Cedar Fair in talks on $4.1 billion takeover
Gator:
What about the thousands of CEOs who run their companies into the ground - what do THEY earn?
The same thing the kid who can't even handle flipping burgers or running a roller coaster earns - the chance to find another job.
The difference is that minimum wages jobs are a dime a dozen and offer little in the way of perks in exchange for little in the way of skills, performance or time invested. Exhibit those skills, performance and time invested and you can work your way to the same cushy perks Mr. CEO gets. You can earn them.
It's a pretty simple system.
Rob:
Look at all the CEOs of underperforming companies that still make out like bandits.
Just like all the underperforming ride ops who continue to get a paycheck for talking on their cell phone. Money for nothing is money for nothing regardless of the amount.
RGB:
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.
Again, less opportunity than anyone in an entry level position.
What can I say? I believe the system in general works. There are exceptions as there are with any system and those are always the stories you hear about. It's much more interesting to hear about the one guy that ran Company X into the ground than the thousands and thousands of other guys who just do their job, earn their pay and keep things moving.
It always seems the people (and this is not directed at you RGB, but more in the mind of that ride op who sees no reason to earn his $7 an hour) who bitch most about the higher-ups are the ones who reflect their own work ethic onto others and think that those people got there by doing nothing as well.
It's an extention of the 'playing the victim' thing. "Ohh, I work so hard and get paid nothing while Mr. Suit does nothing but sit behind his desk and get a big fat paycheck and all kinds of great perks in life. I could do his job!"
No you couldn't.
In a nutshell, I feel that the system does work - people who try will get ahead. Couple that with the ugly fact that life isn't fair, never has been and never will be and everything falls into place just as it should.
Work hard to get ahead or work hard to complain about how life shafted you. Which one do you think helps the most? :)
Rob Ascough said:
they're all toiling away in factories because they simply don't have the desire to improve things, right? ... A factory worker should come up with the money to put himself through college to move from blue collar to white collar ...
Again, the little man can't get ahead because the mean rich guy is sending his job oversees.
Since when does it cost money to get ahead? You don't have to go to college to improve yourself. If you like your job and/or company, advance yourself. Work toward promotions. Climb the ladder. If you don't like your job, find a career that you do like. Go to the library and read up on something. And while college is a great way to become educated, it doesn't have to come at a high cost. Take a class at a time. Mow some lawns on the weekend to cover tuition. That's what people who want to get ahead do.
The book The Millionaire Next Door is a tremendous read. It clears up a lot of myths about millionaires. Most are self-made - 80% of millionaires are first-generation rich. And I imagine the number who complained about CEO pay while working their way to their first million is close to zero.
*** Edited 7/31/2007 12:02:35 AM UTC by Gemini***
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
I'm not saying anything about comparing the salaries of regular working people, so let's not even attempt to get things over there. This isn't about comparing the wages of an unskilled factory worker to a computer programmer that makes two or three times as much. This is about CEOs and their bloated salaries, unreasonable perks and golden parachutes. It's not like I'm trying to convince people that the Earth is round- the topic of overcompensated corporate leaders is a pretty hot topic right now. Apparantly stockholders don't like the idea of a huge portion of their investments' profits going to stuff the wallets of a few people at the very top.
This is about comparing the importance of a single worker to the importance of a corporate leader making hundreds and hundreds of times more money. This is about defining a ratio that is uneven to the point of being absolutely insane. Think about how much money you win with 10:1 odds. 50:1 odds. 100:1 odds. Now think about 821:1 odds. Like I said... insane.
Since when doesn't it cost money to get ahead? Are you at all familiar with the current job market? Why do you think people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on college? Do you think that a high school graduate has the same chances of landing a job that a college graduate has? I'm not suggesting that college makes people smarter (plenty of dumb people seem to graduate college) but having a piece of paper that says college made you smarter means a lot when you're looking for a job. Seems to me that you're living in some kind of fantasy world where people can snap their fingers and- poof!- they're suddenly sitting in the corner office with a private receptionist outside their door simply because they worked hard and climbed the ladder. We all know that there's room at the top for everyone that climbs the ladder, right?
