Ballmer Gets Only Half His Possible Bonus

[cesthree]

[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Is executive compensation out of control? Yes. Is there anything that can be done about it? Not unless you own preferred stock in the company (i.e. you have voting rights). I like the free market system, but there are definitely those who take far too much advantage of that system. Yes, a CEO works very hard. Does that neccessarily mean they deserve a seven figure yearly salary? They could easily live a very, very, comfortable life with far less. Alas, the ones who set compensation are the owners and shareholders of a public company. So, while most of us look at those compensation pacakages and bemoan the ridiculous logic that goes into paying someone like that, the only solution is for the shareholders in these companies to say something about it.[/citation]

You sir, need an education. Start with something easy to digest such as 'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell. Bill Gates was an incredibly lucky person in an incredibly lucky era.

 

[cesthree]

Sorry DRosencraft. I quoted the wrong message. This is what it should have looked like:

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]I was pointing out that if he wanted money to be distributed like that from the rich just because he wants the poor to be given hand outs, he should give it a try himself and see how difficult it is to get such a company started like Bill Gates did, let alone keep it running. I didn't think that the meaning was too subtle, was it?[/citation]

You sir, need an education. Start with something easy to digest such as 'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell. Bill Gates was an incredibly lucky person in an incredibly lucky era.

 

[jacobdrj]

Before reading a news article pointing out that the government oversight of Microsoft as fallout from the Windows/IE monopoly thing had recently been lifted, it didn't occur to me that maybe Balmers' hands were tied, and like most of you, I thought of him as nothing more than a lucky bufoon. I think now that the oversight is gone and there is now a much more robust software ecosystem with Google and Apple in the mix, Microsoft is again free to innovate. They are going in the right direction, merging all the platforms, namely phone and desktop.

Lets not judge Steve too harshly for dealing with a pretty crappy situation. At least, not yet...

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]cesthree[/nom]Sorry DRosencraft. I quoted the wrong message. This is what it should have looked like:You sir, need an education. Start with something easy to digest such as 'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell. Bill Gates was an incredibly lucky person in an incredibly lucky era.[/citation]

It doesn't matter how lucky he was, he was still an intelligent man who did a damn good job even for what luck he had (despite the fact that I still don't like much of what he did). You act as if I said the Bill gates got where he was without any luck when that is nothing like what I said. I guarantee that if Bill gates had been nothing more than a technician and hadn't done anything to not stay that way like this guy seems, then he wouldn't be where he is, no matter how lucky he is.

Furthermore, my point was that JustPosting and other poor people aren't entitled to money just because they don't have much of it, not that Bill Gates deserved to be rich. Nothing that you said proves nor disproves anything other than that you want to start a worthless argument over nothing.

 

[cesthree]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]It doesn't matter how lucky he was, he was still an intelligent man who did a damn good job even for what luck he had (despite the fact that I still don't like much of what he did). You act as if I said the Bill gates got where he was without any luck when that is nothing like what I said. I guarantee that if Bill gates had been nothing more than a technician and hadn't done anything to not stay that way like this guy seems, then he wouldn't be where he is, no matter how lucky he is.Furthermore, my point was that JustPosting and other poor people aren't entitled to money just because they don't have much of it, not that Bill Gates deserved to be rich. Nothing that you said proves nor disproves anything other than that you want to start a worthless argument over nothing.[/citation]

I'll agree with you on one thing, people do not deserve payment for work they have not done. That being said, these executives are grossly overpaid (compensated). Sure, capitalism allows for that; however, it doesn't make it right.

A mechanic is no greater than the collection of equipment he commands, for without that equipment he cannot perform a task.

In the context of a single corporation, the laborers at the "bottom" do not get adequately compensated when you consider the salaries of the few at the "top".

What you suggest, starting a company like Bill Gates did, is an absurd idea at best. Even if one person could happen to fall into the circumstances Bill Gates fell into, of course they would have to be intelligent to pull it off (as Bill Gates is). The real matter isn't building a new business in order to fully understand what it is like to work for that kind of success, the matter here is what to do with your success after you have achieved such "greatness".

The idea that, for whatever reason, individuals need to be so heavily compensated presents a fundamental problem whether you believe in capitalism, socialism, or communism.

