Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And in the non-professional retail/industrial model, it doesn't make sense to cut executive salaries to keep stores open so ten employees can sit around to wait on the 5 customers who come in all day.
It makes sense to close stores.
And it doesn't make sense to cut your salary to keep factories open so employees can sit around all day with little to make, because there's not enough contracts to produce and ship to.
I guess you could ... but even in a philanthropic sense, it's really dumb.
If I was really wealthy, I'd put my $ to work so people could do something productive for society. Starting with myself...
I'm not sure how many large company CEOs you've actually met, but there are two things that need to be factored in.
1) Most CEOs that I've met and know work insane hours and undergo a tremendous level of pressure and wear and tear from travel. You could argue "well, they're getting paid millions for it" and you're right, but they don't punch in and out like a factory worker. They are ALWAYS on. And I don't mean always reachable, I mean they go from a board meeting to flying to meet with an important customer to a conference to another meeting to an internal planning session - in the same day. I've had roles where I've put in 80 hours a week for a short sprint and admit I couldn't do a CEO's role just based upon stamina alone.
2) Most CEOs that I've met and know also have egos and aren't the kind of person that just punches in and out and waits to cash out as the company spirals downward. If they were they wouldn't be hungry enough to become CEO in the first place.
Im wondering about the "risk" involved though. Its a short shelf-life usually since Companies change CEOs and other various assortments of directors like we change underwear. But regardless of the "pressure" you're compensated for every bit of the pressure and then some when you factor in the golden parachute for success OR FAILURE.
Like said, either way you're a millionaire and most likely set for life (unless your an idiot with your money) whether you succeed or fail. So again, Im not seeing the "risk" anywhere involved in anything they do.
And honestly most of these guys just change industries but in the same position, even in totally unrelated fields so they a failed CEO or otherwise executive can job from industry to industry even if they have ZERO insight on the industry their in. Ive seen this in action many many times.
And in the non-professional retail/industrial model, it doesn't make sense to cut executive salaries to keep stores open so ten employees can sit around to wait on the 5 customers who come in all day.
It makes sense to close stores.
And it doesn't make sense to cut your salary to keep factories open so employees can sit around all day with little to make, because there's not enough contracts to produce and ship to.
I guess you could ... but even in a philanthropic sense, it's really dumb.
If I was really wealthy, I'd put my $ to work so people could do something productive for society. Starting with myself...
Well, wouldn't you save more money by laying off 2 people who make $200,000 a year, than you would by laying off 10 people who make $20,000 a year? Just saying. And I speak as a non-liberal.
Well, wouldn't you save more money by laying off 2 people who make $200,000 a year, than you would by laying off 10 people who make $20,000 a year? Just saying. And I speak as a non-liberal.
Laying off 2 people that make $200,000 is not going to be as helpful as laying of 10 people who make $20,000 a year so they can close a failing store. There's a lot more that goes into these decisions than salary.
Laying off 2 people that make $200,000 is not going to be as helpful as laying of 10 people who make $20,000 a year so they can close a failing store. There's a lot more that goes into these decisions than salary.
Even in union shops that guarantee us 40 hours a week. That guaranteed 40 hours only lasts you until the end of the quarter when they declare the surplus. It's not "guaranteed income" by any means.
We are offered other options: We can choose to be loaned out to another area (in-state or out-of-state) for up to 13 weeks to see if work picks back up. If we apply for other jobs internally, we have "surplus seniority" ranking us above any chronological seniority of someone whose job is not in danger (for OPEN jobs only, at equal pay grades and below). Alternatively, we can BUMP someone in an equal title, junior to us, in another location within 35 miles, or BUMP the junior-most person in a lower title, in another location within 35 miles.
Im wondering about the "risk" involved though. Its a short shelf-life usually since Companies change CEOs and other various assortments of directors like we change underwear. But regardless of the "pressure" you're compensated for every bit of the pressure and then some when you factor in the golden parachute for success OR FAILURE.
Like said, either way you're a millionaire and most likely set for life (unless your an idiot with your money) whether you succeed or fail. So again, Im not seeing the "risk" anywhere involved in anything they do.
And honestly most of these guys just change industries but in the same position, even in totally unrelated fields so they a failed CEO or otherwise executive can job from industry to industry even if they have ZERO insight on the industry their in. Ive seen this in action many many times.
Bottom line theres no "risk" here.
No one takes a CEO job for the money. The risk and stress isn't worth it. People are "set for life" as you're saying before they ever become CEO. Most people have goals in life beyond just working enough to stop working.
I am curious, have you ever had a job where your pay was mostly dependent on performance, instead of on a salary or hourly figure? There's risk inherent to that pay structure.
Well, wouldn't you save more money by laying off 2 people who make $200,000 a year, than you would by laying off 10 people who make $20,000 a year? Just saying. And I speak as a non-liberal.
Assuming it's straight math, maybe. But if the company pays benefits the people making $20K a year can actually cost the company more in benefits than the $200K people do if they contribute on a sliding scale.
No one takes a CEO job for the money. The risk and stress isn't worth it. People are "set for life" as you're saying before they ever become CEO. Most people have goals in life beyond just working enough to stop working.
I am curious, have you ever had a job where your pay was mostly dependent on performance, instead of on a salary or hourly figure? There's risk inherent to that pay structure.
And the higher you go the more variable the compensation. It's true that most end up pretty well even if they're a dismal failure (Marissa Mayer comes to mind as an extreme outlier) but as a general rule people have a track record before coming CEO - usually a fairly unblemished one either rising through the ranks or by taking on more in progressive leadership capacities in other companies.
If someone is SVP of Sales making $1 million a year, they're not going to take the CEO job for less. Or even the same.
There are some who are notable turnaround CEOs - they fail as much as they succeed, but this is known going in.
And there are some that are no doubt frauds who can't do the job but are great at selling the board on them. That's again why the board needs to keep an eye on things. Rubber-stamp boards are bad for the company as well as the shareholders.
I am curious, have you ever had a job where your pay was mostly dependent on performance, instead of on a salary or hourly figure? There's risk inherent to that pay structure.
That sounds like commissioned sales, so no. Don't CEO's get a salary, plus bonuses for cutting the most jobs?
Well, wouldn't you save more money by laying off 2 people who make $200,000 a year, than you would by laying off 10 people who make $20,000 a year? Just saying. And I speak as a non-liberal.
Let's say those 2 people worked for Circuit City, Sears, or Linens and Things and were in marketing or sales. Then yea, they'd be the first to go.
Stores are really expensive to maintain, so they're the first thing to go in the retail model.
In the professional model, where companies sell their people (that's how my company likes to put it ), yes, the people who make $200,000 for going to lunch for an hour and a half would be the first to go.
It depends what your role is.
The funny thing about places like Circuit City/CompUSA, I remember those places being fairly busy up until the time they closed, but if you're not making profits, it's the same as the store being empty. Don't think a lot of people with high paying cush jobs didn't lose their jobs when those places went under.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), yes, the people who make $200,000 for going to lunch for an hour and a half would be the first to go.
