Archived Ignorant people make far too big of a deal about a CEO's pay... and the state of things at Target.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
192
There are quite a few things that need to be addressed here in terms of the state of the company, the state of the economy in general, CEO pay, worker pay, Target's social political stance and ultimately their real political stance.

I just want to say... first and foremost, it is true that Cornell is likely a sociopath that doesn't care about the workers or long term health of the company. He has no vision, no strategy, no idea what made Target successful in the first place... I have no doubt whatsoever that is accurate. It was the same thing with Steinhaffel. No care in their hearts for the long term success. They don't know how to right the ship. So they just bleed it dry and slow over time.

However, to be fair to them... there are numerous things going on here to their detriment.

1) Consumer habits are changing... drastically. There is a massive shift to online sales and complete and total convenience for your typical American consumer. Amazon is the primary driver of this, because of their insanely quick and cheap delivery method via Amazon prime. There is also a plethora of information about a product at the consumer's fingertips without having to gamble as to whether or not it works. If Target wants to stay competitive long term, they're going to have to offer up something in stores that goes above and beyond what Amazon offers. They're going to have to figure out how to radically evolve for a significantly better experience. So far, they haven't done it. No brick and mortal retailer has. Once Amazon roles out drones with free delivery, you are going to see an extreme rapid closing of physical retail locations. Exponentially fast. On top of that, Amazon's number of hires year over year continues to go down despite exploding sales, because of their automation evolution. I digress...


2) As a result of rising social unrest across the country surrounding wages and unemployment due to automation, Target came out and said they would take their minimum wage to $15 an hour as a means of trying to get ahead of the curve and the political tide and try to win people over. Target pretends to be a socially conscious company that's about diversity and inclusion, but at the end of the day... they're a company. They're a capitalist company.... for profit. They don't care about the workers. They don't care about diversity. They don't care about inclusion and tolerance. They care about profit. They have shareholders to answer to. That's pretty simple.

With the wages going to $15 an hour, operating costs were always going to go way way up if things remained the same, and as such, they had to maintain their level of profitability if not increase it... so they found a way to reduce hours. This is why the stores are going to shit. You could make the minimum wage $200 an hour, and it's not going to matter if you don't give someone enough time to actually physically do something. Target would like to move to a world in which every single employee they have is worthy of an "O" review score. This is an ideal that is incapable of manifesting in reality. People that work hard enough to consistently deserve an O aren't going to stay with a company like Target long term no matter what, because it's retail. People that work that hard... they come and they go. Thus their current operating model is quite simply an impossibility without one outcome... insolvency.

3) As far as CEO pay goes... you guys said Cornell made $19 million last year and that he's just such a greedy fuck that should make way way less so that workers can make more. Well, let's look at the math. 360,000 people work for Target. If Cornell donated 100% of his salary back to the company and worked for free, guess how much that comes out to each employee?

$52 annually.

Yes, you read that correctly. $52. Hardly enough to make a difference in a worker's life in a 2 weeks pay period, much less stretched over a year. Pull your heads out of your asses. CEO jobs suck in the sense of you have a massive amount of responsibility. If you aren't a sociopath, your stress level is going to be through the roof. As such, you deserve to be compensated for it. Again, even if he worked for free, it wouldn't make a huge difference in his workers lives. So his salary is of little consequence to the company's health. It's essentially irrelevant. It's just a number for those of you that are ignorant to lash out about and pretend it matters to make you feel better. It doesn't.

However, Target made almost $3 billion in profit last year. If they took just 1/3 of that and reinvested it into the workers, that's an additional $2800 annually. That is not a huge amount, but it's still something. Far more consequential than Cornell's salary.


