Oracle's Larry Ellison is the highest paid tech exec, claiming a $192 million dollar salary in 2008. While this seems ludicrous, Oracle owned a $5.83 billion dollar revenue in the 4th quarter in 2007. So Ellison's salary might be justifiable based on his company's performance. Many feel that the market sets the rate at which top execs are paid, and interfering with the market is futile, if not stupid. Considering the rate of turnover at senior level positions, top execs specifically, the pay rate just might be justifiable. Immediate performance is expected from top execs, and there is a lot of pressure to bring instant, tangible success. But $200 mill a year? Come on...
I think it depends on the situation. Surely someone like Mr. Ellison or a Steve Ballmer deserves the pay. So do founders like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Ingvar Kamprad. But if you are talking about people like Exxon's Lee Raymond, or Merrill Lynch's E Stanley O'Neal (who bagged a mere $46mil in "retirement"), then I think you could make the argument AGAINST these ridiculous sounding compensation packages. But ultimately, it should be done on a case by case scenario.
I think from the majority culture perspective, it depends on the company to some extent, but I question whether any one person is worth that kind of PteDhoWakan (Holy Green Buffalo), since in reality, they don't do much "all by their lonesomes".
THE by-word in corporate America has been "team" since before Homer was a pup. And there is no "I" in "team", "us", "we", "group", or "together". To name some.
My perspective is not mainstream, since I'm a Traditional Indn, but I would be just plain embarrassed to take that kind of PteDhoWakan home when there are so many of the People starving, needing medical care, and otherwise suffering, and species are facing extinction at a frightening rate. The People would call me a "wah-SHEE-choo" - an opportunist and a greedy person - and they'd be right. I couldn't do it unless I had a plan in place to take the excess (which is the vast majority of it) and use it to aid my People & do what I can to help our Holy Mother the Earth. That's the ITI / Indn Way of viewing this.
i) In the capitalist system, people who found and own businesses should be entitled to anything they create.
ii) As for execs then no exec should earn as total remuneration more than 500 times the lowest paid worker in the same organisation.
It is not required for motivation (of the exec or his underlings), for survival or for anything else. And it is not 'fair' pay, because no one in the organisation (except the founder) contributes more than 500 times the worker.
iii)Silly pay is being driven by 'star' apeal. Since the (profit) numbers involved are so high, and media exposure can make a few high profile execs into stars, then these (rare) media stars get bid up even beyond hollywood/baseball levels. Because in general it is peanuts to the companies involved (particuarly when it can be hidden in stock options)
iv) As for Larry O he is the founder and significant owner of Oracle. His 'salary' is really some form of dividends.
I have to agree with Carel and say that I could not take that kind of compensation with a clear conscience when so many people in this world are starving. It sickens me to see all the so called stars wether in sports, entertainment, or the corporate world making that kind of money. I don't care how good they are, they are not worth that kind of salary. I also realize though that their salaries are driven by, and will continue to be driven by, the amount of demand for those top individuals. Maybe that is why I am paid in peanuts. ;-)
The real problem is that someone making that kind of money has to live with his own conscience.. what a burden! No one can spend that kind of money with a clear conscience unless it is expected that more than 25% is tithed to correct social injustice. Why burden a leader with so much money he must spend time finding ways to spend it on leisure! Seems like it would be more of a challenge than his real job!
Such salaries are out of balance. Let him go live in the ghetto for a while and come down from the ivory tower. But let me say, I am not against a salary of one million dollars for a CEO. But who needs more than that? Ridiculous.
You can't look at the amount of the salary as an abstract number and say it's ridiculous or out of line. The owner of a company should be able to set salaries as they see fit for ALL of his employees. The owner(s) is the one who usually took the risks that made the company what it is. The problem, however, in corporate America, especially with large public companies, is that the corporate Boards (who typically have no "skin in the game", who usually get money/perks for their Board participation (determined by the same CEO/Chairman who's salary they set) and who are usually hand-picked cronies of the CEO or Chairman, set CEO salaries. The owners (the shareholders) of these corporations should determine the CEO's salary by vote. Some will say that will be impractical but CEO salaries would drop precipitously if this were the law!
My take is....it depends. Was the individual responsible for growth in the company? Does the individual represent a strong presence publicly for the company? Maybe an original investor? Many times the popular response during difficult times would be "nobody is worth 200 million." But I think the circumstances should be weighed prior to coming forth with a conclusion.
That level of compensation is ludicrous....no human needs that much money...how many employees were penalized to give up that much money...how many customers over paid to fund this...once you pay a person more than they can spend in a life time insure their family is the same...what's the other money for...greed...power...ego???? Rick Wemmers
Is it any more acceptable than a baseball player getting $20 mil a season? At least the CEO is running a company that employs a lot of people, provides a product or service that people want, and is darn good at doing it, one would hope. The baseball player, well, plays baseball. The other consideration is that neither the baseball player or the CEO pays themselves these huge salaries. They are given this money because someone with control of the purse strings--whether a board of directors or George Steinbrenner--thinks they are worth it.
12 Total
June 5, 2008 at 12:01pm by Rip Empson
Oracle's Larry Ellison is the highest paid tech exec, claiming a $192 million dollar salary in 2008. While this seems ludicrous, Oracle owned a $5.83 billion dollar revenue in the 4th quarter in 2007. So Ellison's salary might be justifiable based on his company's performance. Many feel that the market sets the rate at which top execs are paid, and interfering with the market is futile, if not stupid. Considering the rate of turnover at senior level positions, top execs specifically, the pay rate just might be justifiable. Immediate performance is expected from top execs, and there is a lot of pressure to bring instant, tangible success. But $200 mill a year? Come on...
