quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Reread that he has not been given any since 03

That doesn't mean he doesn't have options on more--his contract is confidential just as most are. He may have stock or cash options available--or he may not.

Not all CEO's are equal either. In the case of Jobs, or Buffett, they have been with their respective company for a long time. They see it as theirs. They are not just managers out there, shopping their business. They have a personal attachment to their company.

However, if you look at someone like Alan Mullally. He did a great job at guiding Boeing out of tough times and into some prosperity. When Ford was looking for a new CEO, an outsider who would be able to really help the company, they looked towards Mullally. They wanted a top, gifted executive. Mullally had no other vested interest in Ford, and in leaving Boeing could entertain offers from all over. Ford clearly needed to offer compensation sufficient to hire him and not lose him elsewhere. So they paid.

http://www.forbes.com/lists...-R-Mulally_N5DJ.html

The link shows his total compensation for '08 was $12 million, $2M in salary, $7M in bonuses, and the rest spread around other sources. The average for a CEO of a durable goods company is about $7M. He certainly isn't the top paid CEO, but it also shows where a forced "salary cap" as GM could face might have caused Ford to miss out on his services, and he has been a difference maker.

Point being, in a free market, the market will set the value of CEO's. Just as it does most other professions (not affected by a minimum wage).

For the record, I did read the article you posted. I didn't mention his Disney holdings as that would have been redundant.
How many Millions does one need to own before his salary is meaningless? A CEO's salary is whatever he is able to negotiate, including whatever golden parachute and perks he can arrange to go along with it. If you don't like it, that is too bad. You can b itch about it all you want, but that won't change anything, so why are you wasting your time arguing about it?
Why are you so infurriated that others can do so much better monetarily than you? Why do you feel they don't deserve what they earned? I know we all wouldn't mind making the kind of money they make, but we all don't have their smarts, luck, or the connections that put them where they are today. No amount of wishing is going to put us where they are and you can't legislate all their money away from them either. That wouldn't be fair or ethical, it would be theft.
CEO salaries are what they are and we can't do anything about them. That is up to the companies and stock holders that employ them. They are the ones who have to work with them. We just decide to buy their products or not.
I take it that you don't have any Apple or Disney products, since you seem to hate this man and anything he stand for so much. If you do, then you are a hypocrite.

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: Not all CEO's are equal either. In the case of Jobs, or Buffett, they have been with their respective company for a long time. They see it as theirs. They are not just managers out there, shopping their business. They have a personal attachment to their company. However, if you look at someone like Alan Mullally. He did a great job at guiding Boeing out of tough times and into some prosperity. When Ford was looking for a new CEO, an outsider who would be able to really help the company, they looked towards Mullally. They wanted a top, gifted executive. Mullally had no other vested interest in Ford, and in leaving Boeing could entertain offers from all over. Ford clearly needed to offer compensation sufficient to hire him and not lose him elsewhere. So they paid. http://www.forbes.com/lists...-R-Mulally_N5DJ.html The link shows his total compensation for '08 was $12 million, $2M in salary, $7M in bonuses, and the rest spread around other sources. The average for a CEO of a durable goods company is about $7M. He certainly isn't the top paid CEO, but it also shows where a forced "salary cap" as GM could face might have caused Ford to miss out on his services, and he has been a difference maker. Point being, in a free market, the market will set the value of CEO's. Just as it does most other professions (not affected by a minimum wage).

Exactly what I hope everyone will realize when GM finally decides on a new CEO. My thought is that they'll probably hire an unknown. Unfortunately, it'll be someone that probably has no real business experience. I have a feeling that this is the direction they go simply because it would absolve them from having to pay an expensive CEO salary. They may even try to make a point out of it to other companies by suggesting that other companies should do the same.

I think this would be more an appeasement to the voters though, rather than for themselves. Even the Democrats know that the vast majority of their tax income comes from these guys huge salaries.

