Topic: Let's say a car company CEO agreed to take only $3 for every car sold
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 started this discussion 15 years ago #11,973
...and that will be his only pay. Does this seem fair, or do you think that's still paying him too much?
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #215,372
How much do they get presently?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,375
How many cars does his company sell?
How many hours a week does he work?
How much do other people in a comparable position earn?
How well is his company doing?
There are so many questions that there's no way to tell if it's fair or not based on that one piece of information.
How many hours a week does he work?
How much do other people in a comparable position earn?
How well is his company doing?
There are so many questions that there's no way to tell if it's fair or not based on that one piece of information.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,380
@OP
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This. Its far easier to pose a question such as "should a CEO only be paid a certain percentage more than the average employees wage?".
For example, the CEO of Costco only takes something like 13x the average employees pay, the result is well-paid employees and a respectably paid CEO. Win for everyone.
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This. Its far easier to pose a question such as "should a CEO only be paid a certain percentage more than the average employees wage?".
For example, the CEO of Costco only takes something like 13x the average employees pay, the result is well-paid employees and a respectably paid CEO. Win for everyone.
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,387
Another example I can think of is a bakery out in California, the CEO takes a decent wage and everyone in the company is treated as an owner, they all get a fair deal/share of profits. The people working on the floor make $65,000 a year. Win for everyone.
Capitalism: A Love Story
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/
Watch it. ;)
Capitalism: A Love Story
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/
Watch it. ;)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,390
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,392
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,396
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,397
@215,375 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> How many cars does his company sell?
Why does that matter? If the company sells less cars, shouldn't he be paid less? If the company sells more cars, shouldn't he be paid more. The simple question is do you think getting paid $3 per car is fair?
> How many hours a week does he work?
I think the better question is "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?" I don't think it's fair to say that people who work less hours per week deserve less as long as the work they do creates value. A CEO working 38 hours a week might turn a company around while a CEO working 72 hours a week could drive a company into the ground. Since, in this case, his salary is tied to the number of cars the company sells, how many hours he works seems irrelevant to me. He gets paid according to the companies success.
> How much do other people in a comparable position earn?
I think this is also irrelevant. Other CEOs might make billions, but that doesn't mean they (or he) deserve billions. Other CEOs might make less, but that doesn't mean they deserve less.
> How well is his company doing?
Again, irrelevant, since his pay is directly tied to how many cars sell. Let's keep it linear.
> How many cars does his company sell?
Why does that matter? If the company sells less cars, shouldn't he be paid less? If the company sells more cars, shouldn't he be paid more. The simple question is do you think getting paid $3 per car is fair?
> How many hours a week does he work?
I think the better question is "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?" I don't think it's fair to say that people who work less hours per week deserve less as long as the work they do creates value. A CEO working 38 hours a week might turn a company around while a CEO working 72 hours a week could drive a company into the ground. Since, in this case, his salary is tied to the number of cars the company sells, how many hours he works seems irrelevant to me. He gets paid according to the companies success.
> How much do other people in a comparable position earn?
I think this is also irrelevant. Other CEOs might make billions, but that doesn't mean they (or he) deserve billions. Other CEOs might make less, but that doesn't mean they deserve less.
> How well is his company doing?
Again, irrelevant, since his pay is directly tied to how many cars sell. Let's keep it linear.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,400
@215,380 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Its far easier to pose a question such as "should a CEO only be paid a certain percentage more than the average employees wage?".
It's easier to ask that question because it toys with human emotion. People think of the plight of the worker trying to make ends meet and assume that it's unfair that a CEO is well off. I like my question because it's more objective and doesn't bring such emotions into the equation. It's also a completely different question from what I asked.
> Its far easier to pose a question such as "should a CEO only be paid a certain percentage more than the average employees wage?".
It's easier to ask that question because it toys with human emotion. People think of the plight of the worker trying to make ends meet and assume that it's unfair that a CEO is well off. I like my question because it's more objective and doesn't bring such emotions into the equation. It's also a completely different question from what I asked.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,405
@215,397 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Why does that matter? If the company sells less cars, shouldn't he be paid less? If the company sells more cars, shouldn't he be paid more. The simple question is do you think getting paid $3 per car is fair?
Ok, let's say the CEO is completely incompetent, but nevertheless his company manages to sell 5 million cars. Has he earned 15 million dollars?
> I think the better question is "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?"
I agree. His pay should be directly related to how well he manages the company. Note that a poorly managed company can still make a lot of money, and well managed companies can go bankrupt, so tying the CEO's pay to how well his company does seems to be a mistake.
> Again, irrelevant, since his pay is directly tied to how many cars sell. Let's keep it linear.
