a single item for you?

Believe it or not, this actually happens a LOT in India.

>>2980527
>High level CEOs are sinecurists from rich old money share holder families.
Top fucking kek. Those guys are almost invariably company VPs with no actual division to oversee. CEOs are never sinecurists, it's by definition the top decision-making position.

>>2981355
Don't live to make money. Make money to live.

>>2982330

Yeah and the CEO uses a desk he didn't personally make. At the end of the day the plumber's specific job is indivisible, just like the CEO's.

>>2982335

Really? why? and how? please tell me more

>>2980440
Because everyone can do the average guy's job, but few are considered competent CEOs.
The reason why salaries are always growing is the constant bidding war for top management between companies. Of course a generalized pay rise would be more productive than giving even more money to someone who's got more than he knows how to spend, but that's in a void. What actually happens is, pay him more or he goes to your business rivals, with all the trouble that follows.

>>2982363
>specific job is indivisible
Which is? People made the parts and tools for him to use though. A CEO using a table is vastly different since his main job is to make decisions and he doesn't make those decisions in a vacuum

>>2980440
Because capitalist pigs are driven only by greed

>>2980512
>this is what capitalists believe

>>2982384

for the love of god you must be retarded. You don't know what a CEO does, you don't know what a plumber does. Yet you want to discuss their respective compensation. Please just jump off the nearest roof and end yourself.

File: 1495986068963.jpg (152KB, 400x510px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 400x510px

>>2982433
>You don't know what a CEO does, you don't know what a plumber does.
Not an argument senpai

>>2981208
>Without any government regulations, the "free market" would drive worker wages right down to zero and implement slavery or indentured servitude.

Yes, tell me more on how the craftsmen of the Roman Empire were all were literally all slaves and never compensated.

File: download.gif (4MB, 426x213px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 426x213px

>>2981357
You're an absolute fucking idiot.

>>2980440
CEO is a highly demmanding position that almost completely eliminates the possibility of a normal life and healthy family ties, anybody in the C suite is usually forced to always be available for work emergencies and travel, if shit hits the fan your job make you the bearer of most or all responsibility (whether you were one of the crooks/inepts or not) and will likely go to jail if required, also you cannot just leave your job and nab another similar job since there is usually a cooldown timer (enforced as a gentleman's agreement between the actual owners of the companies) to mitigate spionage and knowledge leaks
among other things, the salaries are that high to increase the chances of the C suite people being competent, remaining loyal, and doing their job

>>2980440
It's just a matter of supply, demand and scarcity. Nothing else.

File: 1299999018999.jpg (49KB, 294x294px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 294x294px

>implying capitalism would ever favor a system that actually benefits people instead of always making a cut throat race to the bottom for the sole sake of profit, human life be damned
>mfw cappy pigs can't defend it without denying reality

>>2982797
>Roman Empire
>capitalism

what a fucking reach holy shit

I'm certainly more of a capitalist than a socialist - I don't have a problem with CEOs making much more than their employees. Their job is harder to do and requires a rarer skillset, they deserve more. But fucking hell, why is it that fiscal conservatives are always guilty of such black-and-white thinking?

"CEOs make more than their employees because they're more valuable." Yeah, no shit. But CEOs today aren't TEN TIMES MORE VALUABLE than CEOs were in, say, 1970, when they made a mere 50 times (on avg) more than their employees. Thinking that there should be SOME kind of a check on their ever-inflating salaries is not the same as saying that they're a bunch of parasitic leeches and that we should redistribute their income and "split their jobs into a thousand pieces" like that idiot above is saying.

>>2982931
Your problem is applying moral value judgements to the market, when the market doesn't give a fuck. I likewise don't agree with the fact that Lebron James earns 25 million a year for jumping up and down like a monkey while doctors earn 150k, but I recognize why he does. High desirability + rare talent.

>>2980472
>every company has been publicly floated on the stock exchange
'no'

>>2982957
As I don't fetishize the market, I don't see "applying moral judgments to the market" as a problem at all. Free market systems generally perform very well -- a fuck of a lot better than any kind of planned economy, that's for sure -- but when excesses of the free market occur that I judge to be detrimental to our society, I see absolutely no reason not to pass regulations to nudge things back into place.

That really isn't an unreasonable position. It's the system we have now, and that's a good thing; pure laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried, but we've come relatively close, in a few countries, at different periods, and it just doesn't work that well. Wanting to fiddle with some of the regulations we have doesn't mean I want to implement a ton of new ones and replace our relatively functional and prosperous economy with a planned one.

