Cedar Fair in talks on $4.1 billion takeover

Strange things are afoot at the Circk K.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/CLM05230072007-1.htm

It sure is getting acticles.

---

djDaemon said:

Cerberus actually knows a lot more than you think about running an auto maker.

---

How so?

For one, a senior adviser within Cerberus is Wolfgang Bernhard, who is the former COO of Chrysler Group, and will now become chairman of the board once the purchase is complete.

This isn't to say that Cerberus is an automotive specialist, but they are quite well prepared to take on Chrysler Corp.

My point wasn't that Cerberus wasn't prepared, it was that before Chrysler became part of the picture, they had nothing to do with an automaker. I was suggesting that Destiny knows nothing about amusement parks but will make it so they learn a lot in a very short amount of time.

BTW, I had no idea that Bernhard went with Cerberus. Interesting...

Rob, I don't think that's true. Cerberus had already acquired a big chunk of a couple of Tier 1 Suppliers, if memory servces. They also have a chunk of GMAC.

---

Rob Ascough said:
A factory worker lives paycheck to paycheck once he retires but a CEO that made a ton of money during his tenure at a company gets everything taken care of him until he passes away?

---

Why is that comparison always made? Is a person who succeeds in business somehow not entitled to proportionate reward? The retired factory worker didn't have the responsibility of running a billion dollar company. That comparison makes no sense.

^But, let's just say that the retired factory worker failed to do HIS job properly, and there was a recall of a half-million SUVs.

I'm not saying that everyone should be compensated equally....but that CEO of a billion-dollar company didn't get there by himself, either. Seems like more and more these days, the folks in the boardroom forget that their *employees* are responsible for alot more than punching the time-clock. Wow, these two threads are starting to intertwine... ;)

That comparison is likely made frequently because it's something that resonates with a lot of people throughout the country. I'm not against rewarding people for their business acumen, but it should be proportional to other things. CEOs work very hard and very long hours but I don't think they work that much harder than the average factory worker to justify making upwards of $1 million/year compared to a laborer making $40K/year. It's a very valid comparison.

And as gator said, the CEOs that are making millions of dollars a year in salaries and stock options are likely in positions of success partially because of the employees working beneath them.

*** Edited 7/30/2007 7:10:29 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

"partially because of the employees working beneath them" ... who are, in turn, compensated for the work they do. Compensation, which, is based on the market, experience, skill required, how "in-demand" the position is, and much more.

While "working hard" is a great way to get ahead, it isn't directly related to salary. Is the CEO job so easy that anyone can do it? There's a lot that goes into the pay of any job, not the least of which is the ease of finding someone who can do the work.

If someone doesn't like making $40,000 a year, he/she should do something to change it. Complaining that the boss is a millionaire just keeps you in the "little man can't get ahead / Eeyore" mentality.

---

Walt:
Complaining that the boss is a millionaire just keeps you in the "little man can't get ahead / Eeyore" mentality.

---

Yes!

---

Gator:
Seems like more and more these days, the folks in the boardroom forget that their *employees* are responsible for alot more than punching the time-clock.

---

I'd say it seems more and more these days like the general employees seem to forget the folks in the boardroom do a lot more than wear suits. (and showed skills beyond the ability to wear that suit to get where they are)

EDIT - and on a sidenote, I think the difference between 'need' and 'earned' is often confused and/or looked at wrong.

That hourly worker may have more of a need to have his insurance paid for life, but Dick Kinzel has done more to earn that right.

Expecting something you need but haven't earned is essentially asking for a handout...technically.

If you give everything to people with varying levels of need, there's no incentive to earn those same things. :)

*** Edited 7/30/2007 8:10:30 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Oh God, I'm agreeing with our resident Republicans. :)

^^ I tend to disagree...(shocking, I know). But just look at executive salaries vs. laborer's salaries in the past few decades. One has WAY more than outpaced inflation, the other has gradually fallen behind....