So if the CEO is terrible, the company is hemorrhaging 50 million dollars a quarter, but it still sells 2 million cars, he should be rewarded millions of dollars for driving his company into the dirt?
> Why does that matter? If the company sells less cars, shouldn't he be paid less? If the company sells more cars, shouldn't he be paid more. The simple question is do you think getting paid $3 per car is fair?
Ok, let's say the CEO is completely incompetent, but nevertheless his company manages to sell 5 million cars. Has he earned 15 million dollars?
> I think the better question is "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?"
I agree. His pay should be directly related to how well he manages the company. Note that a poorly managed company can still make a lot of money, and well managed companies can go bankrupt, so tying the CEO's pay to how well his company does seems to be a mistake.
> Again, irrelevant, since his pay is directly tied to how many cars sell. Let's keep it linear.
So if the CEO is terrible, the company is hemorrhaging 50 million dollars a quarter, but it still sells 2 million cars, he should be rewarded millions of dollars for driving his company into the dirt?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,406
@215,387 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
First of all, paying your employees fair wages is not anti-capitalist. The fact that companies that treat their employees better tend to do better show that it's actually the capitalist thing to do. So I'm sick of people looking at companies that treat their employees well and saying "See, we need to abandon capitalism and treat people like this!" Those companies are still capitalist.
Second, that movie is garbage. It's propaganda. Plus it should be called "Corporatism: A Love Story" because corporatism is what causes most of the social problems outlined in that movie. Not capitalism.
First of all, paying your employees fair wages is not anti-capitalist. The fact that companies that treat their employees better tend to do better show that it's actually the capitalist thing to do. So I'm sick of people looking at companies that treat their employees well and saying "See, we need to abandon capitalism and treat people like this!" Those companies are still capitalist.
Second, that movie is garbage. It's propaganda. Plus it should be called "Corporatism: A Love Story" because corporatism is what causes most of the social problems outlined in that movie. Not capitalism.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #215,413
@215,405 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Ok, let's say the CEO is completely incompetent, but nevertheless his company manages to sell 5 million cars. Has he earned 15 million dollars?
I didn't say that. As I said, and you even quoted me: "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?"
> So if the CEO is terrible, the company is hemorrhaging 50 million dollars a quarter, but it still sells 2 million cars, he should be rewarded millions of dollars for driving his company into the dirt?
No. But what you pointed out just further proves the point you're trying to argue against: how well the company is doing is irrelevant to whether or not the CEO has earned $3/car. The real question is, do you think the CEO creates at least $3 for the company for each car sold?
It's hard to give an example of how well (or how poorly) he does his job, let alone factor it into the question somehow. Even in real life, it's impossible to say how much better or how much worse a company would have done with a different CEO. Hindsight is always 20/20. But let's assume that he's a decent CEO. If the average car is $20,000, is $3/car too much? Hell, even if he's a below average CEO, I don't think $3/car is asking too much. If the car costs $20K, then that's like giving him a .015% tip.
> Ok, let's say the CEO is completely incompetent, but nevertheless his company manages to sell 5 million cars. Has he earned 15 million dollars?
I didn't say that. As I said, and you even quoted me: "How much value does he create for his company as CEO?"
> So if the CEO is terrible, the company is hemorrhaging 50 million dollars a quarter, but it still sells 2 million cars, he should be rewarded millions of dollars for driving his company into the dirt?
No. But what you pointed out just further proves the point you're trying to argue against: how well the company is doing is irrelevant to whether or not the CEO has earned $3/car. The real question is, do you think the CEO creates at least $3 for the company for each car sold?
It's hard to give an example of how well (or how poorly) he does his job, let alone factor it into the question somehow. Even in real life, it's impossible to say how much better or how much worse a company would have done with a different CEO. Hindsight is always 20/20. But let's assume that he's a decent CEO. If the average car is $20,000, is $3/car too much? Hell, even if he's a below average CEO, I don't think $3/car is asking too much. If the car costs $20K, then that's like giving him a .015% tip.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,416
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Even in real life, it's impossible to say how much better or how much worse a company would have done with a different CEO... If the average car is $20,000, is $3/car too much?
So you concede that it is, in principle, impossible to know if a CEO has earned a wage of $X per car, and then you conclude that it is nevertheless reasonable to say he's earned $3 per car. You can't have it both ways. Either there is some calculus for determining the appropriate pay for a CEO (in which case I'd like to hear what you think that metric is), or there is no way to determine what a CEO ought to be paid. You can't pick the latter and then act as if you've chosen the former.
