Poor CEOs cannot live on $500,000 a year - Page 3

Marelo · 02-10-2009, 02:22 PM

I'm not sure where we're supposed to find the sympathy here. Honestly. Surely even the people who are losing this money don't actually think this way. Surely?

I read that article, and I just could not find myself thinking that it was anything other than a satire. Surely it was a sarcastic editorial! No, no, it's entirely serious.

All I have to say is, what. the. fuck. If that's how our upper class view the world, maybe our country really is doomed to follow Rome's example.

Edit:

Quote:

Going on a tangent here, I went to a private high school but a publicly funded college, and the quality of education I got in high school was light years ahead of what I got in college. In high school, I had teachers that were competent and knowledgeable in their subjects, made their material clear and easy to understand, and made their expectations of you equally clear. And even if that wasn't enough, they'd always be willing to meet with you and give you help personally. It was enough to make me *gasp* enjoy some of my classes. You know what I got in college? Idiot teachers. Half of them were reading from a manual the whole time, and all of them had a lot to say about the popular political matters at the time... except that it didn't have anything to do with the class they were supposed to be teaching. The college had a lot of programs designed to help students that were falling behind, but these programs didn't do anything: they only served to make the students temporarily feel better about themselves and to give the school a good image. So, to me, being forced to go to a public school just because your dad is too successful doesn't really ring to the ears.

Going along with your tangent: I'm currently attending a publicly funded institution, and I have not encountered the problems you have. Maybe I've just been lucky with the professors in my classes, but they pretty much all fit the description of your high school teachers, whereas my high school teachers (also publicly funded) fit the description of your college professors.

The thing is, I don't think the quality of the teacher should matter at the college level. If a student really wants to learn the subject, they can do so despite a terrible teacher. I did in high school, many times over, and I'm not superhuman by any means. That's not to say that a good teacher is not an advantage; merely that I don't see a bad teacher as much of a hindrance to a good student.

And to keep this a bit more on-topic, I don't think that education at certain places should cost the ridiculous premiums it does currently. A good student from a state institution is perfectly capable of performing on the same level as a good student in a private institution. It's like paying $200 for Diesel brand jeans. Ridiculous. The difference between state and private comes when you look at the average students... The people who aren't particularly motivated to learn anyway. They are the ones who pick up more in private schools versus state schools. I see that as a parenting problem more than a problem with state schools; in other words, I think parents should work harder to make their kids better students.

Azisien · 02-10-2009, 02:33 PM

I guess I can't speak for US cases or much of anything without digging, but on the grand scheme of things I would say if you've made it up the chain to a CEO position of a banking firm you must have some education or training of some kind that would qualify you to some decent salary.

That being said, let them burn. And a pat on the back for anybody who suggests salary caps on fucking everything.

Mirai Gen · 02-10-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

I guess I can't speak for US cases or much of anything without digging, but on the grand scheme of things I would say if you've made it up the chain to a CEO position of a banking firm you must have some education or training of some kind that would qualify you to some decent salary.

I'm pretty sure that's completely true, the problem is since there's no salary cap you can get that sort of job with a great college education around mid-late twenties or early thirties, and get raises and bonuses every few months like clockwork, so when you live to be about sixty-seventy before you retire you're soaking up hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. The job itself is - theoretically - supposed to be about high-stress and lots of very big decisions, justifying the money.

In practice this ends up getting abused horribly, of course. And I honestly don't know what could be so high stress about getting together every day and sneering while twirling your moustache, sipping expensive drinks and deciding, "Mmm, yes, let us make more money and fuck the little guy over simultaneously! Mwe he he he!"

This happens with baseball as well, but I think that the NBA and NFL have a salary cap? I'm not sure, it was a while ago when I wrote the essay on pro sports finances.

That's as I understand it anyway.

Ryanderman · 02-10-2009, 03:21 PM

I'm all for this cap on banks that take the money, as it will provide a large incentive for the banks to not take the money unless absolutely necessary. Reducing the otherwise inevitable rush to the trough of free money.

Mesden · 02-10-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand Master Kickface

I admit that I hardly know anything about economics, but how does putting a cap on how much money certain people can make solve anything? It's not like the money automatically just goes to the poor, does it?

Kind of does. The money would, instead of grossly overpaying CEOs for failing businesses, go back into the failing business to keep it afloat. Which means instead of laying off thousands of workers because all the CEOs make more than all their workers put together (Just in bonuses!), they can, you know, keep those workers hired on, thus employing poor people.

Quote:

And if it does, should we really be rewarding people on the virtue of being poor and punishing people for being successful? (Not that I'm standing up for the economic status quo; I'm just throwing this out here.)

Wellllp this is exactly the opposite of what's happening. These people are getting bailouts for being unsuccessful. We shouldn't pay them seven figure salaries with six figure instant bonuses because they took our money almost forcibly because they failed their vital business.

