If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Would you like to earn $89,000 a month to do your job? How about to not do your job?   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 59
    More: PSA, golden parachutes, mobile apps, MetLife, high frequencies  
•       •       •

6623 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Aug 2012 at 4:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 01:11:04 PM  
It's the American dream.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-07 01:13:38 PM  
Yes, but he will probably have to pay several percent of his hard earned money on taxes.
 
2012-08-07 01:14:13 PM  
Really, when you consider what most executives bring to the table for corporations, it seems entirely reasonable to pay them to leave. After all, what are you going to get if you pay them to stay?
 
2012-08-07 01:19:54 PM  
Who do I have to kill?

Or is that the point?
 
2012-08-07 01:21:49 PM  
I would very much like $89,000 a month not to do my job.
 
2012-08-07 01:25:45 PM  

EatHam: I would very much like $89,000 a month not to do my job.


This. Where do I not apply for this unjob?
 
2012-08-07 01:47:35 PM  
But if those executives didn't get outrageous compensation after leaving they wouldn't not not work for another company.
 
2012-08-07 02:10:52 PM  
My uncle was paid about that much per year to not do his job. He spent a year in prison for that.
 
2012-08-07 03:06:38 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-07 04:14:48 PM  
If you know this, you clearly aren't paying enough in taxes. The amount in taxes you should be paying is equal to whatever doesn't allow you an internet connection to find stuff like this out. GBTW peons.
 
2012-08-07 04:28:13 PM  
Thanks, 0bama.
 
2012-08-07 04:31:16 PM  
It's GE's union workers why they can't compete, yea o.k. or its the tax code yea that's it.
 
2012-08-07 04:46:39 PM  
Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.
 
2012-08-07 04:47:29 PM  
The funny thing is that this is on Yahoo news.

Yahoo, the company that just got a new CEO, who, shortly after being named CEO, also announced that she is pregnant.

1) Get hired as CEO

2) Take maternity leave (at a CEOs benefit level)

3) Resign to spend more time with your new baby (taking your golden parachute with you).

And nobody can screw with you because BABY!
 
2012-08-07 04:47:56 PM  
GE. The same company that not only doesn't pay _any_ taxes, they get a corporate equivalent of a tax refund. Or is that ADM, I forget.
 
2012-08-07 04:51:19 PM  
 
2012-08-07 05:11:33 PM  

jafiwam: Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.


The board members are all CEO's of other companies and the CEO's are all board members of other companies, so, to them, this is all a matter of self-preservation among their peers. Mr. Boardmember knows that if he doesn't give Mr. CEO a golden parachute, then Mr. CEO will give Mr. Boardmember the shaft when it comes time to talk remuneration in some other board room later in the month. That and his name will be mud, making it hard for him to keep those stipend paying director positions with various hospitals, universities, not-for-profits, and think-tanks. Not to mention the ramifications at the country club bar.

/ Always vote no on EVERYTHING at proxy time.
 
2012-08-07 05:20:02 PM  
No thanks. I love my job, and I couldn't afford that pay cut.
 
2012-08-07 05:40:01 PM  
If they were doing a poor job, that might be less expensive than letting them hang out and fark up the business.
 
2012-08-07 05:56:56 PM  

enry: If they were doing a poor job, that might be less expensive than letting them hang out and fark up the business.


So if I own a grocery store and one of my employees starts smashing pickle jars into the floor I should pay him tons of money for ten years because it's cheaper then all the smashed pickle jars + cleanup?
 
2012-08-07 05:58:09 PM  

jafiwam: Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.


CEO pay is usually dictated by a compensation board. The compensation board is made up of other CEO's and other high ranking executives. They purposefully overpay the CEO and provide lavish perks and compensation so that when they themselves go to renegotiate their compensation they can point to the first CEO as the market rate. This circlejerk continues and executive pay continues to spiral upwards.
 
