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

[Fyi]

The issue is Cornell and other C level executives making ridiculous salaries while their employees lose their benefits and have to rely on partial unemployment and government programs like SNAP, while the same time still hiring new team memebers.

That’s a problem.

 

[Mikuhl]

Only if we had AirPods

 

[60SecondsRemaining]

The issue is Cornell and other C level executives making ridiculous salaries while their employees lose their benefits and have to rely on partial unemployment and government programs like SNAP, while the same time still hiring new team memebers.

That’s a problem.

He literally made a completely logical argument as to why this specifically is -not- a problem.

I mean I don't agree with everything he (Not My Name) said, but his post was logical and rational and at no point did he jump to conclusions or give the impression that he's some kool aid drinking Targeteer.

If there were more people at the corporate and above level with his mindset, it would do the company a lot of good.

 

[Hardlinesmaster]

Only if we had AirPods

I have plenty

 

[Frontlanegirl]

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.

However, part of that $19 mil is tied to stock performance. The amount he makes is relevant.

 

[Not My Name]

However, part of that $19 mil is tied to stock performance. The amount he makes is relevant.

It's not, though. The amount, that is.

We've already agreed that *how* he gets to that number is relevant. But what he makes and how he makes it are not the same thing.

People don't use $19 million as a talking point because he's worried about the stock price and it upsets them that he's worried about the stock price. They use $19 million as a talking point because they're intellectually lazy and incapable or unwilling to think through exactly what it is that they're saying. They just see the number and emotionally explode.

Let's put it this way...

If tomorrow, the board said he was going to make $20 million flat this year, and that his performance would be tied directly to gross sales, the workers aren't going to care that his pay structure has switched from stock based bonuses to a flat pay in which he doesn't have a personal reason to drive the stock price up as much as possible in the short term. They're still going to be losing their shit over the idea of him making $20 million. As I said, it's a talking point for politicians to exploit the ignorant.

 

[Tessa120]

The US has a problem all around of duties/stress/responsibilities not matching compensation, such as those who care for our young and elderly are paid shit. But in this case, what has Cornell done to earn that $19m? Did he build it from a struggling single storefront to what Target is today? Nope. Did he rescue it from the burning embers of failure and made it whole again? Nope. Has he pretty much just floated a successful company along in relatively calm fiscal seas? Yep. So he really deserves far less than someone who made nothing into something.

It's like he's an actor, paid millions just for strutting around. Definitely the compensation is way out of whack with the accomplishments.

 

[Tessa120]

Geez.......Someone needs a snack.

No personal attacks please. I've been nice and sticking with the topic, there's no need to follow my post with the suggestion that my opinion is based on a lack of Snickers.

 

[seasonaldude]

To put it simply, if we did not live under the boot of capitalism, but instead were a democratic socialist society would the collective employees of Target agree that Brian Cornell should make that much more bread than them? If yes, then he deserves it. If not, then he does not deserve it.

I think we all know what the answer would be to that one....

 

[seasonaldude]

No personal attacks please. I've been nice and sticking with the topic, there's no need to follow my post with the suggestion that my opinion is based on a lack of Snickers.

*Gives you a Snickers*

Notes your opinion did not change after eating it.

 

[Tessa120]

To put it simply, if we did not live under the boot of capitalism, but instead were a democratic socialist society would the collective employees of Target agree that Brian Cornell should make that much more bread than them? If yes, then he deserves it. If not, then he does not deserve it.

I think we all know what the answer would be to that one....

Check that bottom link I listed. It blew my mind when it said that Germany has no minimum wage. But worker protections and worker representation is so strong that the average German makes more than the average American, and workers are part of that board room so they have a huge influence when it comes to how the top echelon runs a company.

 

[seasonaldude]

Check that bottom link I listed. It blew my mind when it said that Germany has no minimum wage. But worker protections and worker representation is so strong that the average German makes more than the average American, and workers are part of that board room so they have a huge influence when it comes to how the top echelon runs a company.

Yeah, I knew that. Under German law labor must be represented on the board of directors. There has actually been some controversy about that in recent years within the EU. German labor will often agree to receive other benefits, instead of more pay, so that their prices can remain relatively lower than in competitor nations. This gives German products an edge that other countries with the tradtional antagonistic divide between labor and management do not have.

