The Pay for Performance Myth:Obscene CEO Pay Has Little to do with Company Peformance
- Thread starter jerry55
- Start date
If we were talking about a cost:benefit analysis of minimum wage employees or means of production would it still be whiny liberal horseshit?
Either way the entire bit is basically glorified click-bait.
Lots of us hire minimum wage employees, so having that discussion for practical strategic purposes makes sense. But if we aren't planning to hire a $300m CEO in the near future, we'd be discussing CEO pay for no other reason than we hate rich/powerful people, which is typical beta liberal horseshit.
So plotting data points on a chart and writing a short article about the alleged corollaries in your data is whiny liberal horseshit if it's about someone residing at a higher pay-grade than yourself?
Makes sense.
Because the only reason to discuss the finances of large companies is because everyone who does it just hates CEOs making over six figures, right?
Those professors at every business school everywhere must just despise the executives of every company they write studies on.
I understand your sentiment in the sense of the angling of the publication and their distribution strategy - but to say that it's whiny liberal horseshit on the basis of the study comparing the compensation of CEOs to rank stock return of their company is just nonsense.
The authors didn't even collect the data, they're just reporting on data from Equilar - a company that specializes in studying executive compensation. Are you trying to imply that Equilar has some sort of liberally-biased agenda?
Makes sense.
Because the only reason to discuss the finances of large companies is because everyone who does it just hates CEOs making over six figures, right?
Those professors at every business school everywhere must just despise the executives of every company they write studies on.
I understand your sentiment in the sense of the angling of the publication and their distribution strategy - but to say that it's whiny liberal horseshit on the basis of the study comparing the compensation of CEOs to rank stock return of their company is just nonsense.
The authors didn't even collect the data, they're just reporting on data from Equilar - a company that specializes in studying executive compensation. Are you trying to imply that Equilar has some sort of liberally-biased agenda?
We are the merchants of modern day society. So we normally have a bias toward people earning more, since we want to be those people.
This particular graph seems to have a very limited sample size making it easy for it to produce not-so accurate representations.
That said, I think the whole way that the gov, the fed and public companies work reeks of a Feudal system. So I wouldn't be surprised if this graphic is an accurate representation of the situation. It seems in the world of high finance, who you know and what school you went to are more important than merit. I could be wrong, but that is my perspective.
This particular graph seems to have a very limited sample size making it easy for it to produce not-so accurate representations.
That said, I think the whole way that the gov, the fed and public companies work reeks of a Feudal system. So I wouldn't be surprised if this graphic is an accurate representation of the situation. It seems in the world of high finance, who you know and what school you went to are more important than merit. I could be wrong, but that is my perspective.
I think the difference here is that CEO pay is entirely market driven, and minimum wage is regulated. If a board wants to overpay for a CEO, that's their choice. They make that decision and the performance will either back it up or it won't.
With a minimum wage employee you have to pay them a set amount determined by a central government authority without any input from the market. This can lead to situations where it doesn't make financial sense to pay someone $10/hour to hold a mop and text their girlfriend for 8 hours. The market might decide that mopholder is worth $7/hour though and he might be willing to hold that mop for $7/hour since he knows he ain't doing shit anyway. But the government won't let him, so now he has no job.
So...what is the relation between CEO pay and minimum wage again?
Good point, I didn't consider that when I wrote my initial response.
Still, I'd like to see the data refuted on an economic/mathematical/statistical level as opposed to emotional knee-jerks due to some perceived bias of the author or publisher.
Does anybody have time to create a graph that charts the actual production of min-wagers against their pay on an employee by employee basis? There aren't that many true min wage employees. I think it would be extremely illuminating to be able to see a graphical representation of the variance in production. One line would be absolutely flat and the other line would look like a fucking seismograph...
Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
What I very simply said was OP was posting whiney liberal horseshit again... and his use of the phrase "Obscene CEO Pay"... is whiney liberal horseshit. His posting of this article, just like other similar threads he's opened, was very clearly to whinge & moan about Other People's Money. That's whiney liberal horseshit.
Somehow, this confused you.
More derp from you. Do you even think? Or do you just go around knee jerking to everything all your life?
So according to you:
a) the one and only reason to discuss the salaries of CEOs of the largest corporations of the world is to espouse "typical beta liberal horseshit"?
and
b) anyone who posts anything in this forum that doesn't have "practical strategic purposes" can have no reason for posting it except for what you deem that reason to be (which, you'd seem to deem as whiny)?
You have the critical thinking skills of a turd. (That's a fact btw)
Your last attempt at playing angwy babby supplied our forum with a week full of lulz.
Keep 'em comin', the Grunin thread is losing its steam. Derp indeed.
