News Should CEO Salaries be Public Information?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the extravagant spending habits of CEOs, particularly highlighting a case where a CEO redecorated his office at a cost of $1.3 million, including a $14,000 wastebasket. This behavior is criticized as disgraceful, especially when such executives request taxpayer-funded bailouts for their companies. The conversation touches on the ethics of corporate spending, with some arguing that CEOs should be held accountable for their financial decisions, particularly when using company funds. There is a call for better governance from boards to prevent excessive compensation and spending. The dialogue also questions why the focus is primarily on business leaders rather than other high earners like lawyers or athletes. Additionally, there are references to the legal and ethical implications of corporate practices, particularly in relation to Microsoft and its historical legal challenges. The overall sentiment reflects frustration with corporate greed and a desire for accountability in the business sector.
Cyrus
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
17
Round em up, send em to GITMO!

I'm watching CNN and YET AGAIN another CEO is spending wild sums of money (1.3 million) to redecorate his office. He spent 14k on a waste basket.

Over and over, all these CEOS are scum bags. I mean jesus christ, how disgraceful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Unfortunately Obama just signed an order to close it down in 1 year.

Maybe they should be called to public service in the Green Zone?
 


Cyrus said:
I'm watching CNN and YET AGAIN another CEO is spending wild sums of money (1.3 million) to redecorate his office. He spent 14k on a waste basket.

Over and over, all these CEOS are scum bags. I mean jesus christ, how disgraceful.
And spending over $80K on a rug? How can these creeps come begging for taxpayer money? We might need to bring back firing squads (as opposed to Madoff-type house arrests) to push the point home.
 


I think CEOs are justified in spending as much money as the board will allow on their offices. Further, I think that no company is justified in claiming government bailout money.
 


CRGreathouse said:
I think CEOs are justified in spending as much money as the board will allow on their offices. Further, I think that no company is justified in claiming government bailout money.

I should have filled you in on more facts (my fault). He spent this money after requestion bail out money for his own company!
 


Cyrus said:
I should have filled you in on more facts (my fault). He spent this money after requestion bail out money for his own company!

I'm not surprised (I've heard this and related stories already). Decisions in business are made on the margin, and this doesn't affect the margin (like, say, removal of a tax). If not for the public eye, I'd expect almost all companies receiving money to pay down debt and send out the rest in a one-time dividend. As it is, 'internal improvements' including improving a C*O's office would seem to be the order of the day.

All of this was easy to predict. It's one of the reasons (but not the main reason) that I opposed the bailouts.

Now perhaps Keynesians* can justify it for its stimulus effect to the economy, but I think it's scandalous.* Obama was a closet Keynesian -- who knew?
 


Cyrus said:
I'm watching CNN and YET AGAIN another CEO is spending wild sums of money (1.3 million) to redecorate his office. He spent 14k on a waste basket.

Over and over, all these CEOS are scum bags. I mean jesus christ, how disgraceful.

It's not all of them it's just most of them. :-p

Bill Gates for example despite earning my contempt for his Windows up until XP. Get's the big thumbs up on the philanphropist front. Ruthless in business but with a caring side.
 


Opinion is divided on that.
The Gates Foundation is a foundation - which means it invests to raise it's value as well as handing it out. Not all of it's investments have been terribly ethical.
There are also more than a few cases of countries suddenly switching to Windows, or abandoning moves to free software after a large donation,
 


The Dagda said:
It's not all of them it's just most of them. :-p

Bill Gates for example despite earning my contempt for his Windows up until XP. Get's the big thumbs up on the philanphropist front. Ruthless in business but with a caring side.

If by ruthless you mean illegal business practices, then yes.
 
  • #10


Cyrus said:
If by ruthless you mean illegal business practices, then yes.

I think ruthless is related to ethics, not law. A company or individual might scrupulously follow the law, but take advantage of loopholes (and so forth) in such a way as to be called ruthless. But violating the law is also no defense against the label.
 
