Remember the Max? The cost of getting fired is disgustingly lucrative.

[Nakosis]

I already told you, I'm don't have the training and background for it. I wouldn't take it and I can't ethically take it.

Ok, you brought up nursing.
Whatever job you are doing now or whatever job you feel you are qualified for. Would you keep doing it if you had 62 million in the bank? I mean, for the same pay or whatever the national average is?

 

[HonestJoe]

What are we talking about here? Before I was referring to market forces imposing limits on prices and now I'm hearing you asking about unlimited payments.

What's going on here?

The general argument is that the market forces aren't working, which is why executive pay has increases massively over the years even though they're all still doing essentially the same jobs and, as in the OP, why failing executives still receive massive pay-outs.

Somewhat distinct from that, you seemed to be suggesting a simple link between paying more and getting better executives. There is always going to be some practical limit in how much a company is willing to pay but I was questioning the logic of that simplistic link and, notably, why it isn't applied to anything like the same extent at any other level of any company.

 

[Nakosis]

Ah I got it. All those prices worked out by all those teams of corporate negotiators working w/ legal teams, CFOs, stockholders in a free market, it's all bunk because of what's just come out of the Freakonomics blog. Who needs them when we have the TRUTH!

Actually, though a bit long it is a pretty interesting read.

There's some correlation, you pay more you get a better CEO, but sometimes you are paying a person to take a job nobody else wants. The blog talks about what a horrible job being a CEO is.

With big companies like Boeing, you'll want a CEO with experience running large corporations. Which means they likely already have all of the money they'll need to live comfortably. All the good CEOs are taken. Lots of mediocre CEOs about. But, even the mediocre ones, you need to entice them to take a job they don't really need. You got offer them something besides a normal salary just to show up.

 

[Nakosis]

The general argument is that the market forces aren't working, which is why executive pay has increases massively over the years even though they're all still doing essentially the same jobs and, as in the OP, why failing executives still receive massive pay-outs.

The stress level has gone way up. The company needs instant decisions from information monitored minute to minute. There is not enough time in the day to absorb all of the data coming in all still make all of the right decisions. They don't get to work an 8 hour day if they even want to be a little bit successful. For these larger companies, it is a god damn world market they have to deal with.

The owner of the company or the board members, they don't want the job. They'd rather hire someone else to take on the stress and usually your picking among people who don't need the job in the first place.

The company is willing to pay what it is worth to them to have someone else do the job. Not a lot of people who can do the job, not a lot of people willing to do the job.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ok, you brought up nursing.
Whatever job you are doing now or whatever job you feel you are qualified for. Would you keep doing it if you had 62 million in the bank? I mean, for the same pay or whatever the national average is?

I listed a few different very high stress and pressure jobs, jobs I am confident are higher pressure than being a CEO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's fine; there's a good chance though that the invisible hands believe in you.

There are no invisible hands.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The stress level has gone way up. The company needs instant decisions from information monitored minute to minute. There is not enough time in the day to absorb all of the data coming in all still make all of the right decisions. They don't get to work an 8 hour day if they even want to be a little bit successful. For these larger companies, it is a god damn world market they have to deal with.

The owner of the company or the board members, they don't want the job. They'd rather hire someone else to take on the stress and usually your picking among people who don't need the job in the first place.

The company is willing to pay what it is worth to them to have someone else do the job. Not a lot of people who can do the job, not a lot of people willing to do the job.

Oh, those poor babies who never risk going to the ER, who don't miss their kid's birthdays, who get to sit in cushioned, climate controlled offices while everybody else bust their asses in the heat and cold, dust and filth, doing bodily damage, missing their kids growing up, cry me a river.
Hardly anyone wants their job. Almost everyone would rather hire someone else to do it for them if they could.
I stand by my "whiny *** snowflakes" remark.

 

[Nakosis]

I listed a few different very high stress and pressure jobs, jobs I am confident are higher pressure than being a CEO.

I get that you are not going to answer. Answering doesn't help your argument.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh, those poor babies who never risk going to the ER, who don't miss their kid's birthdays, who get to sit in cushioned, climate controlled offices while everybody else bust their asses in the heat and cold, dust and filth, doing bodily damage, missing their kids growing up, cry me a river.
Hardly anyone wants their job. Almost everyone would rather hire someone else to do it for them if they could.
I stand by my "whiny *** snowflakes" remark.

I understand you don't see the worth/value but the people who pay them do.
Not my call, not my money, not my horse in the race. It is just the way it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand you don't see the worth/value but the people who pay them do.
Not my call, not my money, not my horse in the race. It is just the way it is.

"Just the way it is" is never a valid excuse. It's absolutely ridiculous. The actual workers--the working class--they are in a world of hurt. But these corporate bozos who don't really do that much get paid a huge jackpot when they fail. They get fired and they are rewarded. Yes, that is the way it is. The way it is, as has often been the case, must come to an end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I get that you are not going to answer. Answering doesn't help your argument.

