One day, mambagrl will be unveiled as the best troll of all time.

Until then, she has no fucking clue what she is talking about.

If it helps simplify things for you, your compensation is directly proportional to the amount of responsibility you have.

9/20/2010 7:52:37 PM

I know who works harder then

the network admin

and still harder, an emergency-room physician
then again most CEOs don't make as much as doctors, only the megacorporate ones do

9/20/2010 7:52:43 PM

Quote :

"The CEO is essentially like a king"

Except of course kings don't have to answer to shareholders who can fire the king

9/20/2010 7:53:44 PM

not to mention that there is no opportunity cost in become a shit shoveler (you didn't have to pay money for school, forgo years of earning opportunity for education and training, etc)

and you have no leverage, because you can't really do any else, and pretty much anyone can do what you do

a CEO is difficult to replace, and has many opportunities elsewhere. That alone means that he gets a higher salary (not to mention the fact that he shoulders a ton of responsibility, is always on call, etc).

9/20/2010 7:54:23 PM

9/20/2010 7:57:44 PM

the CEO is more like the Supreme Leader

the Board is like the Assembly of Experts, except that
the Board can be recalled by the shareholders
while the Assembly is appointed by other religious leaders

their Chairmen are similar, except that
the Chairman of the Board is chosen by all shareholders
while the Chairman of the Assembly is chosen by his fellow Experts

finally the Presidents are similar, except that
we pay more attention to the CEO than the President of a corporation
while we improperly pay more attention to the President of Iran than to the Supreme Leader

9/20/2010 7:59:53 PM

Quote :

"not to mention that there is no opportunity cost in become a shit shoveler (you didn't have to pay money for school, forgo years of earning opportunity for education and training, etc) and you have no leverage, because you can't really do any else, and pretty much anyone can do what you do a CEO is difficult to replace, and has many opportunities elsewhere. That alone means that he gets a higher salary (not to mention the fact that he shoulders a ton of responsibility, is always on call, etc)."

Begone with your meaningless logic! Everyone knows that the noble shit shoveler is more important and hard working than a useless CEO.

9/20/2010 8:02:07 PM

the shit-shovellers are collectively more important

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM. Reason : individually prolly not

9/20/2010 8:05:02 PM

mambaman is like the Supreme Troll

TWW is like his canvas, except that
TWW can be recalled by the moderators
While the canvas is dictated by the materials

TWW's users are similar, except that
the section moderators is chosen by the owner
While the canvas is chosen by his user preference

Finally the idiots are similar, except that
we pay more attention to mambaman than the idiots of a forum
while we improperly pay more attention to the idiots of 4chan than to the Supreme Troll

9/20/2010 8:12:24 PM

I realize this thread is about people upset about CEOs...which I am not. Hear me out, maybe I can offer some insight.

I am in outside sales, which is currently salary+commission, but will move into straight commission starting at the beginning of January 2011. I have been in this position since June 2010. I have competition from several direct manufacturing sales reps, large distributors, and local distributors. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each:

Direct Advantages: Immediate knowledge of new technology, no middle man mark up, one shipping bill (paid by manufacturer or buyer of goods), access to larger range of non-commodity items, control inventory, have access to many distributors that can effectively sell their goods which increases market share, and set prices of commodity they manufacture.

Direct disadvantages: Typically have 1-3 sales reps per region (i.e. southeast, mid-atlantic, northeast, etc.) limiting the number of accounts they can successfully manage/cold-call, lack physical customer service or physical technical service available to or affordable for smaller users or altogether, are sometimes not trustworthy because they will go in behind their distributors that sell their commodity to one account in large quantities (i.e. they missed a big account, and have found out about it through a distributor selling their particular product) which leads to the distributor not selling their product anymore, have too many distributors selling the product ultimately driving the set price down through deviations, possibly rely on distributors to actually sell the product, and competition from other direct sources.

