Completely in agreement with you, couldn't have commented better.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
IBM Chief's 2008 Pay Valued at Nearly $21M
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Completely in agreement with you, couldn't have commented better.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,944
One thing I'd like to put out there is that people keep saying how little this is compared to an actor.
My response to you is...So what? Actors are overpaid crybabies. Doesn't mean that CEOs deserve millions of dollars in bonuses a year just because they're not as rich as celebrities. That's a pretty poor argument.
Anyway, the man did a good job, which he is already paid handsomely for, I'm sure. Let's not forget that this isn't even his salary, these are bonuses. As in, on top of a salary. By improving the company, he does deserve some bonus, because he's not just breaking even. So he did his job well. But, 21 million dollars in bonuses? While thousands of IBM employees are being laid off? How does that seem right to anyone?
My response to you is...So what? Actors are overpaid crybabies. Doesn't mean that CEOs deserve millions of dollars in bonuses a year just because they're not as rich as celebrities. That's a pretty poor argument.
Anyway, the man did a good job, which he is already paid handsomely for, I'm sure. Let's not forget that this isn't even his salary, these are bonuses. As in, on top of a salary. By improving the company, he does deserve some bonus, because he's not just breaking even. So he did his job well. But, 21 million dollars in bonuses? While thousands of IBM employees are being laid off? How does that seem right to anyone?
Uberbob102000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
I'm perfectly fine with him getting paid that, he boosted profit in a recession and deserves a bonus. That's the point of the free market, if he fucks up he will not be there much longer or his company will die.
Such a waste...of course they should get paid well for doing a good job, but what is the point of having so much money? If you already have 5 houses and 30 cars and a yacht another 2 houses and 10 cars aren't going to make you any happier. I hope he at least spend it on something that will help the economy and create more jobs.
Find another way to motivate people, maybe 10000 achievement points would make you put some extra effort into your job? I mean if you can spend hours and hours every day grinding points playing boring games then why not getting points for work? Or just have prestige points, I mean having a $1M car is all about prestige anyway so why not have prestige points
Or maybe make something that extends your penis since that's pretty much what it is about when you get down to the basics.
Find another way to motivate people, maybe 10000 achievement points would make you put some extra effort into your job? I mean if you can spend hours and hours every day grinding points playing boring games then why not getting points for work? Or just have prestige points, I mean having a $1M car is all about prestige anyway so why not have prestige points
Or maybe make something that extends your penis since that's pretty much what it is about when you get down to the basics.UrielDagda
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,844
Unfortunately in a completely unregulated free market a ton of CEOs "fuck up" all at the same time and can completely collapse the entire world economy.
When we have a system that works like is has been, the CEOs really don't have to care whether the company survives or not.. They know they can slurp up huge bonuses, drive the company into the ground, then retire with more money than they would ever need for several lifetimes.
As far as the IBM CEO, at least in this case they actually have a decent profit.. But there are several cases of CEOs soaking up almost 10% of a company's profits, devaluing the stock, while driving the company straight into the ground.
I find it funny when conservatives complain that "socialists" are destroying capitalism, when its capitalists that are completely decimating it by insisting on sucking a shitload more money out of the system than actually exists.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Free choice is a bitch, it means people and companies have the right to make stupid decisions.
If a company is stupid enough to let a CEO run them into the ground, they deserve it.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
lol.. that is called BHO and his cronies injecting more money into the system than existed in the first place. It's called pure inflationary spending to "jumpstart" the economy which will ultimately backfire because it's creating false demand when people don't have the means to acquire. Seriously, take some economics. Do you have a metal problem or something, because I'm seeing a pattern of the same exact rhetoric over and over, even though people correct you every time..?
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
We don't need to "stfu"... this thread is for discussion.
He deserves it.
I don't know why people hate CEOs so much. They do a lot. They don't just sip champagne and make the company billions of dollars.
This issue is different when they lose the company billions of dollars, and then pay themselves using my goddamn tax money.
I don't know why people hate CEOs so much. They do a lot. They don't just sip champagne and make the company billions of dollars.
This issue is different when they lose the company billions of dollars, and then pay themselves using my goddamn tax money.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
It all begins with voting for Congressmen in your area that are opposed to bailing out private sectors with public dollars.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
thats not a CEO problem, thats Government problem, and its infuriating.
People nowadays seem to think life should come with airbags, and there should never be consequences for bad decisions.