Anyway, I don't expect GM to hire anyone at more than a million... tops. It might even be more like $500,000. There's just no way the government could justify that kind of expense for a salary.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

And, of course, the primary reason people like Jobs and Buffett insist on these $1/yr salaries with big stock options, is because they already have plenty of cash. Stock options are not taxable--cash is. The stock can increase in value 1000% and it's still an unrealized gain as long as they don't sell it.
Jobs wrote his own contract and insisted on the $1 salary for exactly that reason--tax, and of course public perception. Most of the public can see thru that after looking at his whole compensation package, but he did well. And has a lower tax bill to boot.

Buffett has said many times, he hates cash--even within BerkshireHathaway. As soon as the company starts building up a lot of excess capital, he looks for something to buy.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: You do know GM has asked the Federal pay czar for a waiver on the ceo salary cap?

I actually did not...

I don't know if I should be impressed, or additionally depressed???

What was their answer?

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... Anyway, I don't expect GM to hire anyone at more than a million... tops. It might even be more like $500,000. There's just no way the government could justify that kind of expense for a salary.

I could be available for half a mil/year.

And I've driven cars! GM, even!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I know we all wouldn't mind making the kind of money they make, but we all don't have their smarts, luck, or the connections that put them where they are today.

Nor do we work the hours or dedicate such a large part of our life. I have often told my wife "It'd be nice to have the money the people I work for have but I'm not willing to sacrafice my time with my family for it.". The one guy I do most of my work for who owns the house in Grand Cayman works insane hours. I show up at his house at 7:30 am, he's already at work. I leave around 6:00 pm and he isn't home yet. I'm not sure how often but I think it's every 2 weeks he pulls a 72 hour shift. I see him once or twice a week if I'm lucky just to go over his plans. After that it's all on me to do what I think he meant and hope I do it right.

quote CEO salaries are what they are and we can't do anything about them. That is up to the companies and stock holders that employ them. They are the ones who have to work with them. We just decide to buy their products or not. I take it that you don't have any Apple or Disney products, since you seem to hate this man and anything he stand for so much. If you do, then you are a hypocrite.

Actually I think he was saying he approves of this mans $1.00 salary. So if he approves, then how would it be hypocritical to own the products?

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 12-29-2009).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: He doesn't need to collect a salary. He owns 5.5 million Apple stocks and gets dividend payments from them. If you don't know how businesses work, it is best that you refrain from commenting on them. It just shows your ignorance.

Cant believe nobody brought this up yet, but I probably follow the market more than most guys on here. Apple Inc (AAPL Nasdaq) DOESNT PAY DIVIDENDS!!! Do research before making comments that are blatantly incorrect. It just shows your ignorance :P

quote Originally posted by fieroX: Cant believe nobody brought this up yet, but I probably follow the market more than most guys on here. Apple Inc (AAPL Nasdaq) DOESNT PAY DIVIDENDS!!! Do research before making comments that are blatantly incorrect. It just shows your ignorance :P

it used to--I had some Apple at one time--mid 90s I think. Sold it right before the split.
Thanks for the correction.

Wow didnt know aapl paid dividends way back then. Too bad you still dont have those shares eh?

"The last time Apple paid dividends was in month December of 1995. Apple has been paying dividends to its shareholders every quarter after 7 years it became a public company. Apple began paying dividends from June 15th of 1987 to its last dividend in 1995. Some investors usually like dividends because they would use to those dividends to buy more stock instead of cashing it out. For those investors, Apple dividend policy is surely a bad news; Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRP) is also not available to investors, when dividends are not paid out. Dividend Reinvestment Plan helps shareholders to convert their dividend earnings into stocks. There are numerous advantages of DRP, as there are fees attached to buying stock through the program, and shareholders also get stocks at significant discounts."

WTF is wrong with you people?

It is alright for any CEO to make any amount of money. Millions, billions are fine with you guys, as long as it is a CEO,CFO, or any other part of the alphabet.

But it is not alright for a union employee, any union employee to make anything more than, WHAT YOU think is fair.

Does anyone besides me see a problem here.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: WTF is wrong with you people? It is alright for any CEO to make any amount of money. Millions, billions are fine with you guys, as long as it is a CEO,CFO, or any other part of the alphabet. But it is not alright for a union employee, any union employee to make anything more than, WHAT YOU think is fair. Does anyone besides me see a problem here. Steve

The CEO's say....$50 million salary is a DROP in the bucket compared to the combined overpayment of the union employees. The CEO's salary IS NOT bankrupting the corporations. The combined overpaid wages to someone that installs an armrest in a car or runs a computer to bundle up a ream of paper does have a major impact to the profits of the corporation or the cost of a product. There's not thought process there, Steve. You can argue all day long and you'll lose that argument.

quote Originally posted by aceman: You can argue all day long and you'll lose that argument.

