McDonald's And Starbucks' CEOs Make More Than $9,200 An Hour - Yahoo Finance
I'm sorry, but this just isn't right. I know a lot of you will get irate at this idea, but there is also a matter of value for value, and a CEO is never worth $9,200.00 an hour. This is indicative of the type of looter mentality that has destroyed the capitalist model, it is the "I am worth it because I am worth it" premise.
The gov't's role is certainly NOT to make such determinations of course. They need to GTFO of private business and stay the hell out. Just my .02.
Those companies are successful, make a good return for their stockholders, AND provide a LOT of jobs. And in Mickie D's case, they give back to their emloyees by training them to be managers and leaders, IF they work hard, and show promise.
Doing that - and making huge profits on top of that - yeah, they earn that kind of money by making the company the money they do. Damn skippy.
That job allowed me to buy my first car six months before my sixteenth birthday. It’s a good job for learning how to work with the public and earning a little spending money. It’s not a job at entry level to be trying to raise a family on or support yourself. If you want to make the big bucks within those types of company, you have to put in the years of dedication and service or show up with a hell of resume. Nothing of value comes easy.
By your logic, "I'm sorry, but no car is worth $500,000".
By your logic, "I'm sorry, but no house is worth $3,500,000"
By your logic, "I'm sorry, but no diamond is worth $7,000,000"
By your logic, "I'm sorry, but no piece of cardboard is worth $1500, not even a Nolan Ryan rookie card".
Really... anything is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. OBVIOUSLY they're worth it because someone's willing to pay it. And who are you, on the outside, to go to someone and say "I'm sorry, you can't pay him that much".
If you don't like it, you start your own McDonald's or Fivebucks and don't pay your CEO that much money. Whatever, your company.
And no, boycotting any business because you personally don't like their practices isn't right or wrong, it is what it is. It may be stupid, or it may be good. If you wanted to boycott South Africa, so be it, if you want to boycott McDonald's, so be it, it's your money.
And yes, it is as simple as I say. It is not wrong for them to get paid 1 million or 100 million a year, because it is a private company. Nobody is forced to invest in it, nobody is forced to go there. If Government was involved and forcing people to be involved, that would be another story.
On the other hand, surrounding yourself with highly competent people (by virtue of this fact means that many will turnover fairly quickly because they are on the heels of doing what you do), understand bottom line and have future vision, not only understand your market inside and out but what technologies on the horizon will disrupt your market and prepare to be offensive or defensive accordingly, constant travel, total hours worked where you do not see your family much and be ever prepared to bumped from your seat at the helm....that could definitely be worth more than 250k-which seems an odd number to be snatched out of the blue. lol The market bares what it bares....
I am more disturbed by the levels of parachute pay. It's kind of like make your mistakes with fewer consequences.
Update: The government has just sold the last of it's GM stock. The tax payers only took a 10 billion dollar bath...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/0...
Regards,
O.A.
A company that experiences a 2% drop in stock value (that is isolated from monetary events) may see the CEO's head on the chopping block. At the very least, several board members will be moving along.
A 1% increase in the value of McDonalds stock may represent a couple billion dollars increase. A CEO that can pilot a company through that kind of increase is well worth a few million in bonus or raise.
I am all for breaking the mold. and the top heavy multi-nationals would be too-if they weren't too big to fail
What say you, nickurisis?
The responsibilities of a CEO can never be started, or stopped, by a time clock...so there is no such thing as an hourly 'wage' for them. I challenge you to come up with a 'fair' hourly wage for Dagny....
Your next post talks about how the market doesn't dictate salary, the board / shareholders do, and the shareholders aren't regular majority shareholders anymore I also disagree. If a business is making money as a result of the overall direction a CEO takes the company then they deserve to be rewarded for their effort. If they are not making money or their profits are decreasing then they wont keep their position for long.
I work for a fairly large company and I don't know how much my CEO makes, but I bet they deserve it. But even here I don't know the details of how they work and what they do, so I definitely can't expect to for other companies.
As far as one person running the company I agree with you. Read the book Good to Great by Jim Collins. He will discuss how the great leaders of companies don't take all the credit and surround themselves with the people who will enable the company to succeed.
Funny how you never hear people brag about Jack Tramiel, who saved America from Japan, Inc.
"The tech world was abuzz Monday when the compensation package for Apple's new CEO Tim Cook was released.
The total for 2011?
$378 million.
This was comprised of $900,000 of cash salary and a $377 million stock grant.
