Members of Disney family release film critical of Disney company

I think people can reasonably care about actions that insult another person's dignity, whether or not that person is actually harmed. Peeing on a gravestone in the middle of the night harms no one; using a slur to describe a person or group of people outside of their presence *might* not harm them, but those things typically offend us to some degree, whether or not they "matter." Does a CEO pulling down tens of millions a year insult the dignity of the people working for her, or the dignity of the people working three jobs to cook and clean for the people working for that CEO? YMMV, but I think there's a fair argument that it does.

Should that be codified in law, or is it sensible for shareholders to take that into consideration? I'm nowhere near smart enough to say that. But trying to shame the CEO certainly seems within bounds.

ApolloAndy said:

But CEO's get rewarded with millions of dollars for finding ways to get more for less out of those front line workers.

At this point, two sentences in, you've lost me, because it's a terribly broad generalization. A lot of levers control the cost of goods sold, and labor is only one of them. Furthermore, if people were forced to take these jobs, and they're not, the underlying reason for that is not evil CEO's, it's that those jobs require no particular skills to perform, and so the need for the skills is low. Stop conflating that with the value of the humans.

Because for every Iger there's five CEO's that ran their companies into the ground.

This is hyperbole. Are you saying 1 in 6 companies are failing because of incompetent leadership? It doesn't matter if Iger would be good in other industries, because his whole career is media. That's the thing he's good at and it turns out his acquisition and digital strategy was gold.

hambone said:
Does a CEO pulling down tens of millions a year insult the dignity of the people working for her, or the dignity of the people working three jobs to cook and clean for the people working for that CEO? YMMV, but I think there's a fair argument that it does.

That sounds a lot like the thing that Vater was implying. We shouldn't be measuring our self-worth on the basis of what someone else makes, or what they do. Trust me, I've had loads of therapy trying to figure out where work fits in my sense of self-worth and identity, and the outcome is that it shouldn't. That's a silly cultural expectation that people grow in to, not a decision.

Yes I am making broad generalizations and hyperbole. "Running into the ground" was not the correct phrase but "not making back their salary for the company" is what I meant. The reason I mentioned Iger in other industries is because the CEO's do that. You don't think some food company or tech company or whatever wouldn't pay $30M for Iger if he wanted to? With no real indication that he would have any success there.

All that aside, my ultimate point is that, from a statistical standpoint I don't think the average $10M CEO is making back their salary in value for the company paying them. That may be true of a lot of jobs, but with the growing income disparity this seems like the most obvious and glaring example.

Jeff said:

work fits in my sense of self-worth and identity, and the outcome is that it shouldn't.

Sure, but the dignity of not working three jobs and still being a missed paycheck away from homelessness is real. Maybe we could call it "security" or "peace" or "happiness" too, but I don't think it's not "dignity."

CEOs are employees too. Ultimately, everyone on the payroll is an employee doing the same thing every other worker is doing - trying to get the most for what they bring to the table.

At this point, I'm convinced a certain segment of the population thinks CEOs are just like the bad guys in 80's movies and that's actually how the world works.

These discussions are typically long on rhetoric and short on detail. Minimun wage should be increased. By how much? Everywhere the same or should it vary by area of the country?

CEOs are paid more than they are worth. Who should make that determination? Should there be caps on CEO pay? If so, how is it set? Based on what lowest paid employee makes? Does complexity of the enterprise matter? Global company with locations worldwide and 150k employees is very different than one with one location and 10k employees. Should industry be taken into account? We only hear talk about CEOs. What about other members of the C-suite? Or other management in general? Caps on their comp too?

And taxes have to increase on certain people. Who? And by how much? What percentage of the taxes should X people pay based on having Y% of the income? Fair share is the buzzword but it typically goes undefined (other than "more").

Tough to evaluate or respond to rhetoric.

I tend to live in the abstract, so I'm not as much interested in the details of implementation as the general philosophy and values being expressed. And it's led me to many interesting discussions, not the least of which is the Shanghai thread. But YMMV. I know lots of people (my wife included) who doesn't have a flip to give about abstract principles and philosophical ruminations.

Jeff said:

We shouldn't be measuring our self-worth on the basis of what someone else makes, or what they do.