In case you haven't noticed, the movement of jobs overseas is a big problem. In your perfect world of people putting their noses to the grindstone and coming away looking like a million bucks and having a million bucks to boot, there are jobs for all these aspiring workers. But in the real world, jobs are disappearing, so unless your willing to compete with some illegal that landscapes for $50/day under the table or one of the few hundred people that landed in the CEO seat, you're chances of being sh*t out of luck are getting better and better. Yeah, the mean rich guy is sending jobs overseas. I can tell you need a few Kleenex. But how would you feel if you were in that person's position, trying to find jobs that no longer exist? What's outlined in a book and what happens when Fantasyland is closed are two very different things.
Working in broadcast sucked. Even when I got into a government gig, it still wasn't what I wanted. So I learned to do something new, figured it out, and tripled my salary in five years. I didn't get there by complaining about what The Man was making or how unfair whatever was. I can't control that. I can only control what I can do.
If a CEO can make the big bucks, good for them. They worked the system. Provided their compensation is still performance based (and Kinzel's is, as best I can tell), I have no problem with it. I'm not even that much of a fan of the guy, and think he might even be slightly under-compensated given the size of the company.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Lord Gonchar said:
It's an extention of the 'playing the victim' thing. "Ohh, I work so hard and get paid nothing while Mr. Suit does nothing but sit behind his desk and get a big fat paycheck and all kinds of great perks in life. I could do his job!"No you couldn't.
You rang, Gonch?
Hello all. It's me, "Mr. Victim".
Surprisingly I'm going to agree with Gonch and Jeff and the others for the most part. It is the way the world works.
"Get a better job" is easier said than done for some people though. Doing so takes confidence, support, and/or money and time (and maybe a little luck).
I do want to respectfully say one thing anti-CEO though. Mr. CEO's job is to maintain a profit. Agreed? What does he have to do in order to maintain that profit? One thing he can do is to keep costs down. One thing he could do to keep costs down is to make sure that he doesn't spend to much on wages, right? If I was Mr CEO, I too would probably forget about the little folk.
What I'm trying to say there, without sounding angry or out-of-control (because I am not), is that wealth can corrupt one's values. I tend to concentrate on other people around me and their happiness. Some CEO's do not seem to care about the well being of the people who work under them.
Call that Boo-Hooing about how the big mean CEO is keeping the man down if you want, but to me it really does seem to be a conflict of interests. Why should the CEO decide to give himself a Million Dollar raise or bonus when he really isn't paying a decent living wage to the employees that work under him and look up to him?
I want to work for a company who has a CEO who understands that the people under him are the same people who felicitate the success of the company and reward them for it. Every job is important, and should require at least a wage one could live on.
The only thing I would change about employment in America is treatment of the workforce. I'll repeat...Other than that, I'll agree with the pretty much textbook explanations given.
As long as my post is, I'm pretty much saying "me too", except for one thing.
I am not looking for attention. I hope my post can be considered a valid opinion and not an attempt at trolling.
Rob Ascough said:
Since when doesn't it cost money to get ahead? Are you at all familiar with the current job market? Why do you think people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on college?
The fantasy is that you can't get ahead without a college education. I have a degree in meteorology from a Big Ten university. In the eleven years since I graduated, how many days have I earned an income as a meteorologist? Zero. I got my current job based on my experience from and performance during my first job. And I got my first job because I learned enough about HTML and computers in my free time to earn the entry-level opportunity. College was a great experience, but it has little to do with where I am in my career. There are many people with similar stories, including here at CB. I'm in no way an exception.
Do you think that a high school graduate has the same chances of landing a job that a college graduate has?
It depends on the job and the person. A degree isn't the ticket you think it is. There are a lot of people with fancy degrees who can't even pay back their student loans. College can help you grow as a person, and you can certainly learn advanced skills. But there's a big difference between a 19-year old looking at the decision to go to college, and a 45-year old who decides he's sick of being the little man who can't get ahead. If you wait until you're halfway through a career, you have to keep your expectations in check. You're not going to take off for four years to get a degree. You'll have to be much more creative. But it can be done. And there are other ways to advance. It's ludicrous to think that college is the only way you can advance yourself.
Take responsibility for your own lot in life. Stop complaining and put that energy into doing something about it.
Not everyone has the same path to success. For some, it will be easier. For others, it will be much harder. Some will toil and never make it. Some people start in a deep hole and never make it out. But, you know, some people do make it out. Some people do all the right things in their career, but mismanage their finances and fight against themselves. And still others earn typical wages, but make smart financial decisions, and end up living bigger than their career would normally indicate. Plus there are plenty of people who do all the right things and earn a middle-class income until the day they retire.