2012-08-07 06:03:32 PM  
Incog_Neeto: So if I own a grocery store and one of my employees starts smashing pickle jars into the floor I should pay him tons of money for ten years because it's cheaper then all

THAN

// it was used properly in the sentence you quoted.

// Couldn't let this one go :(
 
2012-08-07 06:08:09 PM  
But enough about Michele Bachmann
 
2012-08-07 06:12:15 PM  

vpb: Yes, but he will probably have to pay several percent of his hard earned money on taxes.


How is he supposed to create jobs if he has to pay taxes on his non-job income!?
 
2012-08-07 06:22:32 PM  

Incog_Neeto: enry: If they were doing a poor job, that might be less expensive than letting them hang out and fark up the business.

So if I own a grocery store and one of my employees starts smashing pickle jars into the floor I should pay him tons of money for ten years because it's cheaper then all the smashed pickle jars + cleanup?


Depends on if the pickle-smasher had a contract or not. I'd guess no, so you just fire them.
 
2012-08-07 06:55:31 PM  

dlp211: jafiwam: Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.

CEO pay is usually dictated by a compensation board. The compensation board is made up of other CEO's and other high ranking executives. They purposefully overpay the CEO and provide lavish perks and compensation so that when they themselves go to renegotiate their compensation they can point to the first CEO as the market rate. This circlejerk continues and executive pay continues to spiral upwards.


I don't know if it's that, so much as the fact that nobody wants to admit that their company or their executive is below-average. Thus, many compensation committees (especially those who can't otherwise justify such insane compensation) peg their executives' salaries at the 60 or 70th percentiles, leading each new CEO to receiver higher and higher salaries. Link

"Since then, researchers have found that about 90 percent of major U.S. companies expressly set their executive-pay targets at or above the median of their peer group. This creates just the kinds of circumstances that drive pay upward.

Moreover, the jump in pay because of peer benchmarking is significant.

A chief executive's pay is more influenced by what his or her "peers" earn than by the company's recent performance for shareholders, according to two independent research efforts based on the new disclosures."
 
2012-08-07 06:56:08 PM  
We need a law that says that if you're a "Chief" of anything, you can only hold that title at one location and aren't allowed on any Boards. I realize that's a ridiculous thing to say, but we need to find out some way to break the cycle of board executives giving themselves perks.
 
2012-08-07 06:56:49 PM  

Fecacacophany: jafiwam: Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.

The board members are all CEO's of other companies and the CEO's are all board members of other companies, so, to them, this is all a matter of self-preservation among their peers. Mr. Boardmember knows that if he doesn't give Mr. CEO a golden parachute, then Mr. CEO will give Mr. Boardmember the shaft when it comes time to talk remuneration in some other board room later in the month. That and his name will be mud, making it hard for him to keep those stipend paying director positions with various hospitals, universities, not-for-profits, and think-tanks. Not to mention the ramifications at the country club bar.

/ Always vote no on EVERYTHING at proxy time.


Why do you own stock in companies' whose boards you believe to be unjustifiably conspiring to overpay their CEOs? Just sell the stock.
 
2012-08-07 06:59:06 PM  
How about $84,000 / month for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, after ruining two companies that merged.

According to Forbes magazine, when (Gary) Forsee was fired "without cause," Sprint gave him $40 million, including a $1.5 million salary through 2009, $5 million in bonuses, stock options and restricted shares worth $23 million and an $84,000-a-month pension for life.
 
2012-08-07 07:02:19 PM  
Burn them!



/Just kidding, good for them. I hope I'm in the same position one day too.
 
2012-08-07 07:05:49 PM  

xooxox: How about $84,000 / month for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, after ruining two companies that merged.

According to Forbes magazine, when (Gary) Forsee was fired "without cause," Sprint gave him $40 million, including a $1.5 million salary through 2009, $5 million in bonuses, stock options and restricted shares worth $23 million and an $84,000-a-month pension for life.