I'm not suggesting that anyone working three jobs should or does. I'm saying that as an outsider, it's fair to look at the two and say "something is wrong here" and try to fix it.

GoBucks89 said:

These discussions are typically long on rhetoric and short on detail.

Well, yeah. There's a whole political system that exists to make those decisions, taking into account their effects on the economy, negative consequences, fairness, and our first principles, including, you know, "freedom" but also whether we want to be a country where people work three jobs so we can have cheap burgers. Pointing out inequalities, with or without specifying specific tax rates or minimum wages, is part of that process.

It's not valid to suggest that if I can't name the right tax rate, I don't get to express the view that inequality is a problem.

Apollo Andy said:

I'm not as much interested in the details of implementation as the general philosophy and values being expressed. And it's led me to many interesting discussions

Interesting to a point, sure. But then details need to be considered, because while "increase minimum wage" or "CEOs aren't taxed enough" or "my neighbor shouldn't have to work 3 jobs to not be homeless" or whatever sounds all noble and just on paper, it likely isn't nearly so once the hows and whys are introduced.

Increase minimum wage...how much? Will jobs get cut? Prices go up?

Tax CEOs...how much more? What will those taxes be earmarked for? Will the government do good things with that extra money? (no.)

My neighb--OMG MOVE OUT OF THE BAY AREA

I know I sound sociopathic, but the flip side of that is a complete lack of personal accountability. In my experience, with few exceptions, those who complain the most about how much life sucks don't seem to do much to try to improve it.

Well, in my experience, proposing specific solutions is wasting breath if there isn’t a consensus that something is wrong.

I tend to live in the abstract, so I'm not as much interested in the details of implementation as the general philosophy and values being expressed.

No one should be paid more than they are worth. Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Everyone is entitled to dignity and respect. And there should be more puppies, rainbows and apple pies.

And it's led me to many interesting discussions, not the least of which is the Shanghai thread. But YMMV. I know lots of people (my wife included) who doesn't have a flip to give about abstract principles and philosophical ruminations.

That may explain a lot because I have tried to stay away from the Covid thread as much as possible. Could have been closed more than a year ago without any significant difference to anything (other than to some time wasting). Abstract principles and philosophical ruminations (something that tends to be in the CEO's job description which seems ironic) are fine. But without implementation or details resulting from them, its just mental masturbation.

It's not valid to suggest that if I can't name the right tax rate, I don't get to express the view that inequality is a problem.

Is it valid to argue against that which isn't being argued? I say its not but maybe to abstract thinkers it is?

Well, in my experience, proposing specific solutions is wasting breath if there isn’t a consensus that something is wrong.

Don't you need to identify the problem with at least some level of specificity before you can even talk solutions at a high level? You have to understand what the problem is and what is causing it to be able to solve it (or move to making it less of a problem). Without understanding the problem itself, any proposed solution may be totally ineffective (at bets) and make the problem worse (at worst).

So, this topic hits close to home. First, there are a wide variety of "CEOs" out there and the vast majority are not making tens of millions of dollars. I saw a citation that the average "CEO" salary is $156,511. I'm not suggesting that isn't a good salary...but it isn't Iger money by any stretch.

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to "how much is too much" because there are so many factors. That being said, I have never been more "at risk" in my career in that my success or failure has never been tied as closely to so many things that are not completely in my control. For instance, a bad traffic stop that is made by an officer that leads to a tragedy may well result in the loss of my job. No amount of training, recruitment strategy, or oversight eliminates that possibility. That isn't hyperbole and I'm not seeking pity but it is just a fact. I basically work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I work when I'm on vacation. I work on the weekends. I never "disconnect". Again, not looking for pity but it is another reality for CEOs. My family understands there are going to be times...more often than I would care to acknowledge...when they will not be the priority. I own these realities but they might explain why I'm getting paid better today than I did 5 years ago...when I was working for the same entity and the buck did NOT stop with me.

Iger's compensation was incredible. But, take a look at the performance of the company under his leadership. As Jeff alluded to, he made some remarkable (and some might say gutsy) decisions that will be rewarding stockholders for generations to come.

Let's assume for a moment that Disney decided to pay their lowest paid employees twice what they are making now because of record revenue. I'm curious what that would do to the Orlando job market. Maybe Universal could match it...but what about the rest of Orlando's service sector? Many people here saw the stories of what happened in Sandusky when Cedar Point raised it's seasonal wage to $20/hr plus bonus.

Again, I don't think there are any easy answers to inequality without having a much deeper conversation about socialism...and you have to acknowledge that much of America's success can be traced back to our capitalism. Bezos is flying his rockets...yes...but he also reinvented business just as Jobs reinvented communications. And, if Conor McGregor can make $180 million in a year for punching someone in the face...are we really going to argue about a CEO salary? We certainly can't do it in a vacuum.

That second paragraph hits home. Exactly the same situation with my wife...and she's not exactly a CEO (she'd be a COO, I suppose anyway), but I tell anyone that will listen that the increase in pay she got when she went from running one hotel to overseeing 10 is nowhere near the increase in demand/responsibility/expectations.

Honestly, the whole thing feels like one of the best posts I've ever read on CoasterBuzz. I wish I could vote it up more than once.

I agree. That second paragraph is right on and timely for me. I work for a non-profit and we had employees recently in a tizzy over what the top 10 salary earners make (I'm not one of them) when someone found our public tax forms online. There was a lot more "but I work harder!" from adults than there should have been. I'm far from the CEO and the buck doesn't always stop with me, but I approach my job like it does. I know the feeling of never really being off. I routinely get calls and texts on my day off and I check my email when I'm off and on vacation because I don't want surprises when I return. I've worked on vacations and I've worked when I was home sick with COVID when I didn't get credit for working from home. The only time I've truly unplugged was on cruises. I've learned to compromise and set better boundaries in recent years. I'll completely unplug for the first half of a vacation and I won't reply to any emails unless life, limb, and or property (or my own ass) are in danger. If I get a phone call, I usually text and ask if it's an emergency or something I can answer without getting on the phone. I stepped up into the position I'm in more than 10 years ago and, while I was ready and compensated fairly, I was not prepared for the increase in stress and, to some degree, responsibility.

wahoo skipper said:

my success or failure has never been tied as closely to so many things that are not completely in my control.

Absolutely, and I hope my earlier post--

If I were to blame others for my limited success (or my failures even, taking it beyond just discussion of salary), it reeks of victim mentality instead of accepting personal responsibility.

--wasn't taken to suggest that absolutely everything is in one's own control. I was laid off in 2017 from a company I helped start (not as a founder by any means, but my employee number was in the single digits) for circumstances beyond my control. It sucked, and I was pissed and could have easily burned bridges and held grudges, but I ended up finding another opportunity in the same company and I still work there now, making more than I did then. My point was that circumstances out of your control can certainly affect your success or failure, it's how you deal with those circumstances that further affect the same.

hambone said:

Jeff said:

We shouldn't be measuring our self-worth on the basis of what someone else makes, or what they do.

I'm not suggesting that anyone working three jobs should or does. I'm saying that as an outsider, it's fair to look at the two and say "something is wrong here" and try to fix it.

I don't think anyone here necessarily disagrees with you, but "because Bob Iger" is not a solution, because it's not even the problem. The "does not compute" GIF is the perfect expression of why there are no solutions to the problem. That, and because the 'Merican population talks about "socialism" and "communism," and don't know what those mean or that they're not even compatible ideologies. And no matter how much Bernie Sanders and his mittens talk about greed and the bad men in boardrooms, they are not the problem. They didn't built the system and they're not terrible people. If you want to blame our system of investment, debt and wealth, you probably need to blame Alexander Hamilton.

It would be far more constructive to look at the reasons someone has to work three jobs (and I doubt you can generalize), because I can guarantee that none of the reasons are Bob Iger.

I've seen this come up a bunch of times, but I certainly don't blame the CEO's themselves, nor do I think they're evil or whatever. But whatever the system is that has decided that a CEO should get paid $60M is what I'm (kind of) upset about.

Baby meet bathwater.

But why should it upset you? Again, this is not a zero-sum game. It's true, this is not a meritocracy, I get it. But the existence of well paid executives does not affect you or me.

I mean, it upsets me as much as Kim Kardashian being famous for no reason which is to say, not a lot, but some non-zero amount.