Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (322611)	1/24/2007 2:40:25 AM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 1575214

For every CEO that makes those moneys there are 100 that are good CEOs. Trust this. Most CEOs are good employers. Does that make sense? We can be good and be profitable with morals. That also makes profits. No one has to be a bad employer. You can be a great employer. You can give wings to good people. Does that make sense?

To: tejek who wrote (322611)	1/24/2007 10:34:02 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575214

If offering a lot to a CEO increases the profitability of a very large company by a noticeable amount it wouldn't be unreasonable to pay the CEO 1000 times what the average worker makes. The problem for CEOs using that argument to defend their high pay is that many highly paid CEOs really aren't all that good. The pay of CEOs (and other top executives) may be inflated because its determined by boards that are made up (to a large extent) of executives, both executives from the company in question, and executives in other companies who are reluctant to push down the going price for executive compensation. To the extent that is true it can be considered a case of the principal-agent problem. Its the shareholder's company, but the shareholders don't often make decisions except to buy or sell.