4) In any event, the problems within the company aren't completely self inflicted, but a lot of it is. As covered in point 1, consumer habits are rapidly changing. Target has to figure out a way to compete and bring something incredibly new to the market or they will eventually find themselves out of business. They have taken some strides in terms of online integration, but they are still way, way off... and their methods so far are extremely faulty. The path they have taken between point 1 and 2 is going to cause the company to fail even more rapidly if they stick to it because of the turnover rate. You can't stress your workers out to this degree, regardless of what you pay them. The stress levels are too high. There is no getting around it. The workers can't make $15 an hour at a minimum wage. The company isn't profitable enough for that operating model to continue. The product itself, which is the store brand and experience to the shopper, is suffering in a major way as a result. The base pay must be cut, so that the stores can be staffed. The road they have been on for a long, long time is going to lead to a degradation of the product, which results in consumers coming even less... basically it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, essentially. It is coming to pass.



5) I genuinely don't think Target has anyone on the leadership horizon that knows how to right the ship. The company is going to fail. It's going to take years. It's not going to be an overnight thing. Target has been in the process of failing for over a decade, as the store brand has continued to slip during that time frame. It's currently in a rapid decline, but it's still going to take years to go under, if not a decade or two.

So do yourself a favor and stop trying to fight against a tide that won't be denied. Do whatever it takes to develop some new skills and seek other employment. There is no long term future with this company, and it's not entirely its own doing.
 
Last edited:
There are quite a few things that need to be addressed here in terms of the state of the company, the state of the economy in general, CEO pay, worker pay, Target's social political stance and ultimately their real political stance.

I just want to say... first and foremost, it is true that Cornell is likely a sociopath that doesn't care about the workers or long term health of the company. He has no vision, no strategy, no idea what made Target successful in the first place... I have no doubt whatsoever that is accurate. It was the same thing with Steinhaffel. No care in their hearts for the long term success. They don't know how to right the ship. So they just bleed it dry and slow over time.

However, to be fair to them... there are numerous things going on here to their detriment.

1) Consumer habits are changing... drastically. There is a massive shift to online sales and complete and total convenience for your typical American consumer. Amazon is the primary driver of this, because of their insanely quick and cheap delivery method via Amazon prime. There is also a plethora of information about a product at the consumer's fingertips without having to gamble as to whether or not it works. If Target wants to stay competitive long term, they're going to have to offer up something in stores that goes above and beyond what Amazon offers. They're going to have to figure out how to radically evolve for a significantly better experience. So far, they haven't done it. No brick and mortal retailer has. Once Amazon roles out drones with free delivery, you are going to see an extreme rapid closing of physical retail locations. Exponentially fast. On top of that, Amazon's number of hires year over year continues to go down despite exploding sales, because of their automation evolution. I digress...


2) As a result of rising social unrest across the country surrounding wages and unemployment due to automation, Target came out and said they would take their minimum wage to $15 an hour as a means of trying to get ahead of the curve and the political tide and try to win people over. Target pretends to be a socially conscious company that's about diversity and inclusion, but at the end of the day... they're a company. They're a capitalist company.... for profit. They don't care about the workers. They don't care about diversity. They don't care about inclusion and tolerance. They care about profit. They have shareholders to answer to. That's pretty simple.

With the wages going to $15 an hour, operating costs were always going to go way way up if things remained the same, and as such, they had to maintain their level of profitability if not increase it... so they found a way to reduce hours. This is why the stores are going to shit. You could make the minimum wage $200 an hour, and it's not going to matter if you don't give someone enough time to actually physically do something. Target would like to move to a world in which every single employee they have is worthy of an "O" review score. This is an ideal that is incapable of manifesting in reality. People that work hard enough to consistently deserve an O aren't going to stay with a company like Target long term no matter what, because it's retail. People that work that hard... they come and they go. Thus their current operating model is quite simply an impossibility without one outcome... insolvency.

3) As far as CEO pay goes... you guys said Cornell made $19 million last year and that he's just such a greedy fuck that should make way way less so that workers can make more. Well, let's look at the math. 360,000 people work for Target. If Cornell donated 100% of his salary back to the company and worked for free, guess how much that comes out to each employee?