The problem is that, like I said, some people throw autistic shitfits when you so much as say the word "regulation" (i.e. they act like any amount of regulation will strangle the economy and drive out all the productive "wealth creators", leaving us an impoverished, socialist shithole). Granted, actual leftists share a lot of the blame for this with their polarizing rhetoric, so that when reasonable people express the barest hint of redistributionist sentiment it reads to many people like "fuck capitalism, fuck the market, fuck CEOs, burn it all down."

>>2983095
I don't fetishize the market the same way I don't fetishize gravity. I'm not gonna like when I trip and break my nose on the pavement, but I understand that's just how shit works. If nobody in the world gave a shit about basketball, Lebron James would be dead by 20 in some crack ridden ghetto of Akron.

>>2983110
The market = gravity is a crappy analogy. You're acting like there's nothing we can do about it when the market doesn't perform the way we'd like, but in fact we nudge it this way and that every fucking day, to our benefit. You could just as easily say, "I may not like it when monopolies form, but that's inevitable under a capitalist system" ... until you pass a couple antitrust laws. Boom, one abuse of the market has been corrected, and yet the market still largely functions as before.

You must know this - you can't possibly be under the illusion that we have a purely laissez-faire economy. So what are you even trying to say?

Capitalism is a tool but Americans treat it like an ideology.

File: 1496959751298.png (200KB, 356x256px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 356x256px

>>2980440
>but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
Oh I don't fucking know

maybe it has something to do with the fact that they own the fucking place and the business?

>>2980903
communist style state intervention to spend over a trillion dollars to keep massive banks from closing down due to their own negligence, particularly any institutions that were selling off millions of bunk mortgages they either bought, or actually signed off on themselves to families that they KNEW could usually not even afford to make a down payment besides the bare minimum, let alone stave off foreclosure for more than a matter of months due to underemployment or just one unlucky incident like having to pay thousands for a home repair or a broken appliance, or even just having a one time expense as little as a few hundred dollars (say a trip to the ER because your gradeschool age son suffered a minor fracture when he fell off the jungle gym during recess) could be all that's standing between you putting a roof over your family's head in a safe neighborhood and being evicted. The banks gave out as many of these mortgages as they could, knowing full well they could just throw one good mortgage in for fifty worthless ones and sell every bunk loan they made by having an "independent" firm grade them AAA as safe and profitable debt packages to purchase for anyone or any bank, government, investment firm and so on to get in on.

there's tons of cases of families taking out mortgages or refinancing that were purely out of their depth and not stable enough for it and should have known that if 150$ was all they could set aside a month for any emergency or just an unexpected cost like buying one shiny new tire, they should expect to not be successful homeowners.

People say that all the time, and it's valid. yet nobody can deny that the banks are A: the ones that can not only loan up to ten or more times the actual liquidity they have at any given moment and thus make deals that their better judgement and common decency as institutions "too big, reputable, and too vital to allow them to go under" should have stopped them from making. (continues)

>>2983734
(continued)
And B: the banks and loan offices were actively soliciting these crap deals by calling and coaxing families that barely qualified for the worst possible rates available and even approved some loans that couldn't even guarantee the family could honor more than a couple months of payments. On top of that, they would promise leniency for delinquent payments and offer all the assistance they could to prevent foreclosure (probably just to give them time to grade and sell off as many of the worthless things so the ticking bomb they built would blow up in someone else's lap)

Shut this thread down immediately. Fuck you OP, anti-semitic shitstain. This kind of anti-semitic bullshit has no place on /his/

>>2983943
continued 3/4


C: after soliciting predatory loans they'd pay some highly regarded and supposedly independent and objective third party firm to look over the debt they were selling with a fine toothed comb and give an honest grade per it's projected stability and returns over time, and yet somehow enough junk debt was rated as a top quality investment product that they sold so much of it that it managed to accidentally the whole world economy as well as killing Lehman and AIG even with a stimulus package so big its unprecedented and quantitative easing like the world has never seen. they also had to bail out almost everything in the US automobile sector with the single exception of Ford, if I'm not mistaken.