In a forum filled with union haters, yes
You know what?

I waste far to much time on here trying to voice my opinion to people who are just to biased on there ideas of what is the right pay for anyone.

Except the chosen few who are company owners or wannabes.

You can say all you want bad about unions.

But god forbid anyone say a CEO is over paid.

Screw you guys, I quit.

I quit this thread,
I quit this forum.

Steve
------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-30-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: It is alright for any CEO to make any amount of money. Millions, billions are fine with you guys, as long as it is a CEO,CFO, or any other part of the alphabet. But it is not alright for a union employee, any union employee to make anything more than, WHAT YOU think is fair. Does anyone besides me see a problem here.

I don't see a problem. I had been wondering what you think a union worker should make. I think that they both should be able to make as much as the market commands. If they do not get what they want, they can decline to work for what's offered. I work for what I think is fair and also for what ever I can get. I am my own union. Just as any CEO is. Concerted effort to force wages is extortion. As with any strong arm tactic, there is a line in the sand which can not be crossed.
A CEO can go anywhere and likely be hired. A union employee needs a union job. Unions are not producing jobs.

Steve,

Your problem in this argument is that you see the CEOs as the only people with greed as the issues. You are blind to the FACT that the unions have become collectively more greedy. You WILL NOT admit to the FACT that $70/hr wages and benefits and the unions still asking for MORE, MORE, MORE is a greed problem that has killed U.S. industry. A CEO asking for $50 million for a salary is greedy for a company that is losing money due to incompetence in management. We "union haters" will even agree on that.

Before you even have a chance of winning any points in your argument you MUST see both sides. At that time your clammering of overpaid CEO will diminish.

quote Originally posted by aceman: The CEO's say....$50 million salary is a DROP in the bucket compared to the combined overpayment of the union employees. The CEO's salary IS NOT bankrupting the corporations. The combined overpaid wages to someone that installs an armrest in a car or runs a computer to bundle up a ream of paper does have a major impact to the profits of the corporation or the cost of a product. There's not thought process there, Steve. You can argue all day long and you'll lose that argument.

No, I'd say it's both. Obviously everyone is overpaid. In turn the things the companies produce cost more to cover thier high operating expenses. Making it so that the price of there products is out of the affordable range for some people.

Curious, has the pay level risen as much as the cost of living level since like 1950?

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 12-30-2009).]

The problem as I see it, Steve, is this. 50,000 workers, rightly OR wrongly, earn X salary. A pay rise, WITHOUT an increase in turnover/profit means the Company is earning less profit, or even going into negative equity.. 50,000 times the pay increase. If that increase was, for example, $500 per annum, that would be a nett cost to the Company of $25 million. That would be as a result of a measly $10 a WEEK rise per employee. Now, you get rid of your CEO, who earns, for example, $5 million pa.Replace him with an equally efficient younger model, who would do the same job, to the same level of competence, for $1 million. Now, if you divided the balance of the two salaries, $4 million, between 50,000 workers, they would be less than $2 each a week, $80 A YEAR. Of virtually NO benefit at all to the workers. HOWEVER..there is enormous damage done to morale of workforces the WHOLE WORLD OVER, by the injustice of one person earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a day more than the average worker manages to earn in a year. THAT is what I have against this obscene system for dividing up and paying employees. Owner of the business? Open house. His right. Excess profits are HIS.
So the damage done by the system is, IMHO, simply a psychological one, NOT a fiscal one. Until people get $90 million AIRPLANES as a bonus. That money would be better used to upgrade and invest in more, and better equipment etc. To accept that kind of extravagance without batting an eyelid, to ME, is more depraved than and disgusting, than ..well...almost anything.
Nick

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: WTF is wrong with you people? It is alright for any CEO to make any amount of money. Millions, billions are fine with you guys, as long as it is a CEO,CFO, or any other part of the alphabet. But it is not alright for a union employee, any union employee to make anything more than, WHAT YOU think is fair. Does anyone besides me see a problem here. Steve

It's not the Union worker. They are the ones getting shafted by their own Union, as union contract employees are loosing jobs by the millions, yet Union bosses still get their million dollar salaries off the backs of working families. Unions have brought nothing but job losses to working communities. Sure, there are auto manufacturing plants being built, hiring employees and paying great wages, but they are not union, while every union plant looses employees. Do you get the picture?