$52 annually.

Yes, you read that correctly. $52. Hardly enough to make a difference in a worker's life in a 2 weeks pay period, much less stretched over a year. Pull your heads out of your asses. CEO jobs suck in the sense of you have a massive amount of responsibility. If you aren't a sociopath, your stress level is going to be through the roof. As such, you deserve to be compensated for it. Again, even if he worked for free, it wouldn't make a huge difference in his workers lives. So his salary is of little consequence to the company's health. It's essentially irrelevant. It's just a number for those of you that are ignorant to lash out about and pretend it matters to make you feel better. It doesn't.

However, Target made almost $3 billion in profit last year. If they took just 1/3 of that and reinvested it into the workers, that's an additional $2800 annually. That is not a huge amount, but it's still something. Far more consequential than Cornell's salary.


4) In any event, the problems within the company aren't completely self inflicted, but a lot of it is. As covered in point 1, consumer habits are rapidly changing. Target has to figure out a way to compete and bring something incredibly new to the market or they will eventually find themselves out of business. They have taken some strides in terms of online integration, but they are still way, way off... and their methods so far are extremely faulty. The path they have taken between point 1 and 2 is going to cause the company to fail even more rapidly if they stick to it because of the turnover rate. You can't stress your workers out to this degree, regardless of what you pay them. The stress levels are too high. There is no getting around it. The workers can't make $15 an hour at a minimum wage. The company isn't profitable enough for that operating model to continue. The product itself, which is the store brand and experience to the shopper, is suffering in a major way as a result. The base pay must be cut, so that the stores can be staffed. The road they have been on for a long, long time is going to lead to a degradation of the product, which results in consumers coming even less... basically it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, essentially. It is coming to pass.



5) I genuinely think Target has anyone on the leadership horizon that knows how to right the ship. The company is going to fail. It's going to take years. It's not going to be an overnight thing. Target has been in the process of failing for over a decade, as the store brand has continued to slip during that time frame. It's currently in a rapid decline, but it's still going to take years to go under, if not a decade or two.

So do yourself a favor and stop trying to fight against a tide that won't be denied. Do whatever it takes to develop some new skills and seek other employment. There is no long term future with this company, and it's not entirely its own doing.

Much of what you say is accurate. I'm only going to take time to point out one item on which we disagree. Well, maybe not disagree. Let's say, see from a different angle.

The issue I have with Cornell's pay isn't that it can be divided up between all the workers. The issue I have is that it seems ANYONE could do what he is doing. So why pay him that much? I'll give a other example.

Since Target Canada was such a huge failure, why was the CEO at the time paid so much? Anyone could have been that bad. Me, you, my dog.

So the question isn't .... why is he making so much? The question is .... why is he making so much to do so badly?

My opinion.
 
Much of what you say is accurate. I'm only going to take time to point out one item on which we disagree. Well, maybe not disagree. Let's say, see from a different angle.

The issue I have with Cornell's pay isn't that it can be divided up between all the workers. The issue I have is that it seems ANYONE could do what he is doing. So why pay him that much? I'll give a other example.

Since Target Canada was such a huge failure, why was the CEO at the time paid so much? Anyone could have been that bad. Me, you, my dog.

So the question isn't .... why is he making so much? The question is .... why is he making so much to do so badly?

My opinion.

You're not wrong. But my point is that it's irrelevant how much he makes. Him making that much or $0 doesn't change the outlook for the company. As such, it's just a talking point for people to get their panties in a bunch over. Really. That's what it is.

They need a new CEO that is willing to focus on long term success at the cost of short term profit with an operating model that causes people to actually want to COME IN TO THE PHYSICAL STORES. They don't need to adjust the CEO's pay. But the problem with focusing on long term success at the expense of short term profit is... shareholders. They won't stand for it, because they REALLY don't care about the company.
 