Large distributor advantages: have access to other commodities that go hand in hand with other manufacturers (poor example- grocery stores sell milk as well as cereal), get direct pricing, many locations regionally or nationally easing the shipping burden of buyers with multiple locations, personal service either customer or technical, many sales reps that are able to cover a broader territory, access to multiple manufacturers of the same commodity allowing to keep prices in check, service programs that smaller companies can't offer and direct providers can't match in price or value, and experts of many many commodities as opposed to one or a few.

Large distributor disadvantages: smaller local distributors creating price wars (think Michael Scott Paper Co vs Dunder-Mifflin), direct mfg's going in behind and stealing business, limited access to all of the mfg's (you won't find Harris Teeter name brands in Food Lion and visa versa), can't truly set prices because it's based on both supply and demand, territory management, and tough growth prospects in slower economies (this is true for direct as well really)

Local distributor advantages: Typically a good ol' boy setting where the seller and the buyer know each other for years (this does happen at all levels, but mostly at the local level), local folks are right down the street and can be used in emergencies, if the local guy buys at high enough volumes then there is no shipping charge to the end user, and access to both direct mfg's and large distributors.

Local distributor disadvantages: easily beaten in price, array of commodities, array of technology, lack of trained staff, low cash flow, etc etc etc.

This is what I have noticed in my three months, I am sure there are plenty more that need mentioning. The way I am setting myself apart as a sales person is this: I go after the big accounts right now while I am new. The big accounts, if I land them, will take care of me while I am new and building a customer base. The money made off of those allows me to focus free time on smaller accounts that get me higher margins. I build up big accounts, I would like to have 5-10 of these, then get 20-30 medium accounts. If I lose 1 or 2 big accounts, the 20-30 medium accounts keep me afloat while I go after new big accounts. I don't really waste time on small accounts simply because they basically pay for breakfast or something really small.

I will say this, if you can't get a big account in the first 6-8 months (assuming you have cash flow that you can ride this long) you could be in a world of trouble. If you can get one, it will really make going after the others a lot more enjoyable and less stressful. It's simply just very exhausting wasting any time on anything other than big accounts in the very beginning. You work just as hard on the medium sized accounts and see 1/3 to 1/36 of the money in my situation.

If you have any other questions, you can PM me. I hope this helps in the slightest!

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM. Reason : lolz

9/20/2010 8:20:39 PM

took longer than i expected

9/20/2010 8:27:54 PM

9/20/2010 8:29:05 PM

Quote :

"Thats where you're wrong. I had beliefs about CEO's for the longest time but had nothing to back it up. This show was my first insight onto the incompetence of actual CEO's and now I can voice my theory."

How many serious CEOs decide to shirk their responsibilites for several days just so they can be on TV? I'd wager not many. You're basing your thoughts on a show that's based on attracting the bottom of the barrel.

9/20/2010 9:17:36 PM

^

9/20/2010 9:19:22 PM

mambagrl may be a little extreme, but the people in this thread who are pretending that even most CEOs are generous, benevolent people who just happen to be thrust into grueling demanding jobs that they have little respite from is ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that "poor" people and "rich" people are generally assholes who want more than they deserve. The difference is that "rich" people are better able to manipulate things to often indulge their greed.

Do you really think most of the people running Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron or Haliburton, or really any billion $$$ business are virtuous in any way? They only care about making as much money as possible, with little regard for anyone else (like the fact that the rest of us depend on their long-term stability). Obviously there is nothing wrong with this, this is what freedom is, but it has its costs. It's the tradeoff we make.

But this just means that the rest of us need to be vigilant in monitoring the greed of this de facto oligarchy, so that a minority of the population doesn't gain too much power to manipulate the majority. There is nothing in the world that can operate for long without maintenance, and democracy is something that must be maintained.

Two relevant quotes, if you are a quotes kind of person, are that "power corrupts" and "with great power comes great responsibility." Most people are irresponsible.

9/20/2010 10:18:41 PM

how many CEOs are there in this nation?

9/20/2010 10:28:08 PM

^^ mambagrl isn't "a little extreme" so much as completely batshit insane and utterly retarded.