At least that's the controversy according to The Economist. But, I say if Germans would rather work 4 days a week instead of getting more than their already very generous compensation compared to ours, more power to them. It's all about the bread AND roses.

 

[commiecorvus]

@Not My Name you are tossing out phrases like intellectually lazy, unwilling to think, etc. in reference to people who find the gap between CEO's salaries and their employees to be a bad thing.
You have ignored a number of posts including one by @Tessa120 that does a very cogent job of explaining why making that much is bad for the company and why American CEO's salaries are problematic overall.
The number is not an 'emotional point', it is a clear indication that something is wrong with how the company works (and our country but meh).
When TM's have to use up vacation hours in order to pay bills, apply for food stamps to feed their kids, have more than one job and live with multiple people in order to make the monthly nut while Brian is getting $365.00 a minute, does make for a healthy company.

People commenting on this are not lazy or unwilling to think.
They think differently than you on a subject that is a serious issue in this country.

 

[commiecorvus]

Check that bottom link I listed. It blew my mind when it said that Germany has no minimum wage. But worker protections and worker representation is so strong that the average German makes more than the average American, and workers are part of that board room so they have a huge influence when it comes to how the top echelon runs a company.

All EU countries have a minimum wage, it is part of the charter.
List of European Union member states by minimum wage - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage

Most of the time the only people getting paid that low in major countries like Germany are going to be refugees.

 

[Not My Name]

@Not My Name you are tossing out phrases like intellectually lazy, unwilling to think, etc. in reference to people who find the gap between CEO's salaries and their employees to be a bad thing.
You have ignored a number of posts including one by @Tessa120 that does a very cogent job of explaining why making that much is bad for the company and why American CEO's salaries are problematic overall.
The number is not an 'emotional point', it is a clear indication that something is wrong with how the company works (and our country but meh).
When TM's have to use up vacation hours in order to pay bills, apply for food stamps to feed their kids, have more than one job and live with multiple people in order to make the monthly nut while Brian is getting $365.00 a minute, does make for a healthy company.

People commenting on this are not lazy or unwilling to think.
They think differently than you on a subject that is a serious issue in this country.

That's not true. I've directly addressed it several times. I've said repeatedly that I agree with how he makes that much being a problem. Personally, I also think he's overpaid. However, he could make $40 million this year and if it was just a flat rate salary, even pumping 100% of that 40 million back to the target workers would make absolutely no difference in their lives whatsoever. I'm not even sure you've read my posts, to be honest, with that type of response.

People that think that $19 million pumped back to 360,000 workers would actually make a difference in their lives are indeed unwilling to think.

If his salary was $200,000 a year, and his pay structure was still predominantly stock based, the result for the workers would be the exact same. Nothing in their lives would change. The point is that the number is irrelevant, despite your desperate desire for it to be. The number itself flat out is not relevant. How it is achieved, is a different story. If you don't understand or don't agree, I'm sorry, I don't have time to try to explain it to you further.

 

[Not My Name]

Also, I would like to note... the United States has generated the most private wealth in the history of the world for its citizens. This narrative being pushed by children under 25 years old that socialism is a good thing is just ridiculous.

Capitalism is the best that humanity has so far tried. The problem is that we don't have free market capitalism. We have crony capitalism.

 

[seasonaldude]

People that think that $19 million pumped back to 360,000 workers would actually make a difference in their lives are indeed unwilling to think.

Nah. It might not be much. But, I'd gladly take that extra bread. That's a tank of gas, a 12 pack of PBR and a footlong from Subway I wouldn't otherwise have. I'll take it. As would any other sane, rational, thinking Target TM. (See, I too can play that stupid game that anyone who doesn't agree with me is an ignorant stupid head. It's fun.)

 

[seasonaldude]

the United States has generated the most private wealth in the history of the world for its citizens. This narrative being pushed by children under 25 years old that socialism is a good thing is just ridiculous.

And the richest 1% own more of that wealth than the bottom 90%. So, it's fucking useless private wealth to the lot of us. Please note, I'm over 25 before spouting off. And, before you go telling me whether socialism is good or bad, please tell me what it is you mean by that word. Be specific without resorting to right wing talking points.

 

[Tessa120]

Also, I would like to note... the United States has generated the most private wealth in the history of the world for its citizens. This narrative being pushed by children under 25 years old that socialism is a good thing is just ridiculous.