You're not wrong. But my point is that it's irrelevant how much he makes. Him making that much or $0 doesn't change the outlook for the company. As such, it's just a talking point for people to get their panties in a bunch over. Really. That's what it is.

They need a new CEO that is willing to focus on long term success at the cost of short term profit with an operating model that causes people to actually want to COME IN TO THE PHYSICAL STORES. They don't need to adjust the CEO's pay. But the problem with focusing on long term success at the expense of short term profit is... shareholders. They won't stand for it, because they REALLY don't care about the company.

It's irrelevant to a point. Maybe it's a mindset, but it's not irrelevant to me. I'm lucky. I could quit Target tomorrow, take a huge pay cut and still ge golden. But knowing he's chilling and making a killing by doing a crap job burns me. It does. I won't say unethical. But I burns me.

If a CEO came in, strong willed and said .... "Here is a 10 year plan to remain solvent by delivering clean stores, relaxing shopping, and excellent guest service, and not have half empty aisles and vehicles in the way" maybe it would work. Maybe. There's something to still be said for delayed gratification. Not everyone is a "have to have it now" person.

And maybe I'm totally wrong. Just my thoughts as I'm sitting on my porch reading.
 
It's irrelevant to a point. Maybe it's a mindset, but it's not irrelevant to me. I'm lucky. I could quit Target tomorrow, take a huge pay cut and still ge golden. But knowing he's chilling and making a killing by doing a crap job burns me. It does. I won't say unethical. But I burns me.

If a CEO came in, strong willed and said .... "Here is a 10 year plan to remain solvent by delivering clean stores, relaxing shopping, and excellent guest service, and not have half empty aisles and vehicles in the way" maybe it would work. Maybe. There's something to still be said for delayed gratification. Not everyone is a "have to have it now" person.

And maybe I'm totally wrong. Just my thoughts as I'm sitting on my porch reading.

That's exactly what needs to happen. As I said... the problem, is shareholders. They don't care.
 
There are quite a few things that need to be addressed here in terms of the state of the company, the state of the economy in general, CEO pay, worker pay, Target's social political stance and ultimately their real political stance.

I just want to say... first and foremost, it is true that Cornell is likely a sociopath that doesn't care about the workers or long term health of the company. He has no vision, no strategy, no idea what made Target successful in the first place... I have no doubt whatsoever that is accurate. It was the same thing with Steinhaffel. No care in their hearts for the long term success. They don't know how to right the ship. So they just bleed it dry and slow over time.

However, to be fair to them... there are numerous things going on here to their detriment.

1) Consumer habits are changing... drastically. There is a massive shift to online sales and complete and total convenience for your typical American consumer. Amazon is the primary driver of this, because of their insanely quick and cheap delivery method via Amazon prime. There is also a plethora of information about a product at the consumer's fingertips without having to gamble as to whether or not it works. If Target wants to stay competitive long term, they're going to have to offer up something in stores that goes above and beyond what Amazon offers. They're going to have to figure out how to radically evolve for a significantly better experience. So far, they haven't done it. No brick and mortal retailer has. Once Amazon roles out drones with free delivery, you are going to see an extreme rapid closing of physical retail locations. Exponentially fast. On top of that, Amazon's number of hires year over year continues to go down despite exploding sales, because of their automation evolution. I digress...


2) As a result of rising social unrest across the country surrounding wages and unemployment due to automation, Target came out and said they would take their minimum wage to $15 an hour as a means of trying to get ahead of the curve and the political tide and try to win people over. Target pretends to be a socially conscious company that's about diversity and inclusion, but at the end of the day... they're a company. They're a capitalist company.... for profit. They don't care about the workers. They don't care about diversity. They don't care about inclusion and tolerance. They care about profit. They have shareholders to answer to. That's pretty simple.

With the wages going to $15 an hour, operating costs were always going to go way way up if things remained the same, and as such, they had to maintain their level of profitability if not increase it... so they found a way to reduce hours. This is why the stores are going to shit. You could make the minimum wage $200 an hour, and it's not going to matter if you don't give someone enough time to actually physically do something. Target would like to move to a world in which every single employee they have is worthy of an "O" review score. This is an ideal that is incapable of manifesting in reality. People that work hard enough to consistently deserve an O aren't going to stay with a company like Target long term no matter what, because it's retail. People that work that hard... they come and they go. Thus their current operating model is quite simply an impossibility without one outcome... insolvency.

3) As far as CEO pay goes... you guys said Cornell made $19 million last year and that he's just such a greedy fuck that should make way way less so that workers can make more. Well, let's look at the math. 360,000 people work for Target. If Cornell donated 100% of his salary back to the company and worked for free, guess how much that comes out to each employee?

$52 annually.

Yes, you read that correctly. $52. Hardly enough to make a difference in a worker's life in a 2 weeks pay period, much less stretched over a year. Pull your heads out of your asses. CEO jobs suck in the sense of you have a massive amount of responsibility. If you aren't a sociopath, your stress level is going to be through the roof. As such, you deserve to be compensated for it. Again, even if he worked for free, it wouldn't make a huge difference in his workers lives. So his salary is of little consequence to the company's health. It's essentially irrelevant. It's just a number for those of you that are ignorant to lash out about and pretend it matters to make you feel better. It doesn't.

However, Target made almost $3 billion in profit last year. If they took just 1/3 of that and reinvested it into the workers, that's an additional $2800 annually. That is not a huge amount, but it's still something. Far more consequential than Cornell's salary.


4) In any event, the problems within the company aren't completely self inflicted, but a lot of it is. As covered in point 1, consumer habits are rapidly changing. Target has to figure out a way to compete and bring something incredibly new to the market or they will eventually find themselves out of business. They have taken some strides in terms of online integration, but they are still way, way off... and their methods so far are extremely faulty. The path they have taken between point 1 and 2 is going to cause the company to fail even more rapidly if they stick to it because of the turnover rate. You can't stress your workers out to this degree, regardless of what you pay them. The stress levels are too high. There is no getting around it. The workers can't make $15 an hour at a minimum wage. The company isn't profitable enough for that operating model to continue. The product itself, which is the store brand and experience to the shopper, is suffering in a major way as a result. The base pay must be cut, so that the stores can be staffed. The road they have been on for a long, long time is going to lead to a degradation of the product, which results in consumers coming even less... basically it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, essentially. It is coming to pass.



5) I genuinely don't think Target has anyone on the leadership horizon that knows how to right the ship. The company is going to fail. It's going to take years. It's not going to be an overnight thing. Target has been in the process of failing for over a decade, as the store brand has continued to slip during that time frame. It's currently in a rapid decline, but it's still going to take years to go under, if not a decade or two.

So do yourself a favor and stop trying to fight against a tide that won't be denied. Do whatever it takes to develop some new skills and seek other employment. There is no long term future with this company, and it's not entirely its own doing.
Yawwwwwwwwn , burp 🤢
 
You have made many good points. But I disagree with two of them.

Pull your heads out of your asses. CEO jobs suck in the sense of you have a massive amount of responsibility. If you aren't a sociopath, your stress level is going to be through the roof. As such, you deserve to be compensated for it.
I actually have heard this exact justification before, though phrased much more nicely. It was during one of my temp jobs, receptionist for Bank of America investments, the person telling me that was a mortgage loan officer. And that conversation was less than 6 months before the housing bubble imploded triggering the great recession. So no, not buying it. Soldiers in combat have more stress, an EMT trying to keep someone's body clinging to life has more stress, many many people in a "I could die" or "I could get someone killed" situation weekly if not daily have more stress, but few make 19 million or more. So just like how the argument "it's due to job stress" didn't pass the smell test then, it doesn't pass now either.

The workers can't make $15 an hour at a minimum wage. The company isn't profitable enough for that operating model to continue. The product itself, which is the store brand and experience to the shopper, is suffering in a major way as a result. The base pay must be cut, so that the stores can be staffed.

People say there are cities and counties with a $15 minimum wage. Are all the retail and fast food businesses in those areas going under or gone under because they couldn't figure out how to pay it? Not a few, but all. Target can make it work, just like businesses in those areas are making it work. Oh, when the minimum wage was first enacted and with every increase there's been the doomsayers who claim businesses will fold if forced to pay their workers more. Some do but most do just fine.
 
You have made many good points. But I disagree with two of them.


I actually have heard this exact justification before, though phrased much more nicely. It was during one of my temp jobs, receptionist for Bank of America investments, the person telling me that was a mortgage loan officer. And that conversation was less than 6 months before the housing bubble imploded triggering the great recession. So no, not buying it. Soldiers in combat have more stress, an EMT trying to keep someone's body clinging to life has more stress, many many people in a "I could die" or "I could get someone killed" situation weekly if not daily have more stress, but few make 19 million or more. So just like how the argument "it's due to job stress" didn't pass the smell test then, it doesn't pass now either.

So how much, exactly, do you think he should be compensated for running Target? I'm not saying 19 million is correct.

But, uh... do you think he writes his own salary? lol. How much would you personally do that job for? Are you capable of doing it? Know someone that is?

Your problem isn't with the CEO pay. Your problem is with shareholders, you just don't recognize it because everyone points the finger at CEO pay.

People say there are cities and counties with a $15 minimum wage. Are all the retail and fast food businesses in those areas going under or gone under because they couldn't figure out how to pay it? Not a few, but all. Target can make it work, just like businesses in those areas are making it work. Oh, when the minimum wage was first enacted and with every increase there's been the doomsayers who claim businesses will fold if forced to pay their workers more. Some do but most do just fine.

Target will make it work either way. They won't go under because of $15 an hour but you seem to think shareholders are just going to take it on the chin and lose money for the employees. Sorry, they're not. Shareholders, of all people, are amoral. They don't sit there and really think about the long term health of the employees. They see their stock move up or down and decide how to act from there.

Do you own any stock? When you see it go up, do you really consider the impact it had on the employees of said company for that stock price to move? Who does? Very few people, because they're disconnected from the situation. It's a natural thing.


Brian? Is that you?

Ignorance. Not solving any problems. Take away his pay, and it solves nothing.
 
Much of what you say is accurate. I'm only going to take time to point out one item on which we disagree. Well, maybe not disagree. Let's say, see from a different angle.

The issue I have with Cornell's pay isn't that it can be divided up between all the workers. The issue I have is that it seems ANYONE could do what he is doing. So why pay him that much? I'll give a other example.

Since Target Canada was such a huge failure, why was the CEO at the time paid so much? Anyone could have been that bad. Me, you, my dog.

So the question isn't .... why is he making so much? The question is .... why is he making so much to do so badly?

My opinion.
When his pay is connected to how well Target stock does, it is a problem. When you cut operations to improve stock performance, that is a problem.
 
When his pay is connected to how well Target stock does, it is a problem. When you cut operations to improve stock performance, that is a problem.
True. If it could be tied to something like gross sales instead, pre-expenses, then investing in people so the stores will be kept in great shape and more stuff will be sold would be a CEO's goal.
 
But, uh... do you think he writes his own salary? lol

I'm just going to let you in on a not very well hidden secret of corporate governance. Yes, Cornell more or less does write his own compensation. Technically, the Board of Directors of a corporation determine executive compensation and there is a compensation committee that does not include the executives in question. But, hey guess what Cornell's actual title is? Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors. He leads the board that determines his pay. What if Cornell doesn't like his pay? Oh he can decide that the current board members have to go and get new ones who will give him the pay he wants. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank shareholders have the right to override to vote down executive compensation packages but that has rarely happened. Shareholders also have the right to not elect board members, but in reality they almost always choose who the company suggests.

tl;dr Yeah, Cornell pretty much determines his own pay. Must be nice.
 
Actually, I worked for 5 CEOs in my past life, and they care about the success of their plans. Pretty organized business people are goal oriented.

Looks to me like Target smartened up.
 
All I want is fair treatment. Dont have me pushing pulls until after 6pm, have me in d and e, have me on backup for an hour, and expect me to have both section 100 percent done, with all reshops cleared out by close, which is 10 PM. That's all I want. Fair and understanding leadership. Give me that, and I'd be golden.
 
To everyone who wants xyz treatment or pay or hours etc...don't waste your breath. It ain't coming. Go find something else.

Two main reasons why Target is going to sink. Supply chain and poor decisions around grocery implementation.

Target has a miserably bad supply chain operation. Amazon can get a better product into your hands cheaper and faster than Target can.

Lets say you want a keyboard, or a baby monitor. You go online, you find the best one. Does Target carry it? No, probably not. Maybe you can order it on their website but why would you? Amazon can get it to you cheaper and faster. Now Target lost that sale, and probably a few more items you would have picked up.

On the other side, Target had the right idea with grocery as a traffic driver but flubbed it with their half-ass bastardized "pfresh" version because they didnt have a food supply chain, so most stores used mclane or c&s. By going third party, they lost quality control, which added a lot of shrink devaluization. Target cant afford to be the cost leader on dry goods, and their pfresh model doesnt have the boutique selection to pull people in. Walmart steamrolled them simply by providing a superior selection at a superior price point. I go to walmart for nearly all of my dry goods because they're just massively cheaper and always have the item I want, Target rarely does, and when they do, its normally 40-80c more. Walmart has further spun this off into a grocery pickup service which is cheap and efficient, further stomping Target into the ground.

As Amazon gets stronger in non perishable goods, and Walmart gets stronger in Grocery, Target will continue to slowly march towards death.

I'm sure Cornell sees this, most any ceo would see it. But the money isnt there anymore to make the necessary changes.
No ceo can save it now without obliterating short term gains, and shareholders will never go for that. Target will continue to leak money until it can't sustain, then it will drastically downsize to free up some cash, but it won't be enough.

3-4 years: Modernization fails, target starts to close stores and liquidate properties to free up cash. New locations stop opening.

5-6 years: stores are still profitable but cant sustain at current wage levels. Target tries to come up with solutions to reduce staff levels to reconsile higher wages. Cant, closes more locations.

10 years: unable to stem the bleeding, restructuring occurs. Stores are shuffled, closed.

13 years: target as we know it is gone, or has a much reduced footprint.
 
To everyone who wants xyz treatment or pay or hours etc...don't waste your breath. It ain't coming. Go find something else.

Two main reasons why Target is going to sink. Supply chain and poor decisions around grocery implementation.

Target has a miserably bad supply chain operation. Amazon can get a better product into your hands cheaper and faster than Target can.

Lets say you want a keyboard, or a baby monitor. You go online, you find the best one. Does Target carry it? No, probably not. Maybe you can order it on their website but why would you? Amazon can get it to you cheaper and faster. Now Target lost that sale, and probably a few more items you would have picked up.

On the other side, Target had the right idea with grocery as a traffic driver but flubbed it with their half-ass bastardized "pfresh" version because they didnt have a food supply chain, so most stores used mclane or c&s. By going third party, they lost quality control, which added a lot of shrink devaluization. Target cant afford to be the cost leader on dry goods, and their pfresh model doesnt have the boutique selection to pull people in. Walmart steamrolled them simply by providing a superior selection at a superior price point. I go to walmart for nearly all of my dry goods because they're just massively cheaper and always have the item I want, Target rarely does, and when they do, its normally 40-80c more. Walmart has further spun this off into a grocery pickup service which is cheap and efficient, further stomping Target into the ground.