What about Union bosses who make outlandish million dollar salaries and own golf courses? And they don't do $hit but exploitate members who are forced to pay up. The Union bosses literally force the food off the tables of working families in order for themselves live their drug lord type life style.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: It's not the Union worker. They are the ones getting shafted by their own Union, as union contract employees are loosing jobs by the***** millions****, yet Union bosses still get their ***million dollar salaries**** off the backs of working families. Unions have brought nothing but job losses to working communities. Sure, there are auto manufacturing plants being built, hiring employees and paying great wages, but they are not union, while every union plant looses employees. Do you get the picture? What about Union bosses who make ***outlandish million dollar salaries ***and ***own golf courses? ******And they don't do $hit but exploitate members who are forced to pay up. The Union bosses literally force the food off the tables of working families in order for themselves live their drug lord type life style.

Link to prove your ****** numbers? No, I didn't think so. Wichita, you talk some rubbish sometimes And just by simply changing a few nouns around, you can apply your thinking to CEO's and their ilk...but their way IS fair?? Your blindness to the reality of BOTH sides of the equation is frightening, my friend. Because you condone the trip going one way, and disparage it going the other...and what is exploitate when it is at home??
Oh, by the way...how is the Wichita Tower coming along??

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-30-2009).]

I see it like this Steve. My pay is from my product. Which is me. What I can produce. What I bring to the table. My sweat, my tools, my experience, my willingness, my dedication, ... I could go on. I am the very thing that I sell. I produce what they want to sell/have. I am a union of one.
My vocation, non union, pays a set salary for my position. I work next to dumb aszes, who make just as much as I do. That's a good thing. The company gets what it pays for. My success in life is by winning competitions. Working next to a dunb azz makes it easy. When slow downs happen or promotions are possible, that dumbazz has given me a leg up, :. A union would make me and that dumbazz a marketable commodity of the same value, ! I don't care if that dumbazz works in Japan for a Japanese company.
I can go to work wherever and whenever I want. A union dude can not. The unions have it, any union, that you can not find another market. They don't work for the free market. They want to be the market. I believe in freedom. We buy the cheapest thing we can buy. Big Money should be able to buy the cheapest labor that they can buy. The end result of each is the same. You get what you pay for. Satisfaction or remorse.
Unions of today can be just as such as PFF T/OT, this message board. Any benefit that I might need is found right here. The intellectual conversation that can be found here on any subject is amazing. If it ain't here, somebody here knows exactly where it is. Other than that, the only other viable function of a union could be extortion. Not that I don't do it but so does any CEO.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Buffett has said many times, he hates cash--even within BerkshireHathaway. As soon as the company starts building up a lot of excess capital, he looks for something to buy.

I like him.
I just do.

.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-30-2009).]

CEO pay and union worker pay are comparing apples to oranges. A CEO negotiates his own salary, based on the skills he brings to the table and how in demand those skills are. A union worker's salary is essentially pre-negotiated for him by the union through collective bargaining, and often times the figure has little to do with what the market would ordinarily pay for someone with similar skill and experience.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Interesting. Gonna have to think about that one.

No, you don't, Cliff. Warren Buffett is in a very different place from you and me when it comes to cash. He hates it laying around because he has it to spare.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: No, you don't, Cliff. Warren Buffett is in a very different place from you and me when it comes to cash. He hates it laying around because he has it to spare.

He don't have to buy anything. He can give it away.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: He don't hate cash. He is a liar.

I believe him.

While we're on the subject ... does anybody else think it's obscene for any university football or basketball coach to be making $2,000,000+ a year? At a state-supported school, no less? At many schools, the top coaches are paid far more than the president or chancellor.

