Good Idea. I suggest he start with his own performance. So how much do you think he deserves for the job he has done? I say about $3.32.
2007-01-31 05:30:52 · 11 answers · asked by Carlos D 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Executive salaries are determined by the board, which is elected by the shareholders, who are the owners.
The problem with trying to come up with a one size fits all measure of "performance" is that different companies face different challenges. The CEO of Dynegy left Duke to take the job. His challenge was to reposition the company, deleverage through asset sales, and try to make as much hay with spark spreads as possible without dramatically increasing DYN's risk profile. He did that. The company is borderline profitable but the stock has moved and it's because the CEO did his job.
I guess you can go back to stock price movement but how do you measure that? Relative to the broader market? To the sector?
What about situations where a CEO is brought in to dig the company out of a hole that the prior CEO created? What happens if it turns out to be worse before it gets better? What happens if the new CEO decides the company needs a complete overhaul, which usually means near-term losses and dropping stock price before a turn-around? Those are the situations when you need the best CEOs but if you price contracts according to a one size fits all formula you give the best CEOs no reason to leave an already-well-run ship that is sailing smoothly.
As an investor, I think CEO compensation is important, and overpaying the CEO does erode shareholder value, just like overpaying in an acquisition. But I'm free to decide not to buy the stock or to wait until it's trading at a discount.
It's like anything else you buy - just because I might agree with you that organic fruit is worth the price doesn't mean I'd ban conventional fruit. I'd rather the government stay out of private business decisions.
And let's not pretend that overpaying the CEO comes at the expense of "the worker." The math is pretty straightforward. There's one CEO, there are thousands of workers. In most cases if the CEO worked for free and his pay were distributed to every other employee, each employee might get a Pepsi.
And the guy below me with the "test" answer, I'm so sick of hearing that. It's a false dichotomy, like teaching soccer versus teaching the team how to win soccer games. If you know the stuff, you'll do well on the test. Here's what test-taking is - the realization that there AREN'T 120 questions that could be asked on the subject at hand, that there are really only 20, which means it's the same 6 questions worded differently and with different candidate answers, meaning if you narrow question 20 down to A or B and you realize that question 87 is the same question and you see that B isn't an option, you now know that the right answer is A for both of them. That's logical. It's analytical reasoning. It's thinking - problem solving. And it's at least as important as the underlying subject matter.
2007-01-31 05:46:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Your basic question is flawed. He wants to link students' preformance on standardized tests to teachers salaries. Therefore, teachers are teaching their students how to take standard performance tests, not academic subjects. That's the fault of the "No Child Left Behind" law. I'm not crazy about President Bush, but he deserves his salary. He's made a lot of mistakes, but we judge him retrospectively not based upon the facts he had when he made a particular decision. The war in Iraq was a mistake, but the President made his decision based upon Iraq's refusal to allow inspectors from the United Nations to see their weapons and what turned out to be bad intelligence reports.
2007-01-31 05:50:00 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush Derangement Syndrome.
2007-01-31 05:34:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'd say he is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $400,000 a year.
Why? Because he's the President! Doesn't matter WHO it is, the President is the President and should receive the salary therefore entitled to.
Cheers, mate.
2007-01-31 05:35:31 · answer #4 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
According to him, he wants to. But anything he declares he's never followed through on or tried to fix. Yes, you're right, at this point in his presidency, he should be paying the American people and the treasury with his own trust fund and his twin daughters trust funds.
2007-01-31 05:36:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush should keep his snout out of the public sector. It occurs to me that he probably thinks that any money not spent on making war is a waste.
2007-01-31 05:36:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Screw $3.32. I think he owes each of us $100!
2007-01-31 05:33:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are just up set because you are making $3.31
2007-01-31 05:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I say a few million, can't pay him enough!
2007-01-31 05:36:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think he owes us. Lots.
2007-01-31 05:33:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