Why? Well, first, life isn't fair. You can do all the right things and not end up with the expected results. Not everyone has a good childhood. We all have differing levels of intelligence, aptitude, and propensity to certain skill sets. The playing field is level, but some have more obstacles than others.
Second, some people are actually content (gasp!) with their life, work, and income. Some people are completely satisfied with putting in their work, earning their paycheck, and coming home to their family, all without giving any thought to what some CEO in New York City earns. They'll put more thought into what A-Rod gets in his latest contract extension (but still won't whine about how much harder they work than a pro baseball player).
It's much easier to blame CEO's, racism, Republicans, the weather, parents, spouses, etc., than to take responsibility.
Seems to me that you're living in some kind of fantasy world where people can snap their fingers and- poof!- they're suddenly sitting in the corner office with a private receptionist outside their door simply because they worked hard and climbed the ladder.
I'm sure that's how you view it, too. The evil rich guy just snaps his finger and gets everything handed to him. If you think of a typical CEO, your line of reasoning will probably lead you to believe his daddy got him his first job, or his Harvard degree put him a few steps short of the top right out of college.
In reality, we see people who have nothing handed to them, and work their way to success. There's "bad" in every walk of life. But for every bad CEO, there are lots of people like Dick Kinzel, who started as a seasonal employee 30-some years ago, and now operates a company worth a few billion dollars. Or David Neeleman, whose own drive and talent took him to the top of Jet Blue. He actually earns a small salary compared to most business leaders. That works for him, his company, and that situation, and I say, great for him. Given his nearly unequaled talent and stature in the industry, as well as his past accomplishments, he is certainly within reason to earn a salary that is much larger.
It may be worth noting that neither Kinzel or Neeleman have college degrees.
We all know that there's room at the top for everyone that climbs the ladder, right?
Of course not. If it was easy, everyone would be a millionaire. I addressed that above. If the chances of getting to CEO by working hard and advancing yourself are near zero, the chances that working hard and advancing yourself will be worthwhile and make you a better person are near 100%. It's a win-win situation, because the effort is rarely wasted.
In case you haven't noticed, the movement of jobs overseas is a big problem.
Is it?
There's a movement of jobs oversees, but the economy is growing and the unemployment rate remains low. That kind of math is new to me.
But in the real world, jobs are disappearing
No they're not. While it sucks when someone loses their job, someone else - maybe in a different city or state - wins. Overall, our economy is stronger when we're part of a global economy.
Outsourcing can save a company money to the point where they can grow, expand, and create more jobs than before. Researchers at Dartmouth found that companies that outsource actually create American jobs at a faster rate than those who don't outsource.
That growth isn't as evident. It certainly isn't sexy enough for an election year. It's a lot easier to see the layoffs. It's much easier to complain.
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
Jeff said:
If money were the sole factor that defined success (and if you believe it is, I suspect you're not very happy), then you do what you have to do to make more.
Gemini said:
Take responsibility for your own lot in life. Stop complaining and put that energy into doing something about it.
First of all, don't either of you even pretend to know enough about me to know of my financial situation. The fact that I'm denouncing some traditions of the corporate world that I find repulsive has nothing to do with where I am in my life when it comes to money. Whether I'm filthy rich or dirt poor, don't insult me by acting like you suddenly have me figured out, because if you think you do, you're both more ignorant that I could ever give you credit for.
When did this conversation turn into a bunch of whining about whining? My point remains the same as it was when I first started posting in this thread- I truly feel that some corporate leaders are overcompensated. You can agree or you can disagree, but this is a matter of opinion and nothing more. Just because you feel that corporate compensation isn't out of control doesn't make it so. There are a lot of people that will disagree with you on that one.
Walt, you're obviously in a different situation than most, but don't assume that what is true for you is true for all others. You never put your meteorology degree to work for you but my best friend actually did put his meteorology degree to work because that's what he wanted to do and that's what he paid to study. Most people major in something that they plan on using throughout their lives. That's not to say they can't switch gears at some point and do something else, but when someone goes to college to study meteorology, they usually become a meteorologist. People don't major in criminal law so they can get a job in marketing.
I know it's easy to fall back on this whole "life isn't always fair" crap when you're out of answers, because that's pretty obvious to anyone and everyone- life isn't fair. That said, that's not really comforting words to people that are forever stuck in an unpleasant place in life, living paycheck to paycheck and not knowing a way out. Honestly, I wouldn't know what that is like- I guess I'm lucky to be able to sit here and say that I don't have to cry about life being unfair to me- but I've seen life be unfair to a lot of people. When a working-class family man doesn't have enough money to treat his wife and kids to a summer vacation but reads about some CEO making millions after his company failed to meet expectations for the third consecutive year, I can only begin to imagine what goes through his head. For every person that's a rags-to-riches story, there's a person that's a rags-to-rags story. Just because they got a tough break doesn't mean the system is right.