That total compensation, observers were quick to point out, was 378 million times as much as Apple's last CEO made. Steve Jobs, famously,
Steve Jobs was paid $1, in part, because he already held a big position in Apple's stock, thanks to an option grant when he returned to the company at the end of the 1990s. Steve's original option grant had exploded in value thanks to Apple's amazing renaissance, so by last year it was worth several billion dollars." took home $1 a year.
Thats "only" 86787.035 per hour!! Assuming 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year (someone that almighty and powerful, should be able to multitask windsurfing and running his empire). Maybe next year they will crack 90k/hr.
Makes Micky D look absolutely CHEAP! How dare they slight the genius of American Industry and Power (not to mention they do have good fires)?
Granted, he only gets shy of a million, but it is all the "stock" that costs the company.
Has anyone checked out the prices of a MacBook Air, or Ipad? There's a reason they costs so much, and it isn't about quality. Remember, those things are built in the same Asian sweatshops as Lenovo, HP and all the rest.
The end of the article:
"My colleague, Yahoo! Finance economics editor Dan Gross, however, disagrees. He thinks Tim Cook is now just another CEO-pig-at-the-trough. No matter what Cook does over the next decade, Dan points out, he'll still walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars."
And if "shareholder value" is the result of spending a huge amount on these dudes, look at Apples stock over the last 2 years, and if you cannot see how it has been manipulated by the traders (irregardless of CEO, who could have been the Micky D's head French Fry cook), then you probably also cannot figure out that everyone PAYS for these clowns, it isn't about the "it's their business" thing, the money blown on these guys is all part and parcel of everything you buy, guarranteed. You are paying their bloated salaries at some point, or paying for their 300+ million shares.
"Theres no such thing as a free lunch" "Tannstaffel" Robert Heinlein
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-tic...
"Has anyone checked out the prices of a MacBook Air, or Ipad? There's a reason they costs so much, and it isn't about quality. Remember, those things are built in the same Asian sweatshops as Lenovo, HP and all the rest. "
Not all Asian sweat shops are the same. But, the cost of the Apple products is due to their customer base, not due to the compensation of their management.
The preppie mindset who look on computers as appliances rather than gateways into the realm of the mind have more disposable income and expect to pay more. Software developers once had to raise the price on the same software package developed for Macs that was developed for other systems because Mac users wouldn't buy it unless it was expensive.
It's TANSTAAFL, get the acronym right.
As I have no modern apple products (and old broken iMac in the closet), I am not paying for those clowns.
Again, I don't see what your beef is. You bought into the illusion that billionaire Steve Jobs is somehow benevolent because he only took a dollar a year... thereby avoiding the tax burden associated with a billion dollar salary, btw.
That son of a bitch stole pretty much every idea he ever implemented, most especially his precious Macintosh, and then tried to use patent law to suppress competition. He wriggled into schools the same way Microsoft wriggled into businesses. Both Jobs and Gates were much better at business than they were at computer technology.
What's with the benevolent picture of Mandela on the Apple website? what does that have to do with Apple branding?!
Now if the head of HHS was making a fortune, or the people who made that website healthcare.gov were making a killing (pun intended) then it would be different. Because the government IS making us use their product.
Republicans, even conservative Republicans, are all pro-choice. It's *when* you do the choosing where they differ.
The real question is: are you going to sit there and complain about? Are you going to do the same thing that happens in "Atlas Shrugged" and buddy up with lawmakers to arbitrarily penalize success? Or are you going to concentrate on what YOU can do: work your own way to the top?
Barring that, you can always create a media firestorm and boycott.
This is the same Occupy Wall Street/1% nonsense that paints everyone as victims of capitalism and the participants to this forum should see right through it. It's demonization, pure and simple and leads to gross abuse of power by enraged people who are using their envy instead of their logic.
Look at it another way: only 50 years ago, there wasn't a big enough economy for any CEO to make that much!
Here is one of his interesting speeches. I would propose that AR's heroes would cheer this speech. They were not really just about earning money. Money for them was a way of keeping score on their achievements. Hank Rearden was not about "getting more money by any means possible", he was about using his mind and abilities to produce what he was capable of producing. Getting paid for it was the legitimate reward and a way to measure the value of his production.
http://johncbogle.com/speeches/JCB_Imm_1...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12...
You all seem to think a company "needs" to pay huge salaries to find and attract the great business genius's that will be the companys shining beacons to success, and ONLY by granting ridiculous salaries, can a company hire and retain said genius. Well, it didn't quite work at Micky D's. Tripling the pay for the CEO and the dude he replaced (why do you raise the pay of the dude who is gone?) doesn't seem to help, since they didn't improve their position. This issue goes beyond the basic idea of value for value, and has headed into give the money away.
