So? That means he's effectively paying himself out of his own pocket. Not seeing why this is a problem.
Requires some level of understanding of how ethics works, so I can see why you'd miss it.
I didn't miss anything. There's nothing there. Let's remember that we were talking about a CEO who is already a voting member of the board for the company. So he's in a group of a dozen or so people who make up a controlling interest in the ownership of the company. Let's imagine for a moment that he and each of the other 11 board members personally hold 5% of a company with stock valuation at say $100B, collectively holding 60% and a controlling stake in the company (yes, I'm oversimplifying this, but this example is good enough). Let's say they want one of them to be CEO, so they pick the least capable of the bunch and give him a $10M/year salary.
Um... The guy holds $5B in stock. A random week on the market will cost or gain him more than that yearly salary. It's nothing. It's certainly not something he'd take if he thought "I really suck at this job" because he and the other 11 guys will lose more money if he shows up on TV with his tie crooked than they'll lose each year from paying his salary. There is no financial reason to put a buddy in that position. Ego reasons? Sure. But companies that do that often suffer for it.
Yes, that's true. The problem is anyone with an MBA can be a competent one and there aren't any heroic ones. There are two primary ways to become a CEO, start your own company, and excel at stroking the egos of old white men.
Key phrase being "can be a competent one". I've met a lot of people with MBAs whom I wouldn't trust to operate a lemonade stand Smash. They hand those degrees out like candy. Executives who can consistently make good choices that benefit their companies are actually quite rare. And CEOs who start their own company absolutely have a huge impact on the success of said company.
Yes. Which requires someone to make decisions like "what products should we start designing today because we think it'll be in demand 3 years from now when it hits market?".
Is that *really* your idea of what a CEO does? Decide what products to design?
Yes. Among other decisions.
Just so I understand, in your mind, Jack Welch sat at his desk and thought "you know what will sell in 1985? an improved hydroelectric turbine and black light bulbs, I'm going to call down to the R&D fellows and get that going right away, @#%^ that sh*t they've had in the pipeline for 15 years"
No. Someone at the VP level came to Jack Welch with 12 different executive summaries with recommendations about different R&D projects, and he made the final decision regarding funding and priority for them. And if he didn't do so directly he chose the guy who did
. Then years later, if they spent their R&D budget correctly, they were poised to make money in an emerging market. If they chose poorly, they lose money. CEOs make decisions about whether and where and how to expand the business. They make decisions about acquisitions. They make decisions about resource division across the company. Obviously, they have folks under them (usually several layers of folks) who deal with the details, but the big broad decisions will be made by the CEO.
They made the decision to create those industries though Smash. That's like saying Ford just happened to luck into the car business at the right time. Ford made that the right time for the car business.
Ford happened to luck into the car business at the right time.
No. He made the decision to get into the car business when he did and to operate his company the way he did. That's why a century later, there are cars with his name on them.
That's an unfairly easy thing to say after the fact though. How many people's names do we not know because they thought some other product would be huge and it wasn't?
Thousands, and that' the point. More to the point, many of there were absolutely right and the product WOULD be huge, they happened to be early to the market.
Yup. Which means they failed, while those who realized the right time for the right product succeeded. By your logic, no decisions anyone makes matters at all because it's just random as to whether they just happened to be the right ones. That's insane.
Not because they were bad managers or had an inferior idea, just because of timing. Every "great idea" that "revolutionizes" something is almost certainly decades old. Do you think Ellison was really the only guy that figured out RDBMS was going to a big deal? Do you think Jobs was the only guy who realized that a digital music player would be a good idea?
So what? It wasn't random chance that one succeeds and the other does not.
No. You couldn't. I get that this plays into your "rich people were just lucky" narrative, but it's simply not true.
It's not "my narrative"
Yeah. It kinda is. You've been spouting this narrative for as long as you've been posting here. White people were just lucky to pop out of the right ******, successful people were just lucky to get their jobs, etc. In your world, there's no skill at all involved in success. It's precisely the world view one adopts when they fully embrace Marxist theories. Individual actions can't matter, not because they don't, but because you're advocating eliminating any reward for them and it is more difficult to do so if people believe that their actions do matter in terms of their outcomes. It's the basic fundamental assumption lying at the ultimate core of everything you believe in. It's a cart before the horse approach, but then that's common on your side of the political fence.
CEOs are just an obvious and easy target Smash, but hardly the only ones. After all, never forget that the true enemy of the proletariat is not the rich, but the middle class (or even the concept of a middle class). If people believe that they can succeed by their own actions, then they'll be less likely to join the cause for government imposed equality. People only want enforced equality if they believe they'll never be above average. The trick is convincing a majority of a population that they have no chance of ever achieving that. This is why you use that narrative Smash. Edited, Feb 7th 2013 4:17pm by gbaji