Along the same lines, is any athlete, coach, entertainer, or other celebrity worth a $20,000,000+ a year salary? (For perspective, $20 million a year is about $9,600 per hour, or $2.67 per second, for a forty hour work week. Even if someone could work 24/7/365, that would still be about $0.63 per second.)

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-30-2009).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: He don't hate cash. He is a liar.

Because cash has a fixed value, he likes investments. He might dislike cash, but he doesn't dislike money, after all both are just tools, why dislike a tool.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: He don't hate cash. He is a liar.

Well now let's think about that a sec. Cash, does him no good just sitting around. Therefore he hates it. Now if he uses it, it buys him power. But he no longer has cash just laying around, so there is nothing for him to hate.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Link to prove your ****** numbers? No, I didn't think so. Wichita, you talk some rubbish sometimes And just by simply changing a few nouns around, you can apply your thinking to CEO's and their ilk...but their way IS fair?? Your blindness to the reality of BOTH sides of the equation is frightening, my friend. Because you condone the trip going one way, and disparage it going the other...and what is exploitate when it is at home??

Sigh!

http://detnews.com/article/...-share-workers--pain

http://mjperry.blogspot.com...hin-many-unions.html

http://i.b5z.net/i/u/135083...ntra_costa_times.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html

Here is a small list of them and there are other union bosses that make a lot more.
Straight salaries without perks, stocks and bonus calculated.

Jimmy Warren
Financial Treasurer
Steelworkers and AFL-CIO
Salary: $825,262

Gregory J. Hessinger
Chief Executive Officer
Screen Actors Guild
Salary: $803,399

Alan Eisenberg
Executive Director
Actors and Artists, AFL- CIO Branch
Salary: $720,743

Jay Roth
National Executive Director
Directors Guild of America
Salary: $686,673

Don Hunsucker
President and CEO
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1288
Salary: $679,949

John McLean
Executive Director
Writers Guild, West Headquarters
Salary: $650,402

Gerald McEntee
President
State, County & Municipal Workers
Salary: $629,291


http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...in_the_United_States <----- Here they have a lot of crediable links to sources of information to the known fact of massive union membership decline. Although you may not accept it.

Anything else I can provide for you my expat friend? The links above will show you the facts on what you requested, from Union bosses lavish executive jet flying lifestyle to unions owning gold-plated country club golf courses for the only pleasure of union bosses.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-30-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: While we're on the subject ... does anybody else think it's obscene for any university football or basketball coach to be making $2,000,000+ a year? At a state-supported school, no less? At many schools, the top coaches are paid far more than the president or chancellor. Along the same lines, is any athlete, coach, entertainer, or other celebrity worth a $20,000,000+ a year salary? (For perspective, $20 million a year is about $9,600 per hour, or $2.67 per second, for a forty hour work week. Even if someone could work 24/7/365, that would still be about $0.63 per second.)

I DO... but I don't...

With coaches, state run or otherwise... it's sort of a gamble. But 90% of the time it pays off, and that's the reason they do it.


For example, University of Florida. When they brought on Urban Meyer, they paid him (don't know what it is, but I assume it's a lot). They did this because they wanted their football team to win.

Now, what happens when the football team wins? Well, the school makes money. The schools make money from the NCAA college football organization. They make the money from cable and local broadcasting. The better the team does, the more likely they are to get a sponsor. The better they perform, the more money a sponsor will pay to be apart of the organization. That means even MORE money to the school. It's almost ALWAYS a win-win situation for the college because the football clubs (once they are established) become a huge cash cow for the school. This allows them to be able to buy excellent scholastic equipment for their schools various programs.

When the football teams do well, or they become "well known" the enrollment at those schools also goes up. This means that the schools have a larger variety of students with exceptional grades. University of Florida pretty much requires a 4.0 GPA to be accepted (although I think the requirements are a 3.5). These people are more likely to succeed and provide jobs, which in turn brings even more notoriety to their schools and in turn brings in MORE money, more sponsorship, more donations... etc...

It just keeps going and going...