Such a waste...of course they should get paid well for doing a good job, but what is the point of having so much money? If you already have 5 houses and 30 cars and a yacht another 2 houses and 10 cars aren't going to make you any happier. I hope he at least spend it on something that will help the economy and create more jobs.
Find another way to motivate people, maybe 10000 achievement points would make you put some extra effort into your job? I mean if you can spend hours and hours every day grinding points playing boring games then why not getting points for work? Or just have prestige points, I mean having a $1M car is all about prestige anyway so why not have prestige points
What is the point of having so much money? Well let's see, there is financial security. Have you heard of it? With that kind of money you can have nearly any tangible asset you can think of. With that kind of cash (assuming you aren't being a complete retard with it), if you lost your job you'd be fine for a long time if not forever. If I could take a job that paid me $21,000,000.00 I'd take it in a heart beat. Money doesn't by itself necessarily by happiness but having it means there are a lot of things you won't ever have to worry about.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,022
IMO the easiest way to fix this sort of thing is to not give any cash bonuses but only give stocks, and NOT preferred stocks, that they can't sell off for a time of at least one year. That way if they run a company into the ground, their "bonus" is worthless, if they do a good job, they can cash in. Even if the stock value of a company is only loosely tied to how well a company is doing.
As long as the company is doing good, then I have no quarrel over how much the CEO's make. They can set their own bar for all I care, as long as the company is moving up without needing to do needless cost cuttings, etc.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
What sort of thing? Is it a problem? Who would make these rules that say no cash bonuses could be allowed? Government?
soulesschild
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
I'm laughing at you right now.
Japanese murdered half of my family tree during World War II. Do I ban all Japanese made products? Hot damn that'd be hard to do since alot of my tech stuff has Japanese made parts!
too all of you guys bitching about how employee's are being laid off and ceo gets a lot money, what is your point?
its a business decisions that is expected, you think competitors are not doling out bonuses (in some form or another) and keeping their american work force?
its just the way this industry works, sell goods for $, pay less to make said goods = profit.
its easy to be arm chair general, but when all factors come into play its a hard decisions made by the CEO; to time shit right and get all ducks in a row.
you going to pay an extra 20% (arbitrary, so what?) for the American man made laptop? or the less expensive foreign robot made laptop?
as a consumer, alot of people get the cheaper price, while as a "ethical" protester, we demonized him for making shit efficient.
its a business decisions that is expected, you think competitors are not doling out bonuses (in some form or another) and keeping their american work force?
its just the way this industry works, sell goods for $, pay less to make said goods = profit.
its easy to be arm chair general, but when all factors come into play its a hard decisions made by the CEO; to time shit right and get all ducks in a row.
you going to pay an extra 20% (arbitrary, so what?) for the American man made laptop? or the less expensive foreign robot made laptop?
as a consumer, alot of people get the cheaper price, while as a "ethical" protester, we demonized him for making shit efficient.
I pay more for American made products. But I do agree to your point. The consumers will want cheaper prices, this means labor cuts or outsourcing, etc. This is the reason why McDonnalds, Walmart, etc are making big business.
IBM also produced M1 Carbines for the United States Military.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,881
wow, and you think he just went right out of school into a CEO position, get a dam clue.
CEO's run the company, on such a level you could never understand,clearly, they make the massive decisions which can make or break a company.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,022
If you get money from the government (i.e. taxpayers) because you're "too big to fall" then fucking yes. As for other cases? Shareholders should have a say in how the person who's running the company should get compensated.What sort of thing? Is it a problem? Who would make these rules that say no cash bonuses could be allowed? Government?
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
The situation where the government bails out and rewards this bad behavior would prevent it in the first place.. and the latter, the shareholders do have a say. If they want they can take their money and go elsewhere, tanking the company.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
...I meant if they didn't bail out and reward that behavior..
edit ftw
edit ftw
I don't think any intelligent person considers a completely unregulated marketplace to be of use.
Problem is, governments tend to stray from the regulatory role that they should be playing and attempt to actually run things via legislation.
Hence the abomination that is the various "bailout" and "stimulus" packages.
You'll note that the vast majority of politicians have spent little or no time in the private sector.
Those that do are generally in jobs that they got as a favor for what they did while in "public" service.
In addition, they are all too eager to turn a blind eye to certain issues (child labor in some countries, abysmal labor practices in China and other countries).
Humans, by nature, are selfish.