Quote:

Edit: I'm not siding with the article either. The frozen hot chocolate line is ridiculous. >_>

Pretty sure the article is satirical. The New York Times isn't known for pitying poor, poor millionaires.

synkr0nized · 02-10-2009, 03:23 PM

So I was listening to NPR briefly about a week ago, and this guy who was some kind of adviser for these folks was on talking about how they are all accustomed to the lifestyles that million-dollar salaries provide up there and that this cut-back in salaries would just lead to them taking their talents elsewhere, such as to private firms that would not be restricted. He also went on to talk about how many folks were claiming that the wording wasn't clear on who counted as senior executives, leaving many at levels that would probably not be affected to retain half-million or higher pay. He also, while fully acknowledging that these executives were likely to find no sympathy outside of their own circles, emphasized more than once that this was their way of life and to expect them to accept the posted limit or less was ridiculous.

:V

I can certainly think of many things I'd do with that kind of money, perhaps exorbitant in many ways, but I cannot see that one "must" live in such excess. I can see them complaining that it's cutting back on what the established reward and compensation systems have been set for their work and talents, but I, too, must protest the idea that anyone might be sympathetic to their 'plight."

The cautions that this may drive many to seek other places of employment and that many executives will likely still receive excessive pay consistent with their job and business are pretty valid, though.

Wyndon · 02-10-2009, 04:16 PM

You know what?

Give them their money. They should get whatever money they ask for.

But in compensation, I want to be able to kick every one of those CEO's, legally, in the face as hard as I want, for paying for those bastards to waste my tax money on dresses.

I would be happy.

In fact, EVERYONE should get a free kick at each of their faces.

Osterbaum · 02-10-2009, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand Master Kickface

It's not like the money automatically just goes to the poor, does it? And if it does, should we really be rewarding people on the virtue of being poor and punishing people for being successful?

I don't think it is right to simply assume that poor people are poor because of their own fault. Just as much it is possible for rich people to not really be responsible that much for them being rich. And vice versa. And be it either way, paying the poor is called aid. It's to help them out, not to "reward people on the virtue of being poor".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand Master Kickface

Going on a tangent here, I went to a private high school but a publicly funded college, and the quality of education I got in high school was light years ahead of what I got in college.

In my experience, university education is often somewhat less of good quality because the professors and assistants doing the teaching aren't actually teachers.

Commenting on the article, I think it's ridicilous. Frankly it makes my blood boil. How am I supposed to feel sorry for them? 500 000 000 is still a shit load of money to make during the course of a year. We all know how many things are wrong here and I'm not going to waste anyones time by typing them all. This is just seriosly fucked up.

How dare they for crying out loud!

Fifthfiend · 02-10-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

I can certainly think of many things I'd do with that kind of money, perhaps exorbitant in many ways, but I cannot see that one "must" live in such excess. I can see them complaining that it's cutting back on what the established reward and compensation systems have been set for their work and talents, but I, too, must protest the idea that anyone might be sympathetic to their 'plight."

I think it wouldn't be so bad if the entire reason we were handing them all this money weren't that their talents and work have been shown to only have value in negative (massively, unimaginably negative) amounts.

Mirai Gen · 02-10-2009, 05:41 PM

Oh, man, it just hit me.

Does it strike anyone else as hilariously ironic that these guys are saying that they can't take a salary cap because they don't want to put their kids in public schools?

02-10-2009, 03:21 PM	#24
Ryanderman Beard of Leadership Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 827	I'm all for this cap on banks that take the money, as it will provide a large incentive for the banks to not take the money unless absolutely necessary. Reducing the otherwise inevitable rush to the trough of free money. __________________ ~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~

02-10-2009, 03:23 PM	#26
synkr0nized synk-ism Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: throughout the Wired Posts: 6,857	So I was listening to NPR briefly about a week ago, and this guy who was some kind of adviser for these folks was on talking about how they are all accustomed to the lifestyles that million-dollar salaries provide up there and that this cut-back in salaries would just lead to them taking their talents elsewhere, such as to private firms that would not be restricted. He also went on to talk about how many folks were claiming that the wording wasn't clear on who counted as senior executives, leaving many at levels that would probably not be affected to retain half-million or higher pay. He also, while fully acknowledging that these executives were likely to find no sympathy outside of their own circles, emphasized more than once that this was their way of life and to expect them to accept the posted limit or less was ridiculous. :V I can certainly think of many things I'd do with that kind of money, perhaps exorbitant in many ways, but I cannot see that one "must" live in such excess. I can see them complaining that it's cutting back on what the established reward and compensation systems have been set for their work and talents, but I, too, must protest the idea that anyone might be sympathetic to their 'plight." The cautions that this may drive many to seek other places of employment and that many executives will likely still receive excessive pay consistent with their job and business are pretty valid, though. __________________ Find love.

02-10-2009, 05:41 PM	#30
Mirai Gen We are Geth. Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 14,032	Oh, man, it just hit me. Does it strike anyone else as hilariously ironic that these guys are saying that they can't take a salary cap because they don't want to put their kids in public schools? __________________

02-10-2009, 02:33 PM	#22
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	I guess I can't speak for US cases or much of anything without digging, but on the grand scheme of things I would say if you've made it up the chain to a CEO position of a banking firm you must have some education or training of some kind that would qualify you to some decent salary. That being said, let them burn. And a pat on the back for anybody who suggests salary caps on fucking everything.