>>2983951
4/4


To top all that off, they gave nary a dime to any of the families that lost everything they had, very few punitive actions were taken against people that couldn't even avoid breaking the law with all the loopholes and shitty regulations the crooks had going in their favor, and possibly worst of all, all the institutions/banks stuck with worthless piles of loans and bonds didn't just let the market correct itself, ride out the hard times like the average American was doing, and do their best to regroup and reemerge as the captains of finance and cheerleaders of the loosest regulators they claimed they were. instead they put a trillion dollars worth bandaids and rubbing alcohol on a festering infection that can only be cured by painfully amputating the bastard too big to fail institutions and slowly nursing our economy back to health with a genuine correction and also I do enjoy making trading as easy as possible, but some regulations preventing scams large enough put the world in a recession seem ok since we already have a quid pro quote government/financial revolving door crony capitalism so bad right now that when the next bubble pops we'll either need serious protectionist legislation before we have Mexico levels of poor people compared to how wealthy they could be and we used to be, or we're gonna have to hold all global trade and vital resources hostage with nuclear weapons to keep the dollar worth anything and hope the impending nuclear holocaust kills all life instantly so we don't have to witness the bottom 4 or 5 billion poorest people on earth literally be physically eaten by the wealthier areas of on earth as global trade is almost entirely snuffed out for a few decades. we'll probably have just enough vital infrastructure and trade ability to ship the starving masses into north America for an easy source of protien.

>>2981407
What's a NEET shitposting on /his/ worth on the Free Market™?

>>2980440
Because in capitalism the salary is up to negotiation. It may be better for the business if the money is reinvested but that is not your call to make.

>>2983956
You're gonna see this "everything bubble" pop nect summer. It's gonna wipe out so much shit it's going to be great, many of the Wall St. banks are again caught pants down.

File: 1401758818114.jpg (239KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 600x849px

>>2980440
Somebody should have posted this hours ago

>>2980462
SOMEONE had to say it. best girl wouuldn't be caught dead with pepe.

>>2980512
>that protestant work ethic

You're retarded

>>2983266
>in fact we nudge it this way and that every fucking day, to our benefit.

No, any sort of fidgeting with the free market makes it worse. Government workers only pretend it does so they'll still have a job.

>>2980440
Because CEO wages became public and they were able to negotiate for better deals on the threat of leaving.

If you want your wages to improve, too, try to get it industry standard to be public. Information tends to help the smaller party more.

>>2981357
Go major in management then.

>>2981154
>Now imagine a CEO's job is split into a thousand pieces.

This thought experiment is reductionistic in a way that doesn't work. It's not like the CEO's job is to build a 1000 piece lego set that could be moved to an assembly line.

Also, an essential aspect of the CEO is the very fact that it is a singular role. The CEO is a decision-maker.

>So, if both of our original assumptions are true, why do businesses not eliminate their CEO positions and redistribute their work to 1000 people?

Because that would be an ineffective arrangement. For one thing, you can't support group every decision that needs to be made right now in any business or organization, and especially not across 1000 people. And, I'll bet that if you actually tried this (here's another thought experiment), a group of leaders would emerge. And you might even give them titles: CFO, COO, CEO...

>>2981831
>you know private jets cost several hundred thousand dollars in fuel to fly long distances?

Well, there's a number you pulled straight from your ass.

>>2984383
>No, any sort of fidgeting with the free market makes it worse.
Utterly ludicrous, every single regulation on business is a regulation that destroys the free market, even those that objectively increase competition in markets, like banning false advertising.

>>2983994
it's hard to say when it'll implode, but next summer is only a year away and it seems like we'll have a few more years of living through increasing stagnation, considering that not only will the costs of living continue to rise, but rising amounts of underpaid, underemployed, and totally unemployed people will still be expected to perform the nigh impossible task of coming up with enough cash, credit, and stupidity to act against their own self interests and keep purchasing ever more cheap imported crap, luxury items, and constantly frequent service-providing businesses in order to keep the massive service/retail/consumption based portion of our economy from going belly up. Then pump money into the privately owned defense areas, but unless we plan on using force to bully the rest of the world into letting us decide how valuable our currency and bonds are tell the world we don't buy or trade for resources anymore and will now just loot at our convenience.

otherwise all that defense spending is about as helpful to us as that ages old trick that solves any economic slump and ends unemployment outright: just give every American a shovel and tell every one they now get paid $500 dollars an hour to dig a hole and keep repeatedly filling it up and emptying it. we may as well build loads more aircraft carriers, tanks, cruise missiles, nuclear sibmarines and top notch combat aircraft all while creating hundreds of thousands of new well-paying jobs in the process. then just blow all of them up and also blow up all defense manufacturing plants so we not only get to create more prosperity by rebuilding the vessels and vehicles, but also get to create even more jobs to clear out the smoking remains of the factories and dump the rubble, and then rebuild the factories so we can rebuild the weapons and even have thousands more jobs solely dedicated to cleaning up the rubble from one dump site, dumping it somewhere else, and cleaning it up just to dump it ad infinatum.