It's Not Easy Being Ultra-Rich

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A lot of these corporations can't even get the kind of candidate they want unless they agree to those golden parachute terms.

Now, given the poor track record of many of these types of candidates, should corporations think about looking at candidates for that position who don't require sweetheart deals at termination? Maybe.

[Ladylethal 12]

I have a hard time imagining how to live earning so much, I don't think I'd want to start buying jets and yatches 'cus a lot of times the money goes away after a while and then you're screwed, I dunno.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A lot of these corporations can't even get the kind of candidate they want unless they agree to those golden parachute terms.

Now, given the poor track record of many of these types of candidates, should corporations think about looking at candidates for that position who don't require sweetheart deals at termination? Maybe.

These parachutes just have to be "earned" not granted. The problem these days seems to be that those guys sit on each other's boards lining each other's pockets. Qualified candidates my #######. If someone is qualified to be a CEO, then that someone ought to be competent and confident enough to be willing to earn his keep rather than taking handouts.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A lot of these corporations can't even get the kind of candidate they want unless they agree to those golden parachute terms.

Now, given the poor track record of many of these types of candidates, should corporations think about looking at candidates for that position who don't require sweetheart deals at termination? Maybe.

These parachutes just have to be "earned" not granted. The problem these days seems to be that those guys sit on each other's boards lining each other's pockets. Qualified candidates my #######. If someone is qualified to be a CEO, then that someone ought to be competent and confident enough to be willing to earn his keep rather than taking handouts.

I don't disagree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A lot of these corporations can't even get the kind of candidate they want unless they agree to those golden parachute terms.

Now, given the poor track record of many of these types of candidates, should corporations think about looking at candidates for that position who don't require sweetheart deals at termination? Maybe.

These parachutes just have to be "earned" not granted. The problem these days seems to be that those guys sit on each other's boards lining each other's pockets. Qualified candidates my #######. If someone is qualified to be a CEO, then that someone ought to be competent and confident enough to be willing to earn his keep rather than taking handouts.

I don't disagree.

I think its institutional to be honest.

Seems to me that if a regular employee can't be guaranteed their annual bonus without some performance coming into the equation - its not right that the CEO get it without doing likewise.

At one company I worked for a few years ago (just after 9/11) - there was a big stink over the CEO getting a huge multi-million dollar bonus, while the regular employees were told that due to cutbacks resulting from the fallout from 9/11 - their bonuses (and mine) weren't being awarded that year.

Also got a bare (across the board) wage rise that year. Great motivation for a person to put in extra effort.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's hard for some folks to run their own households let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation (this statement has nothing to do with nothing, but I wanted to write it anyway).

Most CEO's deserve the spoils of their labor and do an absolutely phenomenal job for their prospective companies. It's no secret that American CEO's and folks at the top are making money beyond the outer realms of our galaxy and consciousness. It would be nice to if corporations would cut some of the fat off the top and share it with those who keep the engine going especially when you look at the national average for raises. People feel overworked and under-paid which creates this sense of envy and entitlement in reference to what the take home pay of these CEO's (not to mention the bonuses, and pension funds). As far as the article is concerned, it looks like class envy. The comparisons are night and day and based on our social and economic structure, not everyone will make the same pay no matter how exhausting their workload is for their prospective jobs.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

p.s. IMO Teachers are the most underpaid workforce, bar none...!!!

Edited September 4, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

p.s. IMO Teachers are the most underpaid workforce, bar none...!!!

That depends on location. They're paid well in Jersey. Urban cops are the one's who are underpaid here. Suburban cops have it good, speeding tickets and overdue registrations all day with the occasional domestic abuse case.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

when i read this topic, i read it as "it's not easy being ultra-b!tch"

[Sheriff Uling 3]

p.s. IMO Teachers are the most underpaid workforce, bar none...!!!

That depends on location. They're paid well in Jersey. Urban cops are the one's who are underpaid here. Suburban cops have it good, speeding tickets and overdue registrations all day with the occasional domestic abuse case.

Hey! Cops should have better pay as well... It might make them a tad more pleasant when they walk up to your car and ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Hehehehe!!!

Edited September 4, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[mawilson 2,133]

when i read this topic, i read it as "it's not easy being ultra-b!tch"

No, it's not about Devilette.

[no name 1]

when i read this topic, i read it as "it's not easy being ultra-b!tch"

No, it's not about Devilette.

how mature.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

when i read this topic, i read it as "it's not easy being ultra-b!tch"

No, it's not about Devilette.

how mature.

you got a fan base

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More class envy. Without rich people we wouldn't have jobs.

Fair wages, Gary...that's all. The American Dream, working hard and being rewarded for it.

Who decides what is fair?

You? The Politburo? Or the market?

If the market decides, well... guess what - the market did decide. The wages CEOs make are market-driven.

But I suspect you don't want the market to make these decisions. Please tell us who should.

Negotiation of wages between business and labor...that's how you do it. That's why labor unions came into existence. Gary believes that it's the rich who create wealth and economic prosperity...an oligarchic view of economics...the trickle down theory, and an oversight that without labor, none of that wealth would exist either.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fair wages, Gary...that's all. The American Dream, working hard and being rewarded for it.

Who decides what is fair?

You? The Politburo? Or the market?

If the market decides, well... guess what - the market did decide. The wages CEOs make are market-driven.

But I suspect you don't want the market to make these decisions. Please tell us who should.

Negotiation of wages between business and labor...that's how you do it. That's why labor unions came into existence. Gary believes that it's the rich who create wealth and economic prosperity...an oligarchic view of economics...the trickle down theory, and an oversight that without labor, none of that wealth would exist either.

So basically your answer is The Politburo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dunno - different economic models I guess. Being opposed to Trickle-down economics (AKA Reaganomics) doesn't mean you're against capitalism - rather Capitalism as it is currently practiced in the US. As a theory, Trickled-Down is still pretty controversial today - compared with traditional Keynsian Economics.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Number 6