Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Wait a minute. What are you doing on this side of the board?!? There's no Losman/Holcomb debate going on here 721661[/snapback] There's no real Holcomb/Losman debate going on anywhere. Holcomb is an aging player on a rebuilding team, and Losman is a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 There's no real Holcomb/Losman debate going on anywhere. Holcomb is an aging player on a rebuilding team, and Losman is a bust. 721681[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 That's 200 times more than the hypothetical CEO brought in over the same 30 year span; despite the fact the CEO may have worked just as hard as Gates, with just as much responsibility, doing largely the same tasks.721655[/snapback] With one incredibly overwhelming and obvious difference: Gates took the risk to start Micrsoft and is due whatever he makes regardless of how obscene the number is. A CEO, as you describe him/her, simply takes the risk of running a company created by someone else. There is no comparison regardless of who works harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 With one incredibly overwhelming and obvious difference: Gates took the risk to start Micrsoft and is due whatever he makes regardless of how obscene the number is. A CEO, as you describe him/her, simply takes the risk of running a company created by someone else. There is no comparison regardless of who works harder. 722015[/snapback] I wouldn't paint it with such a broad brushstroke, because CEOs generally work hard, period. The toughest spot for a CEO to be is in a declining industry or a company facing a turnaround. Yeah, the guy may get paid a lot compared to falling sales and layoffs, but how much is he worth if his actions save the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 With one incredibly overwhelming and obvious difference: Gates took the risk to start Micrsoft and is due whatever he makes regardless of how obscene the number is. A CEO, as you describe him/her, simply takes the risk of running a company created by someone else. There is no comparison regardless of who works harder. A good point. But let's say you're a recent Harvard MBA grad, and you wake up with a sudden urge to accumulate $100 million over the course of your lifetime. You could start your own company, and run the risk of failure. Or you could try to work your way up the corporate ladder, running the risk of not getting promoted. There's no risk free way to accumulate $100 million of wealth either way. Now, you say that the guy working his way up the corporate ladder took on less risk than Gates. That's true. But his upside is also more limited, so it evens out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 A good point. But let's say you're a recent Harvard MBA grad, and you wake up with a sudden urge to accumulate $100 million over the course of your lifetime. You could start your own company, and run the risk of failure. Or you could try to work your way up the corporate ladder, running the risk of not getting promoted. There's no risk free way to accumulate $100 million of wealth either way. Now, you say that the guy working his way up the corporate ladder took on less risk than Gates. That's true. But his upside is also more limited, so it evens out. 722058[/snapback] If you're a recent Harvard MBA grad, odds are you'll never be struck with the entrepenureal spirit necessary to accumulate $100 million. People who can do that can dare to be different...they don't go to Harvard business school just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 A good point. But let's say you're a recent Harvard MBA grad, and you wake up with a sudden urge to accumulate $100 million over the course of your lifetime. You could start your own company, and run the risk of failure. Or you could try to work your way up the corporate ladder, running the risk of not getting promoted. There's no risk free way to accumulate $100 million of wealth either way. Now, you say that the guy working his way up the corporate ladder took on less risk than Gates. That's true. But his upside is also more limited, so it evens out. 722058[/snapback] Most of my friends who have their own companies didn't start their companies because they want to be rich. There's more to it than the money; namely, independence. For most of us, we simply tired of working our ever-loving asses off for the sake of "good work ethic" only to find that most companies, in the end, will !@#$ you. Think about it: how many times have you ever put in a 60-hour workweek? Or weekends? Or traveled at inopportune times, or brought work home, only to have your annual review end up two months late, and not retroactive, with "You're a great employee, but we can only give you 3% because that's the most we give anyone, and oh, by the way, you'll be traveling with Freaky Freddy to Tulsa next week and sharing two twin beds at the Motel 6. Good luck. We really need that new account." If you're a strong enough person to see your job as a means to simply afford your life, and put in your 40 hours and go home, then you're eliminating any opportunity to advance in your career, and let's face it, riding a stationary bike sucks for most people because it numbs your noggin. Most people need to have SOME kind of challenge on a continuous basis. As entrepreneurs, do we want to get rich in the process? Of course. It's it priority #1? No way. Which is why most of us will never waste our time going after a high-level degree. It's easier and faster to hire people with high-level degrees to do the work for you. But if my business fails, the high-level degree guy will find another job while I will have to find a way to now work for someone else again. Believe me when I tell you there is absolutely NO way that evens out. No way. Never. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Most of my friends who have their own companies didn't start their companies because they want to be rich. There's more to it than the money; namely, independence. For most of us, we simply tired of working our ever-loving asses off for the sake of "good work ethic" only to find that most companies, in the end, will !@#$ you. Think about it: how many times have you ever put in a 60-hour workweek? Or weekends? Or traveled at inopportune times, or brought work home, only to have your annual review end up two months late, and not retroactive, with "You're a great employee, but we can only give you 3% because that's the most we give anyone, and oh, by the way, you'll be traveling with Freaky Freddy to Tulsa next week and sharing two twin beds at the Motel 6. Good luck. We really need that new account." If you're a strong enough person to see your job as a means to simply afford your life, and put in your 40 hours and go home, then you're eliminating any opportunity to advance in your career, and let's face it, riding a stationary bike sucks for most people because it numbs your noggin. Most people need to have SOME kind of challenge on a continuous basis. As entrepreneurs, do we want to get rich in the process? Of course. It's it priority #1? No way. Which is why most of us will never waste our time going after a high-level degree. It's easier and faster to hire people with high-level degrees to do the work for you. But if my business fails, the high-level degree guy will find another job while I will have to find a way to now work for someone else again. Believe me when I tell you there is absolutely NO way that evens out. No way. Never. Ever. 722096[/snapback] Great Post. After being self employed for over 10 years, I remember some long days too. 18 hour day were the norm. People need to realize, that being self employed is not as rosy as some might purport it to be. I had about 10 contractors and about 4 employees. Its harder work than working for someone else, more gratifying than working for someone else also. You get the best of both worlds. What you've done is amazing, and I applaud you. Just don't minimize the hard work that it takes to run your own business. Then again, maybe you didn't. Things change. Demand for you product can change, and that's the only reason, I still don't have my own company. Consolidation of many company's put the need for my services, on the outs. My advice. Make sure you diversify with your product. Mine wasn't as multidimensional as it should have been. Still, over ten years was a good run. I look forward to doing it again. BTW, the wife has been self employed for over 5 years. Keep a hold of that carrot LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 the ceo of my company was making about $450,000 per year. Hardly 267 times the average workers salary. Last year he made a deal where he got tons of stock options and basically didn't get a salary. He knew what he was doing because he was trying to sell the company. It worked out, and he ended up making $30 million when the company was sold. I don't love the concept, but the board gave it to him. 1/267th of 30 million is about $110k. Problem is, there are very, very, very few people in this country who make more than even 10,000,000 per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 But if my business fails, the high-level degree guy will find another job while I will have to find a way to now work for someone else again. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts