Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29
th, 2017 at 7:07am:
minarchist wrote on Dec 28
th, 2017 at 9:36am:
As others have pointed out, it all comes down to value - what service you're providing, what income the company makes and what your employer is willing to pay. In terms of CEOs reported in the media, the "obscene" wages" of CEOs in question are mostly in reference to Top 100 ASX companies, which have more workers and entail a greater level of responsibilty in the decisions the CEO makes. If you looked at the wages CEOs were earning in the Top 1000 or 10000 companies in Australia, you'd probably find as you went further down the list that their wages would be below $1,000,000 PA, to the point that they were earning about $100-200 K above the next senior manager. Given what must one scarifice to be the CEO of a company, I think that the level of compensation they receive is fair. Listen to the NPR podcast "How I built this" to get a better idea of what a CEO does to get to where they are.
But if a CEOs wage is obscene, why is it not obscene for a cleaner in Australia to earn $20 an hour, while a cleaner in Bangladesh earns $1-2 dollars a day?
We don't live in Bangladesh with its lowest of the low living costs alongside its wages.. there is no discussion here in any way... reduce living costs here and you might be able to reduce NEEDED wages.
I'm sorry, but I thought the discussion was in relation to Wage Disparity in general and not between CEOs and workers exclusively.
If we're talking from the perspective of Western Society, what about the elite athlete who earn tens of millions of dollars without bringing their team to the finals? Or the actor/tress paid millions for a role, only to have the movie perform poorly at the Box Office?
Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29
th, 2017 at 7:07am:
How do YOU justify Bangladeshi company owners being mega-millionaires while exploiting their workers to the tune of $1-2 a day wages? Some kind of divine right of company owners?
As low as the wages may seem from our perspective, the workers who take up such positions are doing so because the alternative, which is often farming, pays much less.
Ultimately, the company owners is justified to earn what they earn because the company belongs to them and their shareholders. In nearly all cases, they are the ones providing the tools and equipment necessary to develop the product or service the company is providing, as well as the maintenance and repairs to that equipment. What the worker earns for their labour shouldn't be based on how profitable the product or service ultimately becomes as the worker is not the one who is doing the legwork and ultimately taking the risk as to whether or not the product or service is purchased by the public. It's no different than hiring a tradesman performing $5000 in renovations, then the homeowner sells the house for a $50,000 profit.
Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29
th, 2017 at 7:07am:
What exactly does one 'sacrifice' to be a CEO of a company, may one ask? That's like saying politicians work hard etc and sacrifice so much.... so much that they need to be handed an income for life so they can 'spend more time with their family' while being handed some nice little earner out of the government pocket - maybe they need to try that one for real some time... I, for one, spent not a single Christmas Eve or NYE etc with my family - where's my massive income for life?
As others have pointed out, many CEOs are required to work double or more hours per week compared to their workers, as well as be on call for any crisis that may eventuate. On top of that, they have probably spent 4 - 8 years of their life in further education, and/or spent large portions of their day throughout their working life in the various positions that lead to them becoming a CEO. This will often mean that they have and continue to sacrifice leisure time, friendships, relationships with their loved ones, their health and sleep to get where they are. Granted, some CEOs manage to bullcrap their way through life to get where they are, but they will ultimately be given a ship to steer that they can't control and end up ruining their management career.
I don't know your personal circumstances to do a fair comparison, but sacrificing time by itself doesn't justify being paid a large income. It all depends what you have dedicated your time towards and how others value the skill set you can provide.
Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Dec 29
th, 2017 at 7:07am:
How is it that companies can 'make a loss' on paper, still pay out nice dividends, and then be able to pay their executives massive bonuses?
It depends on the circumstances of the company. It could be a combination of factors, such as a large turnaround in revenue that is projected to lead to a profit, capital investment/s aimed at making the company profitable, a write-off of unprofitable ventures or divisions, having a large amount of liquid cash, amongst others.
If a CEO walks away from a company with a large payout without implementing any short or long term improvements it was because they were able to draw a contract that ensured they received a payment regardless of what happened to the company. I'm not saying that is justified but the CEO would've been initially hired based on their previous performance, or the Board is run by thieves or idiots.
Forum
Pages: 