Jobs aren't disappearing overseas? Are you and I living in the same country, Walt? Do you ever turn on the news, or look out the window? I find it hard to believe that you can be so wrong with such authority.
*** Edited 7/31/2007 4:29:58 AM UTC by Rob Ascough***
Going to college and getting a degree proves many things, and the most important thing that it proves is that the recipient of said degree has worked hard to achieve something that not everyone else is capable (or willing) to do. This makes the degree holder much more marketable in just about any field in which he/she applies for a job, and in many cases, it doesn't matter what the degree is in. This is not the case in every job, as some jobs do require a specialized degree, but the point is this: getting a degree is the important part if you want to be able to get a good job, and what it's in may not be as important as you think.
Someone please go take Business 101.
If he has a bail-out clause that says he get's 3 million a year for life after parting with the company, so be it. Someone thought he was worth it and perception is reality in many cases. *
Look at F Ross Johnson and what was his pay-out when the RJR Nabisco take-over went south?
Wasn't that like 150 million or something? I'd like to get 150 million for being fired, but my contract isn't that good.
I've met Dick Kinzel a couple of times at Cedar Point. Nice guy, very friendly. Is he worth it? Who am I to say? I don't pay him or sign his checks.
*= the 3 million figure is just a number thrown out there. Doesn't really matter how much it is.
Great Lakes Brewery Patron...
-Mark
Rob Ascough said:
First of all, don't either of you even pretend to know enough about me to know of my financial situation.
Let me clarify my use of the word "you." It was not intended to mean you. Rather, I was using the word in a generic context. I don't know you beyond a screen name, so I have no idea if that statement is applicable to you or not.
Just because you feel that corporate compensation isn't out of control doesn't make it so. There are a lot of people that will disagree with you on that one.
The opposite is also true.
Walt, you're obviously in a different situation than most, but don't assume that what is true for you is true for all others.
I don't think I am. Like I said before, I'm not the exception. The idea that the only way to get ahead is by going to college, earning a degree, and using that specific skill until retirement, is ridiculous.
I suspect most people work at a job where there are co-workers who do only what is expected, come in at 8:05 a.m. and leave at 4:50 p.m., and aren't motivated by anything other than the thought of Friday. In some workplaces, those people are actually in the majority. What a miserable life. Should those people wonder why other people move up while they stay the same? Should they resent people who do advance?
A friend of mine works in such a place. She is in a department with three other people. The work that is required of them only takes 25 hours a week, give or take. The other 15 hours are usually spent surfing the web, playing games, or whatever else they want to do. The boss doesn't mind, as long as the work gets done.
A few weeks ago, there was a need to be trained on a new aspect of their job. It would take an hour and is important information for them to know. My friend tried for two weeks to get her co-workers to find a time to get the training from another department. Turns out, they were always too busy, or it was never a good time. Eventually, they got it done. But, now, one of my friend's co-workers is upset with her. Apparently, she resents her acting like she's in charge or that she's the boss, mistaking wanting to do the job for being authoritative. It's one thing to not be motivated to do anything, it's another to resent someone else who is.
Sadly, they've gotten so used to getting by with the minimum, that whenever something is asked of them beyond the 25 hours, her co-workers whine about too much work, or not being paid enough.
Most people major in something that they plan on using throughout their lives.
I did plan on being a meteorologist. After I graduated, the job market was tough in the government sector. My options in the private arena were television and private forecasting companies. I tried television, but it's a tough business to break into. I only made it past the audition tape stage in a couple of small markets, and never came close to my "big break." I interviewed with a private forecasting company where the starting salary was $8.50/hr. Seriously. For an entry level forecaster with a four-year degree.
I decided that wasn't going to work for me. Many people have gone on to great careers in that industry, but after 10 months of coming up with less than ideal options, I took the entry level programming job. I did what I needed to do.
There are a lot of people who go to college with the thought of learning a specific skill and using it in their career. But in the real world that ideal situation doesn't always work out.