June 5, 2008 at 5:37pm by Oscar Nestell
I think it depends on the situation. Surely someone like Mr. Ellison or a Steve Ballmer deserves the pay. So do founders like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Ingvar Kamprad. But if you are talking about people like Exxon's Lee Raymond, or Merrill Lynch's E Stanley O'Neal (who bagged a mere $46mil in "retirement"), then I think you could make the argument AGAINST these ridiculous sounding compensation packages. But ultimately, it should be done on a case by case scenario.
June 6, 2008 at 6:30pm by Jay Tatum
It's good wages when you can get it. Sign me up.
June 6, 2008 at 6:33pm by Carel Two-Eagle
I think from the majority culture perspective, it depends on the company to some extent, but I question whether any one person is worth that kind of PteDhoWakan (Holy Green Buffalo), since in reality, they don't do much "all by their lonesomes".
THE by-word in corporate America has been "team" since before Homer was a pup. And there is no "I" in "team", "us", "we", "group", or "together". To name some.
My perspective is not mainstream, since I'm a Traditional Indn, but I would be just plain embarrassed to take that kind of PteDhoWakan home when there are so many of the People starving, needing medical care, and otherwise suffering, and species are facing extinction at a frightening rate. The People would call me a "wah-SHEE-choo" - an opportunist and a greedy person - and they'd be right. I couldn't do it unless I had a plan in place to take the excess (which is the vast majority of it) and use it to aid my People & do what I can to help our Holy Mother the Earth. That's the ITI / Indn Way of viewing this.
June 6, 2008 at 8:43pm by Afam Edozie
i) In the capitalist system, people who found and own businesses should be entitled to anything they create.
ii) As for execs then no exec should earn as total remuneration more than 500 times the lowest paid worker in the same organisation.
It is not required for motivation (of the exec or his underlings), for survival or for anything else. And it is not 'fair' pay, because no one in the organisation (except the founder) contributes more than 500 times the worker.
iii)Silly pay is being driven by 'star' apeal. Since the (profit) numbers involved are so high, and media exposure can make a few high profile execs into stars, then these (rare) media stars get bid up even beyond hollywood/baseball levels. Because in general it is peanuts to the companies involved (particuarly when it can be hidden in stock options)
iv) As for Larry O he is the founder and significant owner of Oracle. His 'salary' is really some form of dividends.
June 7, 2008 at 6:51pm by Glen Mead
I have to agree with Carel and say that I could not take that kind of compensation with a clear conscience when so many people in this world are starving. It sickens me to see all the so called stars wether in sports, entertainment, or the corporate world making that kind of money. I don't care how good they are, they are not worth that kind of salary. I also realize though that their salaries are driven by, and will continue to be driven by, the amount of demand for those top individuals. Maybe that is why I am paid in peanuts. ;-)
Glen
June 7, 2008 at 8:02pm by RoseMarie Norton-Nader
The real problem is that someone making that kind of money has to live with his own conscience.. what a burden! No one can spend that kind of money with a clear conscience unless it is expected that more than 25% is tithed to correct social injustice. Why burden a leader with so much money he must spend time finding ways to spend it on leisure! Seems like it would be more of a challenge than his real job!
Such salaries are out of balance. Let him go live in the ghetto for a while and come down from the ivory tower. But let me say, I am not against a salary of one million dollars for a CEO. But who needs more than that? Ridiculous.
June 9, 2008 at 1:50pm by Walter Ainsworth
You can't look at the amount of the salary as an abstract number and say it's ridiculous or out of line. The owner of a company should be able to set salaries as they see fit for ALL of his employees. The owner(s) is the one who usually took the risks that made the company what it is. The problem, however, in corporate America, especially with large public companies, is that the corporate Boards (who typically have no "skin in the game", who usually get money/perks for their Board participation (determined by the same CEO/Chairman who's salary they set) and who are usually hand-picked cronies of the CEO or Chairman, set CEO salaries. The owners (the shareholders) of these corporations should determine the CEO's salary by vote. Some will say that will be impractical but CEO salaries would drop precipitously if this were the law!
June 9, 2008 at 2:59pm by Mark Salinas
My take is....it depends. Was the individual responsible for growth in the company? Does the individual represent a strong presence publicly for the company? Maybe an original investor? Many times the popular response during difficult times would be "nobody is worth 200 million." But I think the circumstances should be weighed prior to coming forth with a conclusion.
Mark Salinas, Viscom, MN
June 12, 2008 at 10:17am by Chris Welter
If they are that confident in themselves, link their salary to profit and stock performance.
June 20, 2008 at 7:55pm by rick wemmers
That level of compensation is ludicrous....no human needs that much money...how many employees were penalized to give up that much money...how many customers over paid to fund this...once you pay a person more than they can spend in a life time insure their family is the same...what's the other money for...greed...power...ego???? Rick Wemmers
July 25, 2008 at 8:23pm by Rich Pasenow
Is it any more acceptable than a baseball player getting $20 mil a season? At least the CEO is running a company that employs a lot of people, provides a product or service that people want, and is darn good at doing it, one would hope. The baseball player, well, plays baseball. The other consideration is that neither the baseball player or the CEO pays themselves these huge salaries. They are given this money because someone with control of the purse strings--whether a board of directors or George Steinbrenner--thinks they are worth it.