Think [the box] ing discussion

SOmeone should tell college kids, if you really want to make money, just go into a subject area where you can eventually become the CEO or top guy at a charity.
It is the responsibility of the people who create charities to include in their charters limits on executive compensation.

this makes me question if over 100k is not appropriate what is the acceptable level of income for non-profit ceo's or I'll even throw in religious leaders? should they both be on a volunteer baisis?

hahaha 100k and i would live like a king! I personally wouldn't mind doing away with currency all together and return to a more trade type society, but that's just the weirdo in me. (i am currently getting paid in chickens, eggs, veggies and cleaning help and find it works pretty good on a micro level but it would be difficult on a macro scale I mean, how would you pay the president or king of a country? in coffee and chocolate or cattle?) Now i am just rambleing. But seriously, my point is that a CEO of perhaps a tobaco company probably makes even more then 100k, but because of the product he peddles isn't "saintly" it's okay. So why should the standered be differnt for non profit orginizations? Is it because we as humans want people to do good out of "the goodness of their heart" perhaps we should update the old saying to "tis better to give then recieve, but tis way better to get a profit on what is given and get a tax exemption in the process" a little wordy i know. it's a work in process.

Shame the CEOs who gave themselves, what was it, a $50K bonus out of the bail-out money the U.S. government gave them weren't also sacked. Sacked for stupidity, that is. Honestly, what were they thinking?

Exactly - not thinking at all!

Joseph Goebbels, the nazi propaganda minister, said that if you tell people a big enough lie, and keep repeating it, they will believe it. I think this applies to executive salaries in today’s world. I do not think there is any justification, even in the private sector, for salaries in the millions, or tens of millions of dollars. These figures are not uncommon amongst the highest level of CEO’s in the US, and to a slightly lesser extent amongst their peers in Canada.

The justification often given for these wheelbarrows full of money is that these executives are unique, or at least very rare in their abilities and hard to find and employ. They have managerial skills unmatched by their colleges, and therefore produce much more value for their companies. If not paid huge amounts, they will pack up, quit, and run to the open arms of the many clamoring for their skills in other companies.

Well, I’m no expert on management, but in my experience I have found that the knowledge required for those near the top end is often not exactly rocket science. There are certainly good, bad, and indifferent managers, but the mystique built up around the abilities of these execs is, well….worthy of a modern day Goebbels. In fact I would say that it is often those nearer the bottom end of an organization that hold up the weight. Even if these fellows do possess something extra, the record of recent days reveals many of their metaphorical rockets blowing up on the launch pad. Many with obscene levels of pay have driven their companies into the ground during the current financial mess.

I read this in the UofT Magazine recently, "What's a CEO worth?", an interview with Rotman School of Buisness dean Roger Martin, who explains that CEO salaries and bonuses are determined by the value of the company's stocks. The article says:

"A CEO's compensation should relate to how well a company performs in the real-world market, not on the stock market. It should be based on 'real-world measures' such as return on equity, return on investment, and increases in sales or market share. ... Martin argues that stock-based compensation models encourage CEOs to focus on raising their company's stock price in brief spurts rather than working to improve the company's long-term health in the real market. The results can be disastrous ... 'If we are to emerge from the current mess, executives must switch their focus entirely to the real market and completely ignore the expectations market,' [Martin:] writes. " (Summer 2009)

I found that very interesting, because I didn't know that they worked out their bloated salaries based on expectations - I can see the (short-term) thinking behind it but it's pretty idiotic. He includes an apt football analogy, likening the above to giving players raises etc. based on how people bet on them, rather than their performance. CEOs get money based on the same thing, not how the company's actually performing.

I know, this doesn't explain the charities thing, but it's still interesting.

I see a real problem with this whole concept of rewarding people based on “performance”. In the examples discussed in the financial sector, it is people’s *job* to work with large sums of money. Giving top execs a large chunk of it in order to guarantee a good performance does not make sense to me. It would be like awarding a prominent engineer a proportion of the bridges he has built around the world, in order to feel assured that the next bridge will be built in a safe and competent manor (the implication being that it might not be, if the pay rate is not satisfactory).

And where to draw the line with the performance/compensation argument? A firefighter paid $40k a year will attend basic fires, but if hazardous chemicals are present, they will need more? A surgeon will remove your appendix for $100k, but it may be a slipshod job; give him $150k and he will be a little more careful?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting a Maoist style uniformity. Those who take on more responsibility should, I believe, be paid more. But professionalism and work ethic must be factors in how work is done, separate from monetary compensation IMO.

" A surgeon will remove your appendix for $100k, but it may be a slipshod job; give him $150k and he will be a little more careful? "

Love the analogy!

As I write, a swathe of bankers at the Royal Bank of Scotland are demanding £1,000,000+ in bonuses for their work last year. This bank had to be rescued from imminent collapse by the massive injection of funds from the British government, to the extent that in reality the Bank is now effectively nationalised. It is alleged that these bankers are threatening to take their skills elsewhere if they are not given these bonuses, thus bringing the Bank to its knees and thus preventing the government from ever recouping its very considerable outpayments.

What work, I wonder, is worth £100,000, let alone £1m?

I still don't understand how someone can still claim they have "extraordinary skills" after officiating a financial disaster.

Anthony wrote: It is alleged that these bankers are threatening to take their skills elsewhere if they are not given these bonuses...

If the bank had to be rescued from imminent collapse, seems like it could do without their particular "skills" ;)