Why are these employment contracts so iron-clad? It seems like it would be cheaper to blow $5 million on lawyers and tell Mr. Forsee not to let the door bang him in the ass on the way out.
Seriously, we have companies that regularly subvert international law, but suddenly their hands are tied because the CEO they just canned had a good contract?
 
2012-08-07 07:17:38 PM  

Fecacacophany: jafiwam: Me? Personally? I am not sure I could figure out how to spend that much.

But, if the guy turned down opportunities of much higher salary by taking this job, because he knew he had a "golden parachute" then what's the problem? The payment is for the opportunity cost of not doing what ever else.

If the dudes are getting paid to much, the board that approved (or stockholders) that pay can do something differently.

The board members are all CEO's of other companies and the CEO's are all board members of other companies, so, to them, this is all a matter of self-preservation among their peers. Mr. Boardmember knows that if he doesn't give Mr. CEO a golden parachute, then Mr. CEO will give Mr. Boardmember the shaft when it comes time to talk remuneration in some other board room later in the month. That and his name will be mud, making it hard for him to keep those stipend paying director positions with various hospitals, universities, not-for-profits, and think-tanks. Not to mention the ramifications at the country club bar.

/ Always vote no on EVERYTHING at proxy time.


I usually agree to the auditors and reject everything else. The funds would be much better spent on the product or service, not most of these nitwits.
 
2012-08-07 07:25:20 PM  
Not to sound like a defender of the rich. But 1 million a year over 10 years is not nearly as excessive as some of the more recent "parachutes". The other thing to keep in mind is that when an individual is that far up the ladder they often times cannot legally go snag up another job in a related field. Since GE does things in just about every sector this guy is kinda screwed if not for the payout.

But yeah 89k a month to not do anything would be one hell of a nice retirement plan :)
 
2012-08-07 07:46:56 PM  
As always, the goal is simply to get indicted, er, inducted into the Good Ol Boys Club. Once in, yer golden.
 
2012-08-07 08:02:16 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: We need a law that says that if you're a "Chief" of anything, you can only hold that title at one location and aren't allowed on any Boards. I realize that's a ridiculous thing to say, but we need to find out some way to break the cycle of board executives giving themselves perks.


That's nonsense. What's the point of corporations if a few people at the top aren't going to siphon off all the money for themselves and their friends?
 
2012-08-07 08:03:47 PM  
I have a foolproof system for addressing issues like excessive executive compensation: I don't buy that company's stock. Why get worked up over something like that when I can just put my money in an investment where the company doesn't screw me? If some dolt wants to own a piece of International Widgets where the board and executives pillage the place and rape the shareholders, that's entirely his business, and is usually a self-correcting problem; either it gets fixed, the company is bought out because someone like a Bain Capital recognizes that it can be better run, or it goes under.
 
2012-08-07 08:18:35 PM  

jjorsett: I have a foolproof system for addressing issues like excessive executive compensation: I don't buy that company's stock.


I'm not sure how to attack this so-simple-it's-stupid idea.
The average person can't buy enough stock to matter, doesn't always have that kind of control over their stocks, and that kind of message is hardly direct with something like the buying and selling of stock.
You can't vote with your wallet when you're up against people with a wallet that's literally a million times bigger and who can also vote themselves payraises via their friends on the board. Well, you can, it's just never going to matter, no matter how foolproof it is.
 
2012-08-07 08:36:05 PM  
I want to be Knight's IT guy.

I'll only charge $350 million, and I'll do absolutely nothing at all.

And I'll STILL be better than the last guy.
 
2012-08-07 08:41:12 PM  

Incog_Neeto: So if I own a grocery store and one of my employees starts smashing pickle jars into the floor I should pay him tons of money for ten years because it's cheaper then all the smashed pickle jars + cleanup?


Little danger of that, I'm afraid. Even grocery store owners know the difference between "then" and "than".
 
