Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes, I believe they are. Being a leader is all about sacrificing because leaders can handle it. That’s what separates the CEO’s from the employees. The CEO’s have the vision and want to work for the benefit of the corporation and the employees, and the others just want the money and the spotlight.
If CEO’s are pushing for the money, then they aren’t the right man for the job.
You want smart hard-working people to do a arduous job you’re going to have to make it worth their while.
Ever notice why we only get idiots and liars running for President?
Smart people with real skills get better jobs.
Whatever everyone wants money, the end.
Are you talking about just President or politics in general?
Who is?
In general, I would agree that CEOs could make plenty of money by running their company with a sense of "enlightened capitalism", by conferring benefits or extra income to their employees for example. This is basically the Henry Ford or Google or Whole Foods method and it seems to work reasonably well for all involved. But I don't think that means that CEOs by definition make too much money relative to some putative value they have of their own while running a massive international business conglomerate or a small business. If the amount of market value they contribute to a company through management practices is several million dollars, then taking some share of that is perfectly justified.
Yea, like President Obama said, we should reward hard work and success, but not failures. By failures, I'm talking about these bonuses that are being given out to the top guys for not doing anything.
The amount of money a person should get paid should be equal to the debt society owes them. If a person has important skills, knowledge, and abilities that makes them worth a whole lot, then that is what they should get paid. A company can choose to pay a CEO $40,000/year, and they'll only get a CEO worth $40,000/year. If they pay one $500,000/year, they'll get one worth $500,000/year. It is all just business. Some companies decide having a highly skilled CEO is worth millions or even billions, and that is their decision.
I'd argue that, with only a few exceptions, CEOs are probably getting paid what they're worth to the company. I do see Zack's point, though, that using tax payer money to give CEOs of failed companies "golden parachutes" is probably one of those exceptions.