Steve Ballmer, Other MSFT Execs Take a Pay Cut

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]mrface[/nom]warren buffett doesnt drive anything outrageous... [/shrug][/citation]
The founder of my company bought an Expedition when they first came out and had a marine conversion done that that now he can take his SUV out onto his lake. If you have the money to burn, you can find a million and 1 ways to spend it.

 

[apmyhr]

I'm with everyone on this forum, this is awful! The government ought to pass a law allowing President Obama to decide how much people are allowed to make. Im tired of these greedy sons of b**ches execs making more money than me because they are talented. Its unfair and unconstitutional!!! I know darn well the founding fathers would be against this type of free market capitalism.

 

[igot1forya]

The picture makes me thing Balmer is Frankenstein "Fire Bad!"

 

[Yoder54]

Wait...something is wrong here. They cut 5000 jobs, cut the salaries of the top execss, and yet they are offering Apple employees great incentives to jump ship...yea, what they mean to say is "we will hire them away and have them walk the plank into some shark infested waters."

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]I guess they won't like to fight a fair fight, and get a normal worker's wage huh?I can be happy if I make $20 per hour.. My wife has to do with $12 per hour![/citation]
I hate statements like this. Ok, first of all, "worker" is a Marxist term. You are not forced into servitude, as such in the U.S. we have EMPLOYEES, not workers (other than using that term generically).

Second, businesses do not exist to provide you with a job and health care benefits and retirement plans, etc., etc.; businesses exist to make money. When they hire an employee, they do so because they require their services in order to achieve their ultimate objective... MAKING MONEY. Your compensation is in proportion with how valuable you are to that business. Your value comes from one of two avenues in either a direct or indirect fashion: either you make the business money, or you save them money. If your wife makes $12/hour, then that is the value of her services to that business. If she feels that is not fair compensation for her time and skills, then she should go elsewhere or start her own business (the same goes for you).

Third, what are you talking about "fight a fair fight?" It is very easy for people to villify corporate executives (and to be fair, they are some who deserve it), but do you really know anything about their life? All you see is the money. What you don't see are the 80 hour work weeks, the constantly being on call, the being responsible for the performance of a company and, by association, for the well-being of their employees. These guys make millions of dollars a year because that is their level of value and responsibility to the company. I've seen and worked with corporate C-level executives up close and I can tell you unequivically, I would not want that job.

 

[endif]

@apmyhr

I don't think you understand how business works from a CEO perspective. With the title of CEO anything that were to happen to Microsoft from a legal or financial standpoint, he is at fault. If there were jailtime involved with any actions Microsoft were to take he has the highest amount of risk to do the time. I say he is getting ripped off.

And I don't care what anyone says. Mental stress is much worse then physical stress when working. With the positions that those employees are in, they need compensation for that. I would never want their job.

 

[jcknouse]

I have but one question:

If you are running