Quote :

" but the people in this thread who are pretending that even most CEOs are generous, benevolent people who just happen to be thrust into grueling demanding jobs"

Who claimed anything like that?

9/20/2010 10:34:32 PM

9/20/2010 10:36:59 PM

^^ people... in this thread...

9/20/2010 10:49:20 PM

9/20/2010 10:49:50 PM

Quote :

"Do you really think most of the people running Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron or Haliburton, or really any billion $$$ business are virtuous in any way?"

Well, those were all chosen objectively and at random.

9/20/2010 11:37:27 PM

Quote :

"people... in this thread..."

no, I'm pretty sure you pulled that out of mambatrl's cunt.

9/21/2010 12:15:23 AM

9/21/2010 1:00:31 AM

I believe that emanating from the heart of Mozilla CEO John Lilly is a golden beam of sunshine delivering joy to the entire Bay Area.

9/21/2010 2:35:45 AM

I'm not saying a CEO is useless, but I am saying they are not much more useful than everyone else. Everyone has a job to do but life could go on without the CEO.

Quote :

" If it helps simplify things for you, your compensation is directly proportional to the amount of responsibility you have."

This is super false unless you mean within a company. See police, firemen and paramedics.

If you mean within a company then what is the point of giving one person all that responsibility when all he does is hire other people to do his job.

I do agree that the CEO is very important to shareholders but shareholders aren't shit either so I could give a damn about the interests of greedy share holders. Every argument in this thread seems to be coming with the assumption that I am of the same religious affiliation as you: capitalism. You can't tell an atheist that something has a sacred spiritual value just like you can't explain the value of a CEO to me in terms of capitalism.

It would be much more efficient to have checks and balances within a company and then no one person would have all the responsibility.

President- in charge of the board
Board members- in charge of one sector's managers
managers- in charge of one group of supervisors
supervisors- in charge of one group of workers
workers- in charge of one group of tasks

In that system everyone has the same amount responsibility. The president doesn't do more than the supervisor, he just does his supervision over a higher level of employees. There is a sector for every type of thing you guys think the CEO would have to do (PR, HR, Marketing, Growth, etc. Each sector has managers supervisors and workers.)

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : of course people higher up make more but they don't make orders of magnitude more than the workers]

9/21/2010 12:02:45 PM

your persona is a moron.

9/21/2010 12:21:16 PM

If I am elected in charge of running a multi billion dollar corporation, with billions of shares, a shit ton of shareholders and thousands of employees, you are goddamn right I expect to be paid a fuckload more than the account or PR person.

And if I own and built a company from the ground up, you'd be out of your mind to think I am paying everyone what I make.

Go back to Soviet Russia, mambagrl.

9/21/2010 12:21:57 PM

The owner makes the profit of course. Or the shareholders. Thats a different story. They aren't being paid for their work. They're being paid for having money.

We're not talking about that though. We're talking about paying a salary to an individual to "run" the company. No one person "runs" a corporation. It should be setup like I said in the last post so that the CEO doesn't make orders of magnitude more than everyone esle.

Quote :

"If I am elected in charge of running a multi billion dollar corporation, "

No. You're only in charge of running the board. you don't have to micromanage ANYTHING

9/21/2010 12:28:22 PM

Just remember, when you get to the Wizard, you're asking for a brain

9/21/2010 12:48:48 PM

Quote :

"It should be setup like I said in the last post so that the CEO doesn't make orders of magnitude more than everyone else."

You are completely missing the point of the CEO. He is paid that enormous salary BECAUSE he has been through the schooling and training to make such orders of magnitude (or whatever you meant by that).




Also, you are destined to fail. In life. At everything you do.