If a factory worker, software engineer, or customer service rep, gets paid $25/hr. to perform 10 tasks per hour (completely arbitrary figures here), then I believe that CEO's should have to perform at equal rates. For what Ballmer gets paid, he should be able to run 10 Microsofts simultaneously, especially when you consider how poorly Microsoft really listens to what its customers want (Windows 8 not being one of them).

Otherwise, Ballmer is performing like the factor worker getting paid $25/hr. yet only performing 0.1 tasks per hour.

 

[eijiyuki]

There is no such thing as a 100% communism that works, but at the same time some of you praise America's capitalism and yet we have equal amounts of greed and corruption. The rich get richer and more selfish and the poor just get poorer and hungrier.

Modern online video games serve as a good analogy or microcosm to a capitalistic country, where the first players who find the best ways to get money and/or exploit the system will control the virtual economy and the poorer players will forever stay at that level... and yet the average gamer thinks they can reach the income that the richest players have because they did it why can't i? Well cuz they repeatedly close the doors behind them.

 

[blurr91]

[citation][nom]eijiyuki[/nom]There is no such thing as a 100% communism that works, but at the same time some of you praise America's capitalism and yet we have equal amounts of greed and corruption. The rich get richer and more selfish and the poor just get poorer and hungrier.[/citation]

Greed is good. It motivates people. Take that greed away and we stop working. I can prove it easily. Let's say we boost tax rate to 100%. What will people do? They stop working.

Rich doesn't always get richer. Look up the Forbes 400 richest American in 1980 and compare them to 2010. I wonder how many of those 400 dropped off the list and replaced by others.

Poor getting hungrier? Why do we have an overweight problem among our poor? People get fat when they go hungry?

 

[nameon]

[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]I say give him a little more time. He's been trying to redirect the trajectory of a company that was already heading the wrong way when he took over. At least lets see how he handles the current slate of offerings under his direction (Win8, Surface, etc.). I say give him at least until early 2014 to see what he does. If nothing changes by then, maybe it's a good time to rethink the leadership.[/citation]

Correct, i really dont hate microsoft for anything, im not sure i can even blame vista v1.0 on balmer, xbox is still kicking, halo is still kicking, win7 kick(s/ed) ass, wp7 wp7.5 rocked, all left to look at is wp8, win8 and the new xbox

 

[hetneo]

[citation][nom]JustPosting52[/nom]Meanwhile, back in poorsville, I'm stuck at $30,000.... Bonus? Hah!Yeah... There really needs to be regulation is this country to limit how much people can make, or distribute the difference to the people that actually work hard and deserve it.[/citation]
[citation][nom]boiler1990[/nom]And violate one of the reasons we have a semi-free market economy? Why? That's a terrible idea.Should we regulate what people do with federal money (subsidies, bailout $$, etc)? Absolutely. But if the company made it, they can do whatever they please with it.[/citation]
I agree with JustPosting52 that there is something wrong with how the profits are split. But my beef is at the way profits are split in one company between workforce on one side and management and investors on the other side, heck even if you put management in same bin with workforce they still get much smaller cut of profits. In short workforce invests knowledge and investors invest money. If knowledge is valued by expense of gaining it it becomes rather evident that in vast majority of industries workforce makes higher part of investment and thus should be entitled to higher slice of profits. Unfortunately this cannot be legislated, and it's so deeply rooted in the mentality of people that it will never happen. By the way America has textbook example of free market economy, what neo-con and libertarian politicians advocate is actually pure and simple anarchy in form of quasi self regulation. Self regulation will never work, in essence because of system's entropy.

 

[kinggraves]

Silly middle class and their desires to be paid better. Why didn't you invent the PC then? Let them eat cake.

As someone stated above, the problem with Communism is human nature does not allow for actual equal distribution. Capitalism is also flawed in that distribution becomes unbalanced leading to dissention between the upper and middle classes. If there was a perfect form of government, everyone would be using it. We haven't found a flawless system yet.