> Even in real life, it's impossible to say how much better or how much worse a company would have done with a different CEO... If the average car is $20,000, is $3/car too much?
So you concede that it is, in principle, impossible to know if a CEO has earned a wage of $X per car, and then you conclude that it is nevertheless reasonable to say he's earned $3 per car. You can't have it both ways. Either there is some calculus for determining the appropriate pay for a CEO (in which case I'd like to hear what you think that metric is), or there is no way to determine what a CEO ought to be paid. You can't pick the latter and then act as if you've chosen the former.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,417
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Either there is some calculus for determining
> Either there is some calculation for determining***
FTFY
TROLL
> Either there is some calculus for determining
> Either there is some calculation for determining***
FTFY
TROLL
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,418
@215,416 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I didn't say it's impossible, it's just murky. You could say the same thing about the guy who puts tires on the car, but you wouldn't say that since it's impossible to know exactly how much value he creates that his pay should be cut, because he's the poor working man. But since we're talking about a CEO, you're getting defensive. Is $3/car fair for the average CEO or not?
I didn't say it's impossible, it's just murky. You could say the same thing about the guy who puts tires on the car, but you wouldn't say that since it's impossible to know exactly how much value he creates that his pay should be cut, because he's the poor working man. But since we're talking about a CEO, you're getting defensive. Is $3/car fair for the average CEO or not?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,419
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,421
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,424
@215,418 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)No. If you wanted to say "$3 per car sold that would not have been sold by the previous/another CEO", then fine, but you've already conceded that there is no way to determine the truth or falsity of that claim.
@215,417 (F)
<------
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,425
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So the guy who puts tires on cars can equip 4 more cars per day than the average worker, he should only get paid for those 4 cars? You're full of shit.
Also, I said that there is no objective way of measuring it. That doesn't mean that the CEO doesn't create value. He does a job. He runs the company. Even if he only does it as well as any other CEO, he's still doing the job and creating value. $3/car is modest. You're full of shit.
So the guy who puts tires on cars can equip 4 more cars per day than the average worker, he should only get paid for those 4 cars? You're full of shit.
Also, I said that there is no objective way of measuring it. That doesn't mean that the CEO doesn't create value. He does a job. He runs the company. Even if he only does it as well as any other CEO, he's still doing the job and creating value. $3/car is modest. You're full of shit.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,426
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,427
The problem here Broseph, is that the more you investigate it, be reasonable and critical, the more you see there is no justifying paying a CEO millions and millions of dollars. A CEO earning 10 million is one thing, a CEO making 250 million is outrageous. The very fact that maximum profits for shareholders are a corporation's top priority by law kinda blows the whole thing to shit, that's not even counting all the other perfectly valid and reasonable arguments against it. I think maybe you just picked a bad example of the overall point you're trying to make.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,429
@215,425 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> So the guy who puts tires on cars can equip 4 more cars per day than the average worker, he should only get paid for those 4 cars? You're full of shit.
What? You're the one who wanted the pay to be determined on a "per car" system, which is something I find stupid. I offered a way that I think could be slightly less stupid but would still fit within your constraints. But since you mention it, why is the CEO paid on a per-car basis, but no one else in the company is?
> Also, I said that there is no objective way of measuring it. That doesn't mean that the CEO doesn't create value. He does a job. He runs the company. Even if he only does it as well as any other CEO, he's still doing the job and creating value.
Nowhere did I say that CEOs don't create value. I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
> $3/car is modest. You're full of shit.
Did you honestly think I would read that and think: "You know what? He's right! $3 per car is exceptionally modest, and I am full of shit"?
> So the guy who puts tires on cars can equip 4 more cars per day than the average worker, he should only get paid for those 4 cars? You're full of shit.
What? You're the one who wanted the pay to be determined on a "per car" system, which is something I find stupid. I offered a way that I think could be slightly less stupid but would still fit within your constraints. But since you mention it, why is the CEO paid on a per-car basis, but no one else in the company is?
> Also, I said that there is no objective way of measuring it. That doesn't mean that the CEO doesn't create value. He does a job. He runs the company. Even if he only does it as well as any other CEO, he's still doing the job and creating value.
Nowhere did I say that CEOs don't create value. I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
> $3/car is modest. You're full of shit.
Did you honestly think I would read that and think: "You know what? He's right! $3 per car is exceptionally modest, and I am full of shit"?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,431
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I offered a way that I think could be slightly less stupid but would still fit within your constraints.
Where?
> Why is the CEO paid on a per-car basis, but no one else in the company is?
Labor laws. It's wage vs. salary thing, obviously, but since it's a hypothetically question I could take any employee of any company and divide the amount of money they make buy any unit of something they produce and come up with a similar question.