You asked me if I'd take a job that I simply am not qualified to take. Pay is irrelevant in regards to that fact when the consequences of my taking such a job are considered.

 

[Nakosis]

"Just the way it is" is never a valid excuse. It's absolutely ridiculous. The actual workers--the working class--they are in a world of hurt. But these corporate bozos who don't really do that much get paid a huge jackpot when they fail. They get fired and they are rewarded. Yes, that is the way it is. The way it is, as has often been the case, must come to an end.

Wasn't meant as an excuse.

 

[Nakosis]

You asked me if I'd take a job that I simply am not qualified to take. Pay is irrelevant in regards to that fact when the consequences of my taking such a job are considered.

No, that's not what I asked. I'm hoping you actually see that, but if not, say la vie.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, that's not what I asked. I'm hoping you actually see that, but if not, say la vie.

If I had the qualifications and the desire to take care of people to that extent, then I might take it regardless of how much I have in the bank. I don't know though. I've heard it's incredibly stressful, and I do have bad knees. So maybe not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And yet, people will continue to steadfastly defend the idea that progress and innovation can only be driven by a profit motive.

I still think profit is a proper motivator, but yet not an end to all means.

It's true a profit mentality that goes to the extreme, is certainly damaging and destructive.

 

[Nakosis]

I still think profit is a proper motivator, but yet not an end to all means.

It's true a profit mentality that goes to the extreme, is certainly damaging and destructive.

If money is the only interest, it is never good IMO. However, money can direct focus.

I think what motivates people is self-interest, but that self-interest isn't always about money.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds an awful like you're saying--

1. You have a sense of right and wrong.
2. It agrees w/ the forums guidelines.
3. It agrees w/ most bodies of law.
4. It's totally subjective & has nothing to do w/ lawmakers, forum admin., anyone else --totally subjective.

You've got to understand that this is a bit hard to swallow.

You are so close, yet not close.
There are 3 words in play:
Objective
Inter-subjective as shared subjectivity between 2 or more humans
Subjective

As long as you and I do those words differently, we subjectively can't agree and thus we can't form an inter-subjective agreement about how these words work.
That is okay, because I have no problem with that we do it differently. So as long as you don't judge me as in effect objectively wrong, I will leave it at that. But if you however indirect have to answer for the effect that I am objectively wrong, then we will continue.
BTW you are neither objective right or wrong to me. Neither am I. We are subjectively different and I accept that you do it differently than me. Thought I don't accept that you hold objective truth over me as to whether I am wrong or right.
So if you insist that I am wrong not just to you subjective, but I am wrong objectively, we will continue, if you choose to answer to such effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's fine; there's a good chance though that the invisible hands believe in you.

That is as far as I can tell unknown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The stress level has gone way up. The company needs instant decisions from information monitored minute to minute. There is not enough time in the day to absorb all of the data coming in all still make all of the right decisions. They don't get to work an 8 hour day if they even want to be a little bit successful. For these larger companies, it is a god damn world market they have to deal with.

A CEO who's getting involved in minute-to-minute decisions is not a good CEO, IMO.

The CEO's role is focused on strategic and logistical issues, not tactical response. It's the front-line staff and, at most, low-level managers who are making immediate decisions. The role of upper managers is to establish the framework in which those lower-level staff make their decisions, and to ensure that everyone in the company has the support and resources to to do their job.

The CEO steers the ship, and "ship" the size of Boeing doesn't turn on a dime. Any competent CEO understands that, so they focus on getting to a chosen destination, not trying to react to every wave.

Yes, there can be some late nights when you're, say, having a video conference with people in China. But any CEO who's failed to equip their staff - and at very least, the rest of their C-team - to make decisions without him for a few hours is a bad CEO.

The owner of the company or the board members, they don't want the job. They'd rather hire someone else to take on the stress and usually your picking among people who don't need the job in the first place.

Officer (e.g. CEO) and director (i.e. board member) are different jobs with different functions.

In smaller companies, sometimes you'll see people do both, but it's a bit of a conflict of interest, and in public corporations, it's often written into the corporate bylaws that a board member can't be an employee of the company.

That being said, it's often the case that a board member of a large company is also the CEO of their own company.

The company is willing to pay what it is worth to them to have someone else do the job. Not a lot of people who can do the job, not a lot of people willing to do the job.

And most CEOs of large companies don't strictly need the job. Most are wealthy before they take the CEO job; most have other income streams. This strengthens their negotiating position.

And because of that negotiating power and the money involved, they also can hire their own lawyer to review their contract and negotiate favourable terms.

For, say, a line worker at Boeing, they can't afford to be without a job, and even if they did hire a lawyer to go over their contract, the company wouldn't be open to negotiating any of the major points of the contract.

 

[Pete in Panama]

What a rich fantasy life you have. Apparently you don't need me here, since you seem more than capable of inventing things that I've said.

If you're interested in a reasonable conversation, then take a deep breath, tone it down, and try again.

... and if you aren't interested in a reasonable conversation, then I'm not interested in talking to you.

huh. for someone "not interested in talking" you sure have a lot to say.