That being said, I cannot fault the poster above. How many people here say he doesn't earn it, that he should work harder? How do you know how hard he's working? It's easy for the haves to pass judgement on the have-nots. A lot of people cannot afford to get an education they may be intelligent enough to deserve. A lot of times that pedigree degree is the sole factor in getting that six figure salary rather than actual ability. Maybe if the upper ranks passed on a bit more of their earnings Joe Six Pack could actually afford to invest in the stock market or send his kids to college instead of struggling just to make ends meet. There is just no reason for enough wealth to retire on going to a single person every year. They don't reinvest it. They have everything they want, why would they? They sit on it like Uncle Scrooge and it goes to waste. They invest the wealth in other countries with outsourcing and pay less taxes than small businesses because they afford better law teams. That is NOT how Capitalism works.

I'm not saying that we should just switch to Socialism and get everything served up for free, not at all. But that doesn't mean the wealth is properly being channeled. Just because people wish they were making enough to do more than live another day doesn't mean they're turning red or want to sit on welfare.

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]JustPosting52[/nom]Meanwhile, back in poorsville, I'm stuck at $30,000.... Bonus? Hah!Yeah... There really needs to be regulation is this country to limit how much people can make, or distribute the difference to the people that actually work hard and deserve it.[/citation]$30,000 in poorsville is actually decent. $30,000 in NYC is poor

[citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]I agree with JustPosting52 that there is something wrong with how the profits are split. But my beef is at the way profits are split in one company between workforce on one side and management and investors on the other side, heck even if you put management in same bin with workforce they still get much smaller cut of profits. In short workforce invests knowledge and investors invest money. If knowledge is valued by expense of gaining it it becomes rather evident that in vast majority of industries workforce makes higher part of investment and thus should be entitled to higher slice of profits. Unfortunately this cannot be legislated, and it's so deeply rooted in the mentality of people that it will never happen. By the way America has textbook example of free market economy, what neo-con and libertarian politicians advocate is actually pure and simple anarchy in form of quasi self regulation. Self regulation will never work, in essence because of system's entropy.[/citation]You can't complain too much about Microsoft's pay fairness. You can easily make 6 figures at that company. Baller's salary is $600k, but a college grad can get $80-100k/yr working there. So, a good manager can get $200k. The company normally makes $16 billion in net income, so a $1.6m salary + benefits package isn't bad. Most CEOs of companies smaller than Microsoft get paid $30m or more. Now, he probably has a crapload of Microsoft's dividend-paying stock, but the company isn't exactly starving for money, either.

Compare that to Walmart

 

[vigorvermin]

the problem [citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]I agree with JustPosting52 that there is something wrong with how the profits are split. But my beef is at the way profits are split in one company between workforce on one side and management and investors on the other side, heck even if you put management in same bin with workforce they still get much smaller cut of profits. In short workforce invests knowledge and investors invest money. If knowledge is valued by expense of gaining it it becomes rather evident that in vast majority of industries workforce makes higher part of investment and thus should be entitled to higher slice of profits. Unfortunately this cannot be legislated, and it's so deeply rooted in the mentality of people that it will never happen. By the way America has textbook example of free market economy, what neo-con and libertarian politicians advocate is actually pure and simple anarchy in form of quasi self regulation. Self regulation will never work, in essence because of system's entropy.[/citation]

That's a pretty blanket statement that isn't true of all companies. Some give almost all their profit to the employees while the management suffers. I work for a bunch of companies as a consultant and a few of them have this problem. For one of them they pull in $75,000 / yr and pay $60,000 to the employees. Obviously this company is going to go under if that keeps up.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out that while few companies get that balance right, it is different for each company and one of the big challenges of owning a business.

 

[Guest]

Half his possible bonus? I guess that's one way to kick Steve in the ballmer.

 

[bluekoala]

[citation][nom]SardonicJester[/nom]This is the exact kind of mindset in this country that just kills me. Who the fuck do you think you are? What in the world makes you think you are entitled to someone else's earned money?[/citation]

You're putting words into his mouth.
The point of his lament was that the delta in salary between the average Joe who busts his ass and member of high society is ludicrous.
There's plenty of number to state that fact.
He may not be totally right in his opinion, but he is totally right to have one.
You gave yours too which is nice.
Now it's my turn:

And I think a huge flaw with Reagonomics which goes a long way to help this situation goes hand in hand with your statement:
"What in the world makes you think you are entitled to someone else's earned money?"
Let's say for example you're the sole owner of a company and local employee makes 10 000$/y. for X amout of labour.
You lay him off and hire 2 people off shore to replace his at 1 000$/y.
You save 8 000$/y.
You give yourself a big raise.
Repeat the process long enough, jobs become more and more scarce, employees are willing to work for less.
So now, for X amout of local labour, the going rate is less than the original 10 000$, let's say 7 000$.
After attrition hits your original workforce, you start profiteering on the new workforce, giving yourself a bigger bonus.
Repeat process over and over again, and you have america's present economy.