2012-08-07 08:43:54 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: We need a law that says that if you're a "Chief" of anything, you can only hold that title at one location and aren't allowed on any Boards. I realize that's a ridiculous thing to say, but we need to find out some way to break the cycle of board executives giving themselves perks.


Because selling your stock in that company would be too difficult.
 
2012-08-07 08:49:43 PM  

Misch: How about $2.2 million per minute?


That's...a much better deal.
 
2012-08-07 09:36:34 PM  

SevenizGud: HellRaisingHoosier: We need a law that says that if you're a "Chief" of anything, you can only hold that title at one location and aren't allowed on any Boards. I realize that's a ridiculous thing to say, but we need to find out some way to break the cycle of board executives giving themselves perks.

Because selling your stock in that company would be too difficult.


I don't understand what people who say this think it accomplishes. Or how it even relates to the majority of people.
 
2012-08-07 09:48:05 PM  
Not particularly. That would be a rather big drop in my pay grade and I quite like doing my job.
 
2012-08-07 09:59:11 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Why are these employment contracts so iron-clad? It seems like it would be cheaper to blow $5 million on lawyers and tell Mr. Forsee not to let the door bang him in the ass on the way out.
Seriously, we have companies that regularly subvert international law, but suddenly their hands are tied because the CEO they just canned had a good contract?


Because screwing over a CEO would be Class Warfare. We can't have that...
 
2012-08-07 10:59:49 PM  

enry: If they were doing a poor job, that might be less expensive than letting them hang out and fark up the business.


Yeah... how much of a Grade A inbred royal farkup (you're the queen! And the king! AND the Crown Prince!) would you have to be in order to be worth that much to the company to NOT be there?

I mean, damn.

www.moviequotesandmore.com

I don't even have to come into the office, I can do this job from home.
 
2012-08-07 11:07:03 PM  

Fukuzawa: I don't understand what people who say this think it accomplishes. Or how it even relates to the majority of people.


If you think executive compensation erodes your shareholder value, then sell your shares and buy stock in a company that isn't doing that. Is it clear now, or do I need to draw you a diagram? If enough people sell the stock, then its price falls, which puts a hurt on the other shareholders, usually heavily weighted to executive compensation. To stop that from happening, they stop the exodus. They stop the exodus by stopping the golden parachutes.

If you aren't a shareholder, then it isn't any of your farking business, so get your fat nose out of it and stfu.
 
2012-08-07 11:09:52 PM  
There is no job I wouldn't not do for that pay.
 
2012-08-07 11:22:49 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jjorsett: I have a foolproof system for addressing issues like excessive executive compensation: I don't buy that company's stock.

I'm not sure how to attack this so-simple-it's-stupid idea.
The average person can't buy enough stock to matter, doesn't always have that kind of control over their stocks, and that kind of message is hardly direct with something like the buying and selling of stock.
You can't vote with your wallet when you're up against people with a wallet that's literally a million times bigger and who can also vote themselves payraises via their friends on the board. Well, you can, it's just never going to matter, no matter how foolproof it is.


What the hell are you talking about? Jjorsett is suggesting you just sell the stock of companies whom you believe to be granting excess executive comp. once you sell the stock the supposed problem is no longer any of your business.
 
2012-08-07 11:46:50 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What the hell are you talking about? Jjorsett is suggesting you just sell the stock of companies whom you believe to be granting excess executive comp. once you sell the stock the supposed problem is no longer any of your business.


I said selling the stock does jack shiat for addressing excessive executive compensation. It's completely ineffective unless you're a big player, and if you're a big player, you're probably too busy getting your friends on the board to vote you a pay raise.

I think it's everyone's business when this kind of shiat keeps happening and it's getting to be enough to destabilize frickin' economies because these big players care for more about their own individual salary and how much they can loot before the next vehicle crashes.
 
2012-08-08 12:03:39 AM  
I'm about one twentieth of my way to that sort of number. Although I think happiness can be had for about $15k a month job free.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report