As Amazon gets stronger in non perishable goods, and Walmart gets stronger in Grocery, Target will continue to slowly march towards death.

I'm sure Cornell sees this, most any ceo would see it. But the money isnt there anymore to make the necessary changes.
No ceo can save it now without obliterating short term gains, and shareholders will never go for that. Target will continue to leak money until it can't sustain, then it will drastically downsize to free up some cash, but it won't be enough.

3-4 years: Modernization fails, target starts to close stores and liquidate properties to free up cash. New locations stop opening.

5-6 years: stores are still profitable but cant sustain at current wage levels. Target tries to come up with solutions to reduce staff levels to reconsile higher wages. Cant, closes more locations.

10 years: unable to stem the bleeding, restructuring occurs. Stores are shuffled, closed.

13 years: target as we know it is gone, or has a much reduced footprint.

No one I know says "I'm going the grocery" and means Target. Not enough selection. Terrible produce.
 
I'm just going to let you in on a not very well hidden secret of corporate governance. Yes, Cornell more or less does write his own compensation. Technically, the Board of Directors of a corporation determine executive compensation and there is a compensation committee that does not include the executives in question. But, hey guess what Cornell's actual title is? Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors. He leads the board that determines his pay. What if Cornell doesn't like his pay? Oh he can decide that the current board members have to go and get new ones who will give him the pay he wants. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank shareholders have the right to override to vote down executive compensation packages but that has rarely happened. Shareholders also have the right to not elect board members, but in reality they almost always choose who the company suggests.

tl;dr Yeah, Cornell pretty much determines his own pay. Must be nice.

So Cornell can't be fired then? Since he has this unwavering power over his own pay structure, surely the same must be true of his employment? Please, eh? Maybe they go along with it because his ask for the dollar amount isn't unreasonable?

I personally wouldn't take that job for $500,000 a year... which seems to be more in line with where a lot of people that post here think the guy should be making. I'm not saying $19 million is appropriate. I'm saying that CEO pay should be way higher than most people think it should be.

When his pay is connected to how well Target stock does, it is a problem. When you cut operations to improve stock performance, that is a problem.

You're correct that is a problem because it can lead to him making poor long term decisions for the company for short term gain which is what he's been doing since he started. It's also what Steinhaffel did during his entire tenure.

But my point is that the "$19 million" figure is completely irrelevant.

How his pay is determined is a different thing entirely from the amount he makes. The amount he makes is irrelevant.


Modernization is a disaster for multiple reasons. I'm not advocating for Target's current operating model. It's almost as if you didn't read anything and just made an emotion based response.
 
Last edited:
So Cornell can't be fired then? Since he has this unwavering power over his own pay structure, surely the same must be true of his employment? Please, eh? Maybe they go along with it because his ask for the dollar amount isn't unreasonable?

My Economics teacher explained how all that worked. The CEOs, the movers and shakers, they are all on each other's boards. So "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".
I personally wouldn't take that job for $500,000 a year... which seems to be more in line with where a lot of people that post here think the guy should be making. I'm not saying $19 million is appropriate. I'm saying that CEO pay should be way higher than most people think it should be.

Warren Buffet makes about $100,000 a year. CEO compensation has gone up (adjusted for inflation) by about 1000% in the last 50 years, while the average worker's pay has (adjusted for inflation) stagnated. CEOs in Canada, a good chunk of Europe and Australia make a considerable amount less, averaged all out US CEOs make 4 times the amount CEOs in other countries make. And the numbers aren't being pulled out of thin air; the Dodd-Frank act required CEO pay reports, which companies have been fighting for some time because they don't want to reveal top executives' total pay.

CEO Compensation: US and other countries

A new study found CEOs at America's biggest companies raked in $19 million on average last year, while workers' pay barely budged

CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker

Why do American CEOs make twice as much as German CEOs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top