By extension, so are all the groups of people, be they families, nations, companies or woman's field hockey teams.
The free market system certainly has to be monitored and regulated, but what a company that is operating in a legal manner does with its profits is not the government's business or mine.
To ask the question "How much is enough?" is to miss the point.
The point is that, as long as it is operating in an ethical and legal manner, it's not your affair to worry about how a company spends it's money.
Does IBM question how you budget your money?
It's your role to buy the products you want from companies that operate in a way you find acceptable.
If you don't like how a company manages its affairs, fine; don't buy their product.
If you, by some truly bizarre feat of logic, hold the employees of today responsible for the actions of employees from 60 years past; don't buy their product.
If there is a company out there who massages their pigs daily and you think that's a good thing, fine; buy their ham.
That is how you make companies operate in an ethical manner.
That is how you make companies reward good behavior and punish bad.
It's your responsibility to hold a company's feet to the fire; with your wallet.
The vast majority of abuse that you see in the free-market system is due to one of three things:
1) Governments not enforcing the regulations they already have in place.
2) Groups within governments deciding for some strange reason that, as bureaucrats elected by a relatively small segment of the population, they have miraculously gained wisdom, common sense, and extensive experience in business, finance, science and medicine.
3) Customer demand for ethical business practices thrown by the wayside in the name of cheaper goods.
If those of you bemoaning the abuses of the free-market system would instead spend that time calling and writing your elected officials at all levels of government and refusing to vote for those who don't do their elected duties, we'd all be much better off.
Those are the folks you should be angry with.
Fendrix
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,263
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
I hate CEO scum with the best of 'em, but IBM is one of the actually well run companies that focuses on the long term, and this guy has actually earned his pay with the results.... even in the horrible economy, turning a healthy profit and expanding the business through actually useful means.
If all corporations were run as well as IBM (not just now but for the last 100 years) we wouldn't have nearly as much hate going on for cocksucking scumbag CEOs in general.
If all corporations were run as well as IBM (not just now but for the last 100 years) we wouldn't have nearly as much hate going on for cocksucking scumbag CEOs in general.
I would hate to be running a company right now. I mean just look at the hate there is out there for anyone running a company. Now all CEOs are considered guilty until proven innocent. The truth is that the majority of them are honestly earning their money. Unfortunately those that take advantage of system are the ones publicized, so it makes it harder for everyone running a company. The problems with the free market system as it is now is a mix of too much regulation in some areas, and not enough enforcement of the regulations in other areas. Our free market is not without regulartions, so anyone thinking otherwise is not well informed. The problem is, for whatever reason, the govenerment has not done a good job enforcing the rules. Thats why I trust the govenerment even elss to fix this problem.
If a company gets a bailout from the government (wether forced to or not), then unforutnately that company has given up its rights to make its own decisions and cant just go around giving bonuses, etc as they would do normally. Thats all fine, but when people start talking about applying that to every company, thats just dangerous. Once we start putting an arbitrary number on how much a person can make, we will cap the amount of effort a person is willing to make to improve a company.
I have no problem with a CEO making that kind of money in a bonus for doing a good job. everyone needs to realize that the amount he earned is pretty proprotional to what everyone gets in bonuses. It may be a larger number, but I bet the percentage is pretty standard for people making 50,000 a year or 150,000 a year, etc.
My question to those that think he made too much is simple. You tell us how much he should get and why. Then, lets decide on how much any person should make, what is the top going to be? Im not joking aorund here, these are legitamate questions. You dont want anyone making a certain amount of money, ok fine, then lets decide on what that amount should be.
If a company gets a bailout from the government (wether forced to or not), then unforutnately that company has given up its rights to make its own decisions and cant just go around giving bonuses, etc as they would do normally. Thats all fine, but when people start talking about applying that to every company, thats just dangerous. Once we start putting an arbitrary number on how much a person can make, we will cap the amount of effort a person is willing to make to improve a company.
I have no problem with a CEO making that kind of money in a bonus for doing a good job. everyone needs to realize that the amount he earned is pretty proprotional to what everyone gets in bonuses. It may be a larger number, but I bet the percentage is pretty standard for people making 50,000 a year or 150,000 a year, etc.
My question to those that think he made too much is simple. You tell us how much he should get and why. Then, lets decide on how much any person should make, what is the top going to be? Im not joking aorund here, these are legitamate questions. You dont want anyone making a certain amount of money, ok fine, then lets decide on what that amount should be.