I think this can in the best case scenario lead to a huge economic bust and in the worst case scenario slavery and famine on a scale never seen before.

So all in all, I think there's great merit to what that guy was saying since whatever compensation a slave gets is much deserved than what a chair person makes.

 

[anti-painkilla]

[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]You can't complain too much about Microsoft's pay fairness. You can easily make 6 figures at that company. Baller's salary is $600k, but a college grad can get $80-100k/yr working there. So, a good manager can get $200k. The company normally makes $16 billion in net income, so a $1.6m salary + benefits package isn't bad. Most CEOs of companies smaller than Microsoft get paid $30m or more. Now, he probably has a crapload of Microsoft's dividend-paying stock, but the company isn't exactly starving for money, either.Compare that to Walmart[/citation]

I have to agree with you there. The salaries and compo for most of the execs are reasonable. Glad to see that the bonuses are actually performance based rather than 'performance but we will give you the total amount regardless'. However the 10M for the COO seems quite large. 1-3M is more than enough to live comfortably off, any other incentives should be 'special shares' that they cannot remove for a long time, so the exec care about the future of the business.

I wonder what 'perks' the execs get. Private jets, cars, housing? This is a factor which we will never see, but still is a huge company expense.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]Greed is good. It motivates people. Take that greed away and we stop working. I can prove it easily. Let's say we boost tax rate to 100%. What will people do? They stop working.Rich doesn't always get richer. Look up the Forbes 400 richest American in 1980 and compare them to 2010. I wonder how many of those 400 dropped off the list and replaced by others.Poor getting hungrier? Why do we have an overweight problem among our poor? People get fat when they go hungry?[/citation]

Let's look at the stupidity of your comment and how it is everything wrong with humanity.

1. Greed is needed? Really? Last I checked the greatest scientists that every lived usually died not so rich compared to their progression of human knowledge. Maybe YOU, and others like you, need greed to be motivated. But plenty of other people are motivated by anything but greed.


Funny you say look at the richest Forbes list.

It shows what is wrong with the USA. Having a few 10 million would get you on that list back then. Now you need 100s of millions to lower billions. The average wage has GONE DOWN since then. For CEOs? Skyrocketed.

Poor are fat because healthy food is more expensive. Processed food is the cheapest, yet also some of the unhealthiest food.

How does it feel to be so clueless about humanity and biology? Ignorance is bliss uh?

 

[magnetite]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]Greed is good. It motivates people. Take that greed away and we stop working. I can prove it easily. Let's say we boost tax rate to 100%. What will people do? They stop working.Rich doesn't always get richer. Look up the Forbes 400 richest American in 1980 and compare them to 2010. I wonder how many of those 400 dropped off the list and replaced by others.Poor getting hungrier? Why do we have an overweight problem among our poor? People get fat when they go hungry?[/citation]

Greed and endless consumption is killing our planet and the environment. Seriously, if you want this world to see the year 2100 and beyond (our children's children, and so on. Not necessarily the people who are around today), the world's economic system must be redesigned into something more sustainable. In it's current form it is quite unsustainable.

As for Steve's bonus and all. There's only a couple professions in this world which make millions or hundreds of millions per year. There are highly skilled professions with more training and value than a CEO (Doctors save lives. Saving lives is more valuable than a CEO who makes a company rich and ups the stock price).

 

[ronindaosohei]

[citation][nom]knodel12[/nom]Come on people. A CEO is to a company like the president is to America. They only have so much power, and in realistic view, windows 8 and everything else would've came out anyway.[/citation]

Not so, the CEO is more like a dictator than the President is, he has a lot more power to act on a micro level and autonomously if he chooses to.

