chapset said:
WiiBox3 said:
chapset said:
the problem is ceos getting millions in bonuses while the company is doing either the same or worst then when they were in charge, other then that if a ceo actually improve a company competitiveness and productivity pay them what you want |
Not sure I agree. If a company was already in a downward slump and the new CEO keeps it from dropping even faster that may actually be doing a good job. Let's say the new CEO of a news paper company makes it so they only loose 10 customers a year instead of 15 cutomers a year that is pretty good for a dieing business. Doing the same can be considered good as well.
"Improving" a company also could be bad in our eyes. For an investor in a company "Improving" the company is making the companies value more. For example how some of the big box stores "improved" was by cuting variety and reducing staff size. This makes it hard for a customer to find someone to help them. I remember when Walmart use to have employees everywhere and now it's almost impossible to find someone to help you there. Also when I go to a Safeway the amount of different Ceriels/Candy Bars/Jams have been ruduced to the most popular ones, less than half of the variety there use to be. This is improving for the share owners, but not for the cutomers or employees.
|
I meant if the company was stable already,
also I don't have the stat but the majority of the time a new ceo is put in place to restructure a company heads will fall that's just business so a lot of improving comes from money saved from employe salaries that were cut off. firering people might be bad overall for the economy and the population but it might save the business from going under so yeah in that case they kinda deserve the money, if they can do it without downsizing the work force they deserve even more money IMO
|
Unfortunately new CEOs often downsize for short term (5-10year) profit at the cost of the long term success of the company. Otherwise I would agree with you.
