8 ms·

It’s case by case. I have seen some accurate CEO comp headlines. Some publications certainly bat better than others. As for Intel: $10m a year is still a lot o

It’s case by case. I have seen some accurate CEO comp headlines. Some publications certainly bat better than others. As for Intel: $10m a year is still a lot of money. I have also heard that targets are occasionally hit. ;-D

pc86 4y ago
> $10m a year is still a lot of money In absolute terms, 100% yes it is. In "CEO of a major corporation most people in the world have heard about," it's basically nothing.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > In "CEO of a major corporation most people in the world have heard about," it's basically nothing. Perhaps CEO pay is beyond the pale generally, and these are obscene expectations.
  - pc86 4y ago
    Certainly a point worth making, and I might even be inclined to agree, but I think my point stands. Comparing against similarly noteworthy companies, Intel's CEO doesn't make all that much.
- bumby 4y ago
  Not scientific and maybe inaccurate, but a quick Google search showed the average Intel employee makes $100k. The shift in social norms where 100x the average employee (of a tech firm, which skews towards high salaries) is considered “basically nothing” is something worth talking about.
  - sumedh 4y ago
    > is considered “basically nothing” is something worth talking about. Except if the CEO screws up the company goes bankrupt and people lose their jobs. Look at Nokia and RIM.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      Nokia and RIM got clocked by the iPhone. I don’t care who their CEO could have been, these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times.
      - sumedh 4y ago
        > these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times. Exactly why you need a good CEO at the top to understand that the landscape has changed with a new competitor but Nokia and RIM failed to adapt.
        bumby 4y ago
        What about CEOs like Jack Welch, who everyone lauded as a paragon of management? He was handsomely paid but his decisions crippled the company years later because of bad foresight? I think the main issue ITT is that it’s very hard to measure and distinguish a good CEO from a bad one, yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders.
        sumedh 4y ago
        > yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders. The board of directors are the ones who measure CEO performance and set compensation but most of the times they just rubber stamp whatever the CEO does.
        bumby 4y ago
        One of the criticisms is that the boards are incestuous. Another issue may be that stock options are much more common now. I know the argument is this should align the CEOs interest with the shareholders but the counterpoint is it incentivizes a short term outlook.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Intel employs 121k people. If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. If the CEO's salary is distributed to all employees, they would get a ~0.05% raise. If distributed to the shareholders, it would increase profits by ~0.01%. Yet this person's decisions can have much bigger consequences to both employees and shareholders.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      > If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. Except, that’s not a CEO’s job. Even remotely. At best they “manage” a few department heads who each manage a few middle managers who each manage a few direct managers who then manage the workforce. Even then, that’s a misrepresentation however. They are in charge of managing and directing overall company strategy in the interests of the board. The COO (and, sometimes, the CTO; in tech firms) is usually (indirectly) in charge of managing people. I think it’s a valid point that they bring large value to a corporation, but it would be very difficult to quantify that value to be anywhere near 100x any other non-Csuite employee.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        It's more difficult to justify to shareholders paying less, tbh. The risks of a bad CEO are enormous.
        deaddodo 4y ago
        And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. In fact, in just the last three years; the overall disparity has increased 31% despite corporations failing to properly manage the pandemic or their workforces. 1 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker-pay-gap-widens-and-employees-arent-happy-about-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker...
        4y ago

pc86 4y ago

> $10m a year is still a lot of money In absolute terms, 100% yes it is. In "CEO of a major corporation most people in the world have heard about," it's basically nothing.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
> In "CEO of a major corporation most people in the world have heard about," it's basically nothing. Perhaps CEO pay is beyond the pale generally, and these are obscene expectations.
- pc86 4y ago
  Certainly a point worth making, and I might even be inclined to agree, but I think my point stands. Comparing against similarly noteworthy companies, Intel's CEO doesn't make all that much.
bumby 4y ago
Not scientific and maybe inaccurate, but a quick Google search showed the average Intel employee makes $100k. The shift in social norms where 100x the average employee (of a tech firm, which skews towards high salaries) is considered “basically nothing” is something worth talking about.
- sumedh 4y ago
  > is considered “basically nothing” is something worth talking about. Except if the CEO screws up the company goes bankrupt and people lose their jobs. Look at Nokia and RIM.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Nokia and RIM got clocked by the iPhone. I don’t care who their CEO could have been, these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      > these companies were on the downward trend and headed for tough times. Exactly why you need a good CEO at the top to understand that the landscape has changed with a new competitor but Nokia and RIM failed to adapt.
      - bumby 4y ago
        What about CEOs like Jack Welch, who everyone lauded as a paragon of management? He was handsomely paid but his decisions crippled the company years later because of bad foresight? I think the main issue ITT is that it’s very hard to measure and distinguish a good CEO from a bad one, yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders.
        sumedh 4y ago
        > yet they are almost all paid as if they are great leaders. The board of directors are the ones who measure CEO performance and set compensation but most of the times they just rubber stamp whatever the CEO does.
        bumby 4y ago
        One of the criticisms is that the boards are incestuous. Another issue may be that stock options are much more common now. I know the argument is this should align the CEOs interest with the shareholders but the counterpoint is it incentivizes a short term outlook.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Intel employs 121k people. If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. If the CEO's salary is distributed to all employees, they would get a ~0.05% raise. If distributed to the shareholders, it would increase profits by ~0.01%. Yet this person's decisions can have much bigger consequences to both employees and shareholders.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    > If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. Except, that’s not a CEO’s job. Even remotely. At best they “manage” a few department heads who each manage a few middle managers who each manage a few direct managers who then manage the workforce. Even then, that’s a misrepresentation however. They are in charge of managing and directing overall company strategy in the interests of the board. The COO (and, sometimes, the CTO; in tech firms) is usually (indirectly) in charge of managing people. I think it’s a valid point that they bring large value to a corporation, but it would be very difficult to quantify that value to be anywhere near 100x any other non-Csuite employee.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      It's more difficult to justify to shareholders paying less, tbh. The risks of a bad CEO are enormous.
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. In fact, in just the last three years; the overall disparity has increased 31% despite corporations failing to properly manage the pandemic or their workforces. 1 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker-pay-gap-widens-and-employees-arent-happy-about-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker...
        4y ago