I know it's easy to fall back on this whole "life isn't always fair" crap when you're out of answers
I have plenty of real answers. "Life isn't fair" is one of many.
people that are forever stuck in an unpleasant place in life, living paycheck to paycheck and not knowing a way out
What a sad myth! No one is stuck. And living paycheck to paycheck has everything to do with living within your income (however low it may be), and nothing to do with the job.
When a working-class family man doesn't have enough money to treat his wife and kids to a summer vacation but reads about some CEO making millions after his company failed to meet expectations for the third consecutive year, I can only begin to imagine what goes through his head.
Hopefully what goes through his head is, "I'm not happy. I need to do something about it."
I never said that was easy, but it's certainly not impossible.
Jobs aren't disappearing overseas? Are you and I living in the same country, Walt? Do you ever turn on the news, or look out the window?
I watch the news every night. It's a great way to catch up on what's going on, but it's hardly the only source I turn to. Do you believe everything you see or hear on the news, or think that the news gives you a complete picture?
The United States is not the only country on the planet. We will kill ourselves as if we implement isolationistic policies
There are a lot of misconceptions about outsourcing and they come from an unwarranted fear of job loss. It's easy to get scared if you just listen to sound bites on the news and glance at the subject from a 35,000-foot level.
A Global Presence in Economics: The Case for Free Trade
Four Big Lies About Offshoring
I find it hard to believe that you can be so wrong with such authority.
I thought this was "a matter of opinion and nothing more?" Now you're shocked at how anyone can not think like you?
*** Edited 7/31/2007 12:49:39 PM UTC by Gemini***
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
The only real issue I have with high executive salaries is when that doesn't trickle down. Having been on the inside of Cedar Fair for a short period of time I can tell you that I felt much better about HIS salary when mine was going up as well...or I was receiving some benefits. For instance, there was a year when many of the management (even mid-level managers) got a bonus of shares. That made me feel good about the company, my contribution to it, etc.
Now, that only happened one of the years I was there. And, perhaps it is happening more often. But again when I, as a then mid-level manager, ALSO received some benefits due to the success of the company I had no ill will to the big guy's salary.
That is my issue with this potential P.E. situation. If only he and the top dogs benefit from it then I would be a little miffed. But, if it is spread down the corporate ladder I will find it much easier to swallow.
I know my current boss makes a SIGNIFICANT larger salary than I do. I also know he does a lot of "busy" work because I and others do a lot of his work for him. He is on the golf course a lot and so forth. But, my salary has continued to be adjusted upward because I have proven my worth. As long as that continues to happen I have no hard feelings toward my boss. Do I think he DESERVES what he makes? I don't know. But, I am not angry about it b/c my own situation is fine.
That is the biggest issue here, in my opinion. We all can't expect to make CEO money. But, when they do we should be rewarded as well. *** Edited 7/31/2007 1:26:36 PM UTC by wahoo skipper***
Further supporting my claim that more people than not use what they learned in college is the fact that your major is a bit of an odd one. That's not some kind of slap in the face- it's just what I know from my friend having gone to Val Paraiso to study meteorology and the odds he faced when it came to getting a job. He was one of the lucky ones- he got the broadcasting job that he wanted and is now advancing through better markets- but the field of meteorology is a tough one to break into. That's surely why there are a lot more people in college studying marketing, law and medicine. I doubt that many people that spent the time and pay the money to study law and medicine are going to move in a different direction.
Again, I'm not going to question what you're saying about people having to improve their own situations. I'm not one for welfare programs or government hand-outs- things I believe do more harm than good. You're absolutely right- no one really is stuck- but it's getting increasingly harder to break out of a cycle of financial mediocrity. Manufacturing is moving overseas. Tech support is moving overseas. I know that's what the news teaches us but I've also seen in firsthand in my industry (and industry that, ironically, isn't based on manufacturing or tech support). Dealing with companies like Wal-Mart on a daily basis has shown me more than the news can ever show anyone- it just so happens that the news does get this one right.
Getting back to my original point, this was about my opinion on corporate leaders getting overcompensated... not sure how it drifted this far, and in this direction. I'm not going to argue that these corporate leaders are violating any actual laws- if this stuff is in their contract, it's in their contract- case closed. What I'm doing is questioning the morality of it all. I don't believe CEOs are 800+ times more worthy than the workers that help them get the job done, just like I don't think any of the players on the NY Yankees (which happen to be one of my passions) are worth the $15-$25 million salaries they command and movie stars are worth the $30+ million they rake in for a single movie. That's all.
wahoo skipper said:
If only he and the top dogs benefit from it then I would be a little miffed. But, if it is spread down the corporate ladder I will find it much easier to swallow.