9/21/2010 1:08:56 PM

the President is NOT the same as the Chairman of the Board

besides it is the Board that establishes the level of executive compensation

so if your big complaint regards how much the CEO makes (in companies which you own NO interest) I'd advise you to buy a controlling share of a publicly traded company, dissolve the board and set the CEO's pay at a rate you find appropriate

I'm sure the business world will take your well thought suggestions under advisement

9/21/2010 1:09:09 PM

I feel the CEO of the company I work for is an extremely intelligent and hardworking dude. He travels a lot and works mainly in different offices talking strategy and making connections with partners. It's not "work" as in 12 hours of lifting boxes or digging ditches. But it's defo something that takes the right kind of person.

9/21/2010 1:09:38 PM

people that can't identify a CEO's duties as work are destined to punch a clock

9/21/2010 1:10:44 PM

You couldn't pay me enough to be a CEO of a large corporation.

There is really no amount of money that would be worth it to me to be on the clock 24/7/365.

unless I could have the option of doing it for like one year and peacing out with my golden parachute.

9/21/2010 1:21:39 PM

Yeah, I'm trying to fuck bitches in my infinity pool. Then go chill on my mountain of stuff I have stored away in public storage.

9/21/2010 1:24:34 PM

Quote :

"Just remember, when you get to the Wizard, you're asking for a brain"

A person without a brain would only be able to believe what status quo told her.

Quote :

"You are completely missing the point of the CEO. He is paid that enormous salary BECAUSE he has been through the schooling and training to make such orders of magnitude (or whatever you meant by that). "

And I have acknowledged the fact that people higher up should make more than people lower down in the hierarchy that I listed. Did you not read my whole post or do you just not understand what an order of magnitude is?

Quote :

"Also, you are destined to fail. In life. At everything you do."

already false

Quote :

" I'd advise you to buy a controlling share of a publicly traded company, dissolve the board and set the CEO's pay at a rate you find appropriate"

I'm not going to participate in exploitative capitalist activities just to have a chance to chane a company from within. Besides, I've already pointed out that its in the best interest of the shareholders to have a CEO and do things the way they are done.

9/21/2010 1:33:35 PM

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM. Reason : no pics bombs -qfred]

9/21/2010 1:38:48 PM

trolling too dumb now

backing slowly out of this thread

9/21/2010 1:50:02 PM

Quote :

"your compensation is directly proportional to the amount of responsibility you have risk you control"

[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM. Reason : format]

9/21/2010 1:55:00 PM

9/21/2010 3:18:09 PM

Quote :

""your compensation is directly proportional to the amount of responsibility you have risk you control""

no ceo micromanages an entire corporation therefore no ceo controls magnitudes greater amounts of risk than normal employees.

9/21/2010 4:30:04 PM

Hopefully you're aware that corporations aren't self-sustaining entities and that they require direction and strategy that involves much greater risk and decision making than what any mid-level employee does.

9/21/2010 4:40:45 PM

Quote :

"no ceo micromanages an entire corporation therefore no ceo controls magnitudes greater amounts of risk than normal employees."

I can't even begin to describe how flawed your "reasoning" is here. I'm afraid that the English language may not contain words to describe just how wrong headed and stupid that statement really is. I'm just thunderstruck at your stupidity.

9/21/2010 4:44:58 PM

Quote :

"Hopefully you're aware that corporations aren't self-sustaining entities and that they require direction and strategy that involves much greater risk and decision making than what any mid-level employee does. "

If only you read my posts....

9/21/2010 4:48:18 PM

I try, but I get nosebleeds from your stupidity fairly early.

9/21/2010 4:52:02 PM

y'all postin in a blank blank

9/21/2010 5:00:53 PM

Quote :

"I can't even begin to describe how flawed your "reasoning" is here. I'm afraid that the English language may not contain words to describe just how wrong headed and stupid that statement really is. I'm just thunderstruck at your stupidity. "

I'm aware that is whats in their job description but its not possible and no CEO actually does it all by themselves. The end result is CEO's end up being compensated for work they don't actually do and rewarded bonuses for results they aren't exactly responsible for and vice versa. These things just happen under their watch. Its super inefficient to even have the position. Not from a shareholder standpoint but from a societal point of view.

9/23/2010 11:35:03 PM