As far as the "you're just jealous" crowd, does this mean you do not question anything, and just provide whatever is demanded of you in fees, increased prices, deals behind doors etc? Do you think that this is just "the way things are"? It is an example of a system that is not rational in how it values work. What it does is seem to value the individuals who worm their way into a specific situation, and then take it for all it's worth.
Another take on this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06...
I realize that some of you may question the politics of the writer (she apparently is on MSNBC, not one of my favorites, but one should not shut out something because one doesn't like the messenger), but she does make the same points I am trying to: Industry in America in the last 10 years has adopted a policy of "we can't provide any employee raises due to costs cutting (etc), but we gave the CEO another million". It seems the upper management of every company, profit making or not, is ALWAYS deserving of a raise, and they then say to the employees, "sorry, but we can't afford to do anything for you". It's not just about McDonald's, it's everywhere. And it does not bode well for the entire economy. Pretty soon you will have 1,000 overwhelmingly rich CEOs, and 100 million poor employees. Who then buys the products? Don't you see the parallel to AS? Hello... Wesley... can you fix our country for us???(that's next).
All they are doing is peddling the victim mindset: that somehow these companies are damaging YOU by these actions. It is pointless to waste your time envying someone else's success - even if it is somehow undeserved.
Life isn't fair. Liberals like to sell people the farce that it is or can be made so through enough government interference or regulation. In the marketplace of ideals, that is a particularly useless one to invest in - it yields negative returns in freedom and capitalism. I suggest that you sell off that portfolio and invest in something with a positive return.
Then what the hell do you care if McDonald's pays its top execs a billion dollars a second or fifty cents a century?
If it's a bad policy, the company will go under and be replaced by companies with better policies. If it's a good policy, the company will prosper. Again... what business of yours is it?
That is where your argument about it being your business ends up, almost always.
I repeat, if a company is badly run, it will go under and be replaced by a company that isn't badly run. If you think the way these companies pay their CEOs... here's an idea... start your own competing company, which will blow them out of the water because... ha HA! you *won't* pay your CEOs a bunch of money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-ca...
he was successful at Apple (maybe not "he", maybe he had good people working for him?) and yet Pennys hired him, and he cost the company 1 Billion. Yet he was paid this ridiculous amount, simply because he was the recipient of success in another position. My point is these buffoons do NOT do it on their own, there is alweays a huge group of people behind them, whos chemistry and skills make the buffoon look good. There fore, no one person is worth $9,200.00 an hour, I don't care how good he is.Go look at who is on the board of directors in these companies, and you will almost always find a cast of either ex-politicians, or celebrities, who all share in the looting. They don't have a clue about who is in charge, other than he has a name, some record, and so must be good at it. McDonalds is just a poster child for the ridiculous extent the looters have infiltrated business, and think they should get a huge salary because they are "it". Sorry, but my perception is no CEO is worth more that maybe 250K/year, maybe with a small stock grant for incentive. The rest of the money goes to employees and shareholders who actually make the damn thing work.
Suddenly raising the hourly pay by leaps and bounds is not a solution to what goes on at the top. Perhaps, 401K sharing or other benefit packages would be better to foster self-direction by hourly employees. The CEOs, like our overpaid Congress, always have Cadillac packages, and just how have they actually earned them? When the CEO, or members of Congress fail to do their homework, their pay should be cut or they should be out, but that is not what we see happening.
"Off with his bourgeois head! Next!"
The other night, my boss opened a box of fire logs and removed the contents to add it to a display. I said, "I wouldn't have thought of that" (I didn't say, "because I don't have the authority"), and he said, "That's why I'm in management and you're maintenance" (he was teasing me).
I replied, "yeah, but someday you'll *still* be in management...
"And I'll be dead."
Not sure he saw the humor in it...
As for pro sports.. if they can get it why not....the owners want the best players so they'll win which will bring more fans which will make them more money to pay higher salaries... Who's getting hurt? Worth is always determined by the buyer. A return on their investment. A Picasso is only worth millions because someone will pay it.
I think that if you look a little closer, you'll find out that the real problem with many of these things is the government's involvement in the first place!
Yes, and the stupid shall be punished. That works on the straight up law of supply and demand, in a artificial environment. If a bunch of "art critics" hadn't decide he was great and blathered about it, and the mindless rich then bought his stuff for much more than they were worth, and then it becomes a self perpetuating machine. There were 1,000 other artists in his time just as bad as he was...but did not get picked. So they died in ignominious and debt, broken, unknown. I don't follow sports or athletes, and only laugh at celebs and their bizarre lives. NONE of them are worth what they get, and I refuse to pay for it. Value for Value. It is the "Why not?" question that is behind a lot of this nonsense: just like the corrupt looter politician, who says "why not? to the bridge to nowhere, just so he can bring my money into HIS state, and get the re-election to a position he does not belong in. Why not is not a satisfactory answer and should be replaced with "NO!". We would be much better off at all levels.