Capitalism is the best that humanity has so far tried. The problem is that we don't have free market capitalism. We have crony capitalism.

So you will happily refuse social security checks and Medicare when you turn 65? After all, that's socialism.

Re-read The Jungle, that delightful book that has turned many 11th and 12th graders temporarily into vegetarians. Particularly the parts about how workers sometimes fell into the machines holding the animal meat and were turned into food, the parts about how many women workers ended up with womb problems after doing what they had to do so their male bosses wouldn't fire them, about how there just never was enough money to feed the children, no matter how many workers were in the family.

And then look at Europe, and how child hunger is FAR less, how people don't die from easy to treat diseases because they can afford treatment, how the elderly have safe and comfortable end of life housing.

Read about how huge the child hunger problem is in the US. Read about how parents sometimes have to sit in a car outside the ER, evaluating minute by minute if their child needs to be seen due to a possible poisoning because it's medical bills or food, about how that person went nuts and killed himself or others because he could not get mental health treatment and had been turned away at an ER because they decided he wasn't a danger simply because there was no money to pay for the hold.

I'm tired, but I may add more tomorrow. But yeah, if you want unfettered free market capitalism, send your soc security checks to me.

 

[commiecorvus]

That's not true. I've directly addressed it several times. I've said repeatedly that I agree with how he makes that much being a problem. Personally, I also think he's overpaid. However, he could make $40 million this year and if it was just a flat rate salary, even pumping 100% of that 40 million back to the target workers would make absolutely no difference in their lives whatsoever. I'm not even sure you've read my posts, to be honest, with that type of response.

People that think that $19 million pumped back to 360,000 workers would actually make a difference in their lives are indeed unwilling to think.
😊
If his salary was $200,000 a year, and his pay structure was still predominantly stock based, the result for the workers would be the exact same. Nothing in their lives would change. The point is that the number is irrelevant, despite your desperate desire for it to be. The number itself flat out is not relevant. How it is achieved, is a different story. If you don't understand or don't agree, I'm sorry, I don't have time to try to explain it to you further.

I promise, my desire has nothing to do with this.
I do understand how this works as do a large number economists.
The Economic Policy Institute did this paper in 2017 on how CEO salaries have surged 'dangerously'.
https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/152123.pdf

The number does matter and that has been proved by the destruction of a number of thriving companies in the past years.

Fraud, failure and bankruptcy pay well for CEOs - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fraud-failure-and-bankruptcy-pay-well-for-ceos-2013-08-28

The huge difference in pay between the CEO and the common employee damages moral, creates a fiefdom and destroys any sense of connection between the two.

What's The Harm In Excessive CEO Pay? Answer: Long-Term Damage To Shareholders And Pension Funds - https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/09/07/whats-the-harm-in-excessive-ceo-pay-answer-long-term-damage-to-shareholders-and-pension-funds/#b5c903c4aeae

Huge CEO salaries aren't just bad for the companies they are bad for the economy.

Why Excessive CEO Pay Is Bad for the Economy - https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/why-excessive-ceo-pay-is-bad-for-the-economy

There have been more radical solutions to this problem suggested, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt asked Congress to establish a maximum income. He called for a 100% top income tax that would leave no individual with more than $25,000 of annual income—about $375,000 today—after taxes.
I suspect that would not go over so well today.

 

[Frontlanegirl]

It's not, though. The amount, that is.

We've already agreed that *how* he gets to that number is relevant. But what he makes and how he makes it are not the same thing.

People don't use $19 million as a talking point because he's worried about the stock price and it upsets them that he's worried about the stock price. They use $19 million as a talking point because they're intellectually lazy and incapable or unwilling to think through exactly what it is that they're saying. They just see the number and emotionally explode.

Let's put it this way...

If tomorrow, the board said he was going to make $20 million flat this year, and that his performance would be tied directly to gross sales, the workers aren't going to care that his pay structure has switched from stock based bonuses to a flat pay in which he doesn't have a personal reason to drive the stock price up as much as possible in the short term. They're still going to be losing their shit over the idea of him making $20 million. As I said, it's a talking point for politicians to exploit the ignorant.

No, my concern is when CEO’s are paid off of stocks. When you start cutting back operations to increase revenue to increase the price of the stock that is a problem. Many people on this board are having their hours cut so bad that they have to find other employment. Workers wages have remained stagnant while the compensation for CEO’s has increased.