  • #11


Cyrus said:
If by ruthless you mean illegal business practices, then yes.

I never said he was a saint, just that at least he was a humanitarian on the side. :smile:
 
  • #12


Damn! I'd love to sell some stuff to these idiots.
 
  • #13


Cyrus said:
I'm watching CNN and YET AGAIN another CEO is spending wild sums of money (1.3 million) to redecorate his office. He spent 14k on a waste basket.

Over and over, all these CEOS are scum bags. I mean jesus christ, how disgraceful.
Two questions:
1. Public or private company? If its private, who cares what he does with his money?
2. Why the sole focus on business CEOs vice lawyers, movie stars, professional athletes, etc?
 
  • #14


mheslep said:
Two questions:
1. Public or private company? If its private, who cares what he does with his money?
2. Why the sole focus on business CEOs vice lawyers, movie stars, professional athletes, etc?
It wasn't his money. This was company money spent on furnishing his office.

Or I think it is - I'm guessing this thread is about John Thain (of Merrill, then BoA).

There's also that clever trick he pulled with the rescheduling of the management bonuses.
 
  • #15


Gokul43201 said:
It wasn't his money. This was company money spent on furnishing his office.

Or I think it is - I'm guessing this thread is about John Thain (of Merrill, then BoA).

There's also that clever trick he pulled with the rescheduling of the management bonuses.
Yes probably was Thain. Good riddance to him, and bad luck to BoA shareholders left with Merrill debt. Kudos to BoA's Lewis for summarily firing him.

Ive yet see a good plan for remedying the 400 x base employee salaries to these guys. A hard cap plan is just as broken. If the boards would just do their jobs there would not be a problem.
 
  • #16


That wastebasket will be worth double in a couple of years, good investment!
 
  • #17


mheslep said:
Ive yet see a good plan for remedying the 400 x base employee salaries to these guys. A hard cap plan is just as broken.
What about something like this? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1181:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18


CRGreathouse said:
I think ruthless is related to ethics, not law. A company or individual might scrupulously follow the law, but take advantage of loopholes (and so forth) in such a way as to be called ruthless. But violating the law is also no defense against the label.

No, I mean microsoft breaks the law and gets away with it - time and again. Not Ethics, "The Law".
 
  • #19


Cyrus said:
No, I mean microsoft breaks the law and gets away with it - time and again. Not Ethics, "The Law".

Technically speaking the law is the exercise of practical ethics, but you're right. Mind you they have paid out hundreds of millions to people they have stolen code from, so they don't get away with it all the time.
 
  • #20


Cyrus said:
No, I mean microsoft breaks the law and gets away with it - time and again. Not Ethics, "The Law".

cool. A perfect crime.

Does the 'law' know about this?
 
  • #21


Alfi said:
cool. A perfect crime.

Does the 'law' know about this?

I was vague on purpose as to bait people :wink:

Anyways, a guy from standford came to talk my senior year in college. He started a company with another guy from MIT on Haptics (force feedback game controllers). When Microsoft came and did a tour of their company, they stole the technology and implemented it on microsoft products within a year (as did Sony playstation). As a result, his small company now had to sue Microsoft AND sony for stealing their technology. Microsoft basically threw a ton of money at the lawers to make things grind to a hault - they basically outspent what his company could afford on lawer fees by draging things on in court. Eventually they had to settle out of court and be bought out by microsoft because the company had no more money left to fight microsoft.

Microsoft broke the law - and got away with it.
 
  • #22


Gokul43201 said:
What about something like this? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1181:
Sounds reasonable. Likely makes the salaries of every public company into public information, and that has a down side, but might be worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News A Novel Reform Proposal of the National Election Process
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?
2
Replies
90
Views
10K
News A Scary Look at Past Work Experience of a US President
Replies
43
Views
6K
News Roflmfao bill blum gets osama bin laden's endorsement
Replies
3
Views
3K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
4K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
Replies
6
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top