And it is their right and their money with which to BE stupid and the market will reward them or not. You seem to think that just because YOU think it is a bad decision, that suddenly you are the arbiter of good and fair. That is what leads to dictators and power-mongers, socialism and higher taxes.
Can you say you've never made a bad decision in your life? I know I can't. They happen all the time. But unless you are omnipotent and never make mistakes, I'm certainly not going to advocate that you make my decisions for me!
And let's admit that people get hired in the HOPE that they will bring value, but that hope isn't always realized. There is a real danger however in preventing mistakes as errors are frequently the best learning tools!
Let's see, value of an employee that knows how to put mustard and a pickle and a patty on a bun on one hand vs. value of an employee that knows how to run a company that employs thousands of others and still make a profit for the owners?
I just don't see the problem, other than there are way too many poor victims that want as much as everyone else without having to put in the years of education and hard work that it takes to become an individual worth what they think they're worth.
In simpler terms, if you believe that you're worth more than I offer you for the work you can do, I'll agree with you. Go on home, watch your large screen TV on cable, wait until I have a job opening that you're qualified for that pays what you think you're worth, I'll call you on your smart phone when that occurs.
"They proclaim that the only requirement for running a factory is the ability to turn the crank to start the machines."
I can't find the part of John Galt's speech right now, nor do I have the time to, but in it he explains the impossibility of producing anything by nothing more than mere mechanical effort.
Without the MickyD's, that pickle planter can hope to subsist on a diet of pickles, for it is the market of MickyD's and its competitors that purchases the pickles from the planter's boss, and which provides the money to buy things other than pickles.
(iirc, nobody grows pickles; they grow cucumbers, and pickles are manufactured therefrom....)
I may not want them mowing my grass; it's not my business (literally) to dictate what they pay their CEOs or who they hire for CEOs. It is only my business to buy their product or not.
At the moment, their products are worth the price they ask for them, to me.
(I tried the onion cheddar burger from the dollar menu last night. Added a bit of mustard and mayo from our deli, and it was pretty good...)
It is true that the costs are passed on to you and I. If we were *all* doing better would that matter? I think one thing to consider is the possibility that the increasing disparity is not because some CEOs are earning so much more unjustly, but that in this economy the poor and the middle class are not keeping up. Why is that? I believe it is largely because of government interference in the market that has driven opportunity and higher wage jobs out. The rich, are, by virtue of their wealth, better insulated from the economic downturns.
I have been involved in the metal working business for 4 decades and it has been my observation that the increased taxation, regulation, and trade policies have greatly diminished these opportunities. When our government decides that power production and heavy industry is dirty and we should re-direct our energies towards green technology and subsidize things not yet ready for prime time, while making it hard for existing industry, people will suffer. I have seen the costs soar for companies that have been able to remove 97% of their "pollutants" with expensive but affordable processes, but the last 3% is either impossible with existing tech. or it is prohibitively expensive. Yet the government is not satisfied, despite the apparent improvement of local water and air quality. The jobs then go to China or some other nation without the EPA or OSHA breathing down their necks. In the end we have fewer jobs and the environment is not protected. The pollution is greater than it would be if the industry was kept here; it is just shifted to somewhere else on the globe, along with the jobs and wealth of this nation.
How do we fix this? Protectionism does not work, but an even playing field helps. Proper monetary policy and exchange rates... practical, reasonable regulation and trade policies...
It is sad really. I am one of the survivors in a largely devastated tool & die business. Today we are often making repairs/corrections to tools that were built in China that we should have built here. I have had to reduce my work force due to reduced demand and we have to repair inferior foreign built tools to keep the doors open...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Just how many people in the entire country have the training, experience and education to be the CEO of McDonald's? Very few is the right answer, perhaps less than 100 people in the entire nation. It's like being the current football star quarterback - there's just one and he can ask for the wage he is paid because he gets the job done.
Also, being the CEO of requires a certain lifestyle and also certain security arrangements. There are people who will hunt these CEOs and do harm to them, just because they are rich.
The fact that they have limos and drivers to ferry them around inflames some, but keep in mind that as they are being driven to the office, these guys are working. The limo is a mobile office mirroring what they have in the brick and mortar building. You and I waste time being stuck in traffic, but these guys are to valuable to waste their time like that.
Lastly to envy and begrudge the income of somebody with greater skills IS the matra of the liberal left as they yell for income redistribution. If a person doesn't want to share the title, don't make noises like one.