Sorry to double post but this pretty much summarizes how I feel. If someone is leading a company to great success and the people below benefit (see the comment I made about Gordon Bethune and Continental Airlines in the recent SFA thread), then he or she is justified in their compensation. But how often do you hear about a company continually performing below expectations and then hear that the CEO and board got pay raises? Or, worse yet, the corporate leaders getting pay raises while jobs get slashed because there's apparantly no money to retain those people. Some of those pay raises are ridiculous... ridiculous enough to keep another few hundred people employed.
People pushed to unemployment because there's "no money" yet plenty of money to give out absurd raises? That's what I have an issue with.
Their is a lot more to being this position then people think. If the company does bad no matter what the problem is the ceo and people like the CFO will get blammed and possibly taken out.
No one cares about your financial situation. This isn't about you, it's about different opinions on the topic, just like anything else you take personally around here.
Rob Ascough said:
First of all, don't either of you even pretend to know enough about me to know of my financial situation.
That seems to be where you go with a lot of debates. If that's the case, why do you care at all?
You can agree or you can disagree, but this is a matter of opinion and nothing more. Just because you feel that corporate compensation isn't out of control doesn't make it so. There are a lot of people that will disagree with you on that one.
So should we go totally socialist? I donate a lot of money to charities every year, and I think that anyone who does OK in life is morally obligated to do so. That said, I also would rather help people learn to fish than give them a fish. The Man and The System are far from perfect, this I will agree on. But I won't ever concede that the CEO of a successful company isn't entitled to the spoils of his or her work.
That said, that's not really comforting words to people that are forever stuck in an unpleasant place in life, living paycheck to paycheck and not knowing a way out.
As for the whole off-shoring argument, the only reason that it gets any press is because in the last decade, it finally started to affect white collar IT workers. It has already gone that way in every other industry, and as a percentage across all skills, it hasn't changed much. That's globalization. Get used to it. We can't play in the big sandbox by ourselves. Silicon Valley is the new Detroit. I just hope that they don't start churning out crap, stop innovating, and go the way of Detroit, then blame some nebulous force for "unfair" trade.
(And for the record, I've always had guys on work visas on my teams in the world of software development because there simply aren't enough corn-fed Midwestern white boys to fill the jobs.)
By the way, I'm in Walt's camp too. Double majored in radio/TV and journalism. Now I'm a code monkey at a sweet dotcom and wrote a programming book. I'm not trying to sell my kickassness or anything, just pointing out that I too transitioned because I chose to. No one I know is working in the field they studied, save for a few teachers. The major matters less than just going to school and having that experience.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Couldn't agree more. With few exceptions (doctors, lawyers, accountants and so forth) the major is almost completely irrelevent these days as is, for that matter, the GPA. Going to and completing college proves you can succeed at, and complete, something.
In the State of Florida only 51.8% of Parks and Recreation Directors majored in Recreation, Park Resources or Leisure Studies. 3.6% majored in Public Administration, 11.8% majored in Physical Education and 32.7% majored in "Other". In other words, the specific major wasn't as imporant as one might think. (I'm one of with a degree in the field I practice.)
Jeff is right. You can either b**** and moan about the change and watch it pass you by or you yourself can change. Those are the options. This whole "I'm running for President to keep our jobs at home" thing sounds nice but is out of date. It is too late for that. They should be running on the "we are going to change you for today's market" platform.
Now, I think there is an argument to be made for a CEOs whose spoils have gone to their head and they think they can do no wrong. That is when you start seeing the Enrons pop up. That is when good goes bad like what happened in the waning years of Eisner. But look at Disney. Eisner et al were criticized for the big salaries and bigger bonuses but any study of where the company was in 1984 and where it is today cannot be discussed without looking at the tremendous impact he had on the company.
The same can be said for Kinzel, compartively anyway. And again, I don't wish him ill will for his successes so long as it isn't only a small amount of people benefitting.
When I got my "bonus" shares from Cedar Fair I think they were valued at about $485 or something silly like that. But you know what? I couldn't have been prouder of myself or my employer that year. That cost CF nothing...basically...but my morale rose ten fold.
THAT is the type of stuff they should be doing regularly. If CEOs would promote that type of stuff then I've got no problem with them flying around on corporate jets and so forth.
You must be logged in to post