 

[cesthree]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Let's look at the stupidity of your comment and how it is everything wrong with humanity.1. Greed is needed? Really? Last I checked the greatest scientists that every lived usually died not so rich compared to their progression of human knowledge. Maybe YOU, and others like you, need greed to be motivated. But plenty of other people are motivated by anything but greed.Funny you say look at the richest Forbes list.It shows what is wrong with the USA. Having a few 10 million would get you on that list back then. Now you need 100s of millions to lower billions. The average wage has GONE DOWN since then. For CEOs? Skyrocketed. Poor are fat because healthy food is more expensive. Processed food is the cheapest, yet also some of the unhealthiest food. How does it feel to be so clueless about humanity and biology? Ignorance is bliss uh?[/citation]

A-fucking-men.

 

[jabliese]

[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Is executive compensation out of control? Yes. Is there anything that can be done about it? Not unless you own preferred stock in the company (i.e. you have voting rights). I like the free market system, but there are definitely those who take far too much advantage of that system. Yes, a CEO works very hard. Does that neccessarily mean they deserve a seven figure yearly salary? They could easily live a very, very, comfortable life with far less. Alas, the ones who set compensation are the owners and shareholders of a public company. So, while most of us look at those compensation pacakages and bemoan the ridiculous logic that goes into paying someone like that, the only solution is for the shareholders in these companies to say something about it.[/citation]

Boards set the compensation package. Shareholders are supposed to have control over boards, but there are several hurdles to that particular process working the way it was intended.

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom] Poor are fat because healthy food is more expensive. Processed food is the cheapest, yet also some of the unhealthiest food. How does it feel to be so clueless about humanity and biology? Ignorance is bliss uh?[/citation]

Cheapest food in the supermarket is found in the fresh fruits and vegetable section, especially if you shop somewhere with a reduced for quick sale section. Ate a lot of suppers back in the day consisting of a $.25 packet of Ramen noodles (flavor packet discarded) and the veggie catch of the day, usually with tomato sauce.

 

[abbadon_34]

where has this thread gone?

 

[army_ant7]

There's something a lot of people don't realize. We (in general) are the ones who make people that rich! People in the entertainment business get that rich because we pay them one way or another.

In the case of Ballmer, the people who hired chose to pay him that much I would think. Just like how we choose to pay celebrities that much. How can we blame them (or say it's wrong) for making so much when we or someone else chooses to pay them that much?

If your grandparents decide to give you a huge amount of money in their will, is that wrong? We have no right to say that people don't deserve the money they make, unless they acquire it by dishonest means. Ballmer may just have the rare talent/ability to keep Microsoft working fine. Maybe he can't be easily replaced and that MS might just crumble down without him. Maybe that's why he gets paid so much. If he was so replaceable, then maybe they'd just get someone else who'd settle for a lower salary. The laborers may be easily replaced (not to say they're worthless, but that there's an abundance of people with their skills). Supply and demand.

Both businessmen and laborers are vital to a business, thus if you get rid of the businessmen, the business will falter just as much as if you get rid of the laborers. Though if businessmen of a required caliber were so abundant, then maybe they wouldn't be paid so much. Also, some people are just more hard-working (not lazy) and/or wiser (not foolish) than others.

luciferano mentioned that if someone complains about not making as much as them, then they should try doing what they do (start a business or something); and like he said, see how hard in more ways than one (not to mention risky) it actually is. For all we know, (I actually bet) a lot of these rich people have families (if any at all) that don't have them around as a lot may have.

I'm not against becoming rich. I'm against becoming rich by dishonest means.

P.S. I myself am not willing as of now to start or manage a business. Call me lazy (and I would agree to certain extent) but I don't want to handle the risk and all that work involved. You don't see me complaining about the people who became rich by willing to do what I wasn't (unless it was wrong/dishonest).

 

[knodel12]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]You don't deserve anyone else's money. If you want more money, why don't you go start up a multi-billion dollar company? A post like this deserves far harsher words than I'll be giving.The CEO has plenty of power to make the product better. Metro in of itself is an excellent concept, but the execution of it on the desktop/laptop was poor, to say the least.[/citation]
It's not like everything is perfect the first time around. I was exicted for windows 8, I still am. I'm just going to hold back until they work out some of the compatibility issues between operating systems and hardware. As of now, my computer works better with 7.