April 16, 2008

CEOtroversial


If Jim Carey makes $400 million a year making crappy films, most people are ok with that because they don't have to see the film.

If a CEO of a computer company makes $400 million a year, and the company does bad, people start talking about legislating salary ceiling laws, even though they are not forced to work, take ownership or shop at said business.

Is it because Jim Carey is funny?

4 comments:

Steve said...

As someone who has enjoyed only three Jim Carrey movies that I can think of off-hand, I am upset.

But, seriously, there are some differences. First, a lot of the times this gets brought up when the company is trying to reduce salary or benefits for workers or previously guaranteed benefits for retirees. Unless Jim Carrey is a producer on the film and asks the camera and boom-mike operators to take pay cuts, that's not the same. Secondly, Jim Carrey gets the money for the movie and if it tanks, that's it. A lot of the controversy with CEOs is the ones who fail and then get paid tens of millions of dollars to leave.

Sabai said...

i understand the ANGER at the CEOs, not the legislation, since I repeat, noone is "forced to work, take ownership or shop at said business."

Steve said...

As far as I know, though, most of the legislation has been about disclosure of the CEOs salaries. Maybe I missed some, but in that case I think it might be useful information for potential stockholders.

Sabai said...

oh...how is that NOT the law now? yes, as a stockholder, I also want stock options to be disclosed as expenses, too. But, that's a whole 'nother story.