Even weirder...I think giving 40 hours/week, or more, for 30+ years DOES earn you the right to expect a lifetime of healthcare coverage...even if you wear coveralls to work... ;)

Quick Googling yielded this:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060627

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner. (snip) The ratio wasn't always so extreme. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners.

edit: Jeff messed up my ^arrow^. I blame the liberal media... ;)

*** Edited 7/30/2007 8:28:10 PM UTC by rollergator***

---

Gemini said:

While "working hard" is a great way to get ahead, it isn't directly related to salary. Is the CEO job so easy that anyone can do it? There's a lot that goes into the pay of any job, not the least of which is the ease of finding someone who can do the work.

---

Of course it's not that easy to be a company's CEO. But there is a lot more that goes into the hiring of a CEO than just natural/acquired ability to get the job done. That's where the whole "it's who you know" thing comes into play. Part of success is talent, and part of success is having connections to people able to put you in a position to display your talent.

---

If someone doesn't like making $40,000 a year, he/she should do something to change it. Complaining that the boss is a millionaire just keeps you in the "little man can't get ahead / Eeyore" mentality.

---

Yeah, because all of the people making $40K/year are just thrilled to be in that position... they're all toiling away in factories because they simply don't have the desire to improve things, right? Normally I'm the person in the conversation claiming that unhappy people should do what it takes to better their situations, but there are times when people are completely helpless. A factory worker should come up with the money to put himself through college to move from blue collar to white collar but that's often pretty hard when the white collar people are cost-cutting to the point where factory jobs are sent overseas and finding another factory job is the most they can hope for. Look to your local Wal-Mart for that one.

So the average CEO makes 821 times what the average minimum wage worker makes? Who here can honestly tell me that the average CEO works 821 times harder and is 821 times smarter than the average minimum wage earner? And yeah, dedicating years of 40+ hour/weeks to a company should earn you the right to be taken care of them forever, but why should that be limited to only people at the top of the heap?

---

So the average CEO makes 821 times what the average minimum wage worker makes? Who here can honestly tell me that the average CEO works 821 times harder and is 821 times smarter than the average minimum wage earner?

---

Because there's other factors at play. Compared to the most basic minimum wage worker who's digging a hole or flipping a burger there's a great degree of difference and ability. Anyone can fill that minimum wage job and it's not too hard to find another minimum wage job. You can't say the same for most CEO positions.

I'm not verbalizing it well enough and the above sounds stupid. My basic point is that's there's more to a job than the salary/work expectations ratio.

---

And yeah, dedicating years of 40+ hour/weeks to a company should earn you the right to be taken care of them forever, but why should that be limited to only people at the top of the heap?

---

I think the first mistake is assuming CEO's work just 40 hour weeks - or that they have for most of their lives.

That CEO probably was the guy who took on the added workload, spent long hours at work making sure to do things and do them well.

I can't say whether working 40 hours a week for life earns that right, but I can say working 60+ hours a week for life with increasing pressures and responsibility give you more of a right to those benefits.

^It *was* 821 times minimum wage...in '05. That number might be a little closer to a 1K multiplier by now, LOL. I highly doubt that it's gone DOWN... ;)

Perhaps we have slightly different definitions of what "earn" means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/earn

I'm not saying that a CEO of a company with 20% growth isn't *earning* his. What about the thousands of CEOs who run their companies into the ground - what do THEY earn?

Actually, recent history has shown that not all people are capable of filling minimum wage jobs. ;)

I realize the scope of the things expected of a CEO- I'm not trying to suggest that a CEO's job isn't tough and there is no real pressure to succeed. But again, I have to ask, does the average CEO feel 821 times the pressure than the average worker does? All I'm saying is that some things are not proportionate to one another.

^^ I don't know, ask Shapiro. :)

How true. Look at all the CEOs of underperforming companies that still make out like bandits. Normal employees do a bad job and they get fired. CEOs do a bad job and they get a golden parachute that sets them up for the rest of their lives. That said, any discussion of risk vs. rewards is automatically shot to hell.

A CEO fails and job cuts are made... but the CEOs job never seems to get cut, does it?

^ Not only that, but by the time the elevator drops them off at the first floor, they have 3 more offers to ruin, er I mean run other companies.