As you can see, while it may seem "unfair", it's totaly worth it, so long as the coach does well. Understand of course that a coach has to have some sort of notoriety before they get paid that much. They're not going to pick a high school football coach and pay him 2 million to coach a team.


The same pretty much goes for the NFL. Teams are willing to pay exception cost for exceptional players because it will provide success to the teams that hire them. This in turn follows the same strategy as I mentioned with the college. Although privately owned, the better a team does, the more money an owner makes. The NFL has profit sharing of course, so all teams make the same "base" regardless... but the owners of the stadiums (sometimes owned by the cities) will get more games or better "highlight" games like Monday Night Football when the teams do well. This provides MORE work, more jobs, and more opportunity for the local area.

I've noticed that most NFL owners are also filanthropists in their own right (spelling?). Take for example, the former owner of the team in Miami... Wayne Huizenga. The guy makes a lot of money, but he almost single handedly built Fort Lauderdale. Something like a 1/3rd of the office buildings in Fort Lauderdale were in some way, shape, or form, built by him. He also donates TONS of money to schools, local colleges, you name it. For example, there's even a business school named after him down here.


I'm not suggesting anything... you guys can make your own assumptions, but I just figured I would answer those two examples you proposed...

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: CEO's and their ilk.

Here is the difference. You work for the CEO and the CEO, in return signs and gives you a paycheck. You don't work for any Union. They force you to pay them as a condition of being employed. Do you understand how phucking wrong that is?

I guarantee you that not a single union boss will give two $hits about you and your plight, but you will find plenty of CEO's who care about their employees and takes care of them.

This thread begs the question: Would YOU turn down a super-high-dollar job based on skills you had spent your life aquiring?
Who here wouldn't take all the money they could get, for what they do?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-30-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: This thread begs the question: Would YOU turn down a super-high-dollar job based on skills you had spent your life aquiring? Who here wouldn't take all the money they could get, for what they do?

I'm willing to take whatever someone is willing to offer me for "honest" work. That means any job where I'm doing the hardest I can, in the best interest of my country and the company that I work for.

I come from a family that, because of my father's exceptional monetary skills (he is Dutch), I never had "want". I didn't ever get the latest and greatest things, and my dad always made me work for whatever it is I "HAD" to have... and I always learned later that I never really needed it by the time I aquired the amount I needed. But my dad always was there to ensure I had the best opportunities growing up, and the best education possible.

I like "stuff", but not enough that I really want to complicate my life. I've been there. I'm not wealthy, but I know that "stuff" can just bring you down. I only ever want enough money to live a nice, happy life, where I can MAKE SURE my children, and their grandchildren will have everything they need to be able to build their OWN lives, and progress towards accomplishing their OWN goals.

I would never want to be in the situation where I had three or four huge mansions around the world. This would be far too stressful for me... and unnecessary. You want to know why famous actors go crazy? It's probably because the money consumes them.

I would not allow myself to be taken advantage of, but if someone wants to pay me $30,000,000 to develop software, I'll take it.

I can guarantee to you that I'll have a nice house, a couple of Fieros and a bunch of other awesome 80s cars like a DeLorean, a Fiat Bertone X-1/9, a Porsche 944 Turbo, a Porsche 928... etc...

But at $30,000,000... I could easily afford to spend a million here, a million there on charity. It's so easy to sponsor a child through places like World Vision or Christian Children's Fund. You guys have no idea how just $30 bucks a month can create a "life" for someone in an impoverished country.

I will take whatever they're willing to give me for HONEST work (not to be used in the same context that union leaders define as honest)... and the more I make, the more I'd like to give to chairty.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: While we're on the subject ... does anybody else think it's obscene for any university football or basketball coach to be making $2,000,000+ a year? At a state-supported school, no less? At many schools, the top coaches are paid far more than the president or chancellor. Along the same lines, is any athlete, coach, entertainer, or other celebrity worth a $20,000,000+ a year salary? (For perspective, $20 million a year is about $9,600 per hour, or $2.67 per second, for a forty hour work week. Even if someone could work 24/7/365, that would still be about $0.63 per second.)

It's not obscene. If the coach is making 2 million a year, it's because someone decided to pay him that much.

Supply and demand.

That's his market value.