> Nowhere did I say that CEOs don't create value. I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
But you did say "If you wanted to say "$3 per car sold that would not have been sold by the previous/another CEO", then fine, but you've already conceded that there is no way to determine the truth or falsity of that claim." Which implies that if you could somehow show that the next best CEO would have only sold 1,000 less cars, the CEO only earned $3,000 for his year of work.
> I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
And you have a more objective measurement?
> I offered a way that I think could be slightly less stupid but would still fit within your constraints.
Where?
> Why is the CEO paid on a per-car basis, but no one else in the company is?
Labor laws. It's wage vs. salary thing, obviously, but since it's a hypothetically question I could take any employee of any company and divide the amount of money they make buy any unit of something they produce and come up with a similar question.
> Nowhere did I say that CEOs don't create value. I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
But you did say "If you wanted to say "$3 per car sold that would not have been sold by the previous/another CEO", then fine, but you've already conceded that there is no way to determine the truth or falsity of that claim." Which implies that if you could somehow show that the next best CEO would have only sold 1,000 less cars, the CEO only earned $3,000 for his year of work.
> I only said that basing a CEOs pay on the number of cars sold is a bad idea because it's such a tricky measurement.
And you have a more objective measurement?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #215,433
@215,427 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I agree that what most CEOs make is outrageous. $250 million is most definitely outrageous. But if you look at how many cars a typical car company sells, $3/car is under the $10 million range in most cases. I think if a car company can somehow manage to sell over 80 million cars in one year, though, then their CEO might deserve that $250 million. After all, it is only about $3/car.
I agree that what most CEOs make is outrageous. $250 million is most definitely outrageous. But if you look at how many cars a typical car company sells, $3/car is under the $10 million range in most cases. I think if a car company can somehow manage to sell over 80 million cars in one year, though, then their CEO might deserve that $250 million. After all, it is only about $3/car.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #215,443
@215,431 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> ...I could take any employee of any company and divide the amount of money they make buy any unit of something they produce and come up with a similar question.
Ok, the average auto worker makes $60 thousand a year.1" rel="nofollow"> Ford sold roughly 10 million cars and light trucks combined.2" rel="nofollow">. That's what, half a penny per car for the average employee? At $3 per car, the CEO of Ford would be earning 500 times the salary of the average autoworker. Is the CEO adding 500 times as much value to the company as the average autoworker? I don't think so.
> Which implies that if you could somehow show that the next best CEO would have only sold 1,000 less cars, the CEO only earned $3,000 for his year of work.
I agree, I'm tired and I phrased that poorly. What I meant was he should only earn $3,000 more than the previous CEO would have been paid.
> And you have a more objective measurement?
Sure. Let the all the stockholders decide on his salary, not just the board of directors.
> ...I could take any employee of any company and divide the amount of money they make buy any unit of something they produce and come up with a similar question.
Ok, the average auto worker makes $60 thousand a year.1" rel="nofollow"> Ford sold roughly 10 million cars and light trucks combined.2" rel="nofollow">. That's what, half a penny per car for the average employee? At $3 per car, the CEO of Ford would be earning 500 times the salary of the average autoworker. Is the CEO adding 500 times as much value to the company as the average autoworker? I don't think so.
> Which implies that if you could somehow show that the next best CEO would have only sold 1,000 less cars, the CEO only earned $3,000 for his year of work.
I agree, I'm tired and I phrased that poorly. What I meant was he should only earn $3,000 more than the previous CEO would have been paid.
> And you have a more objective measurement?
Sure. Let the all the stockholders decide on his salary, not just the board of directors.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #215,444
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> That's what, half a penny per car for the average employee?
Does the average employee affect the sale of every car? No. If the average employee works on 20 cars a day, 250 days out of the year, then they work on roughly 5000 cars per year. So if they earn $60,000/year, then they're getting paid $12 for each car they work on. 4x more than what the CEO makes per car, which make sense since they're putting way more work into each car they touch than the CEO does.
> Let the all the stockholders decide on his salary
That's less objective, not more.
> That's what, half a penny per car for the average employee?
Does the average employee affect the sale of every car? No. If the average employee works on 20 cars a day, 250 days out of the year, then they work on roughly 5000 cars per year. So if they earn $60,000/year, then they're getting paid $12 for each car they work on. 4x more than what the CEO makes per car, which make sense since they're putting way more work into each car they touch than the CEO does.
> Let the all the stockholders decide on his salary
That's less objective, not more.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #217,033
Interesting conversation. If Fake Anon has calmed down I would like to see a continuation of this discussion.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #217,073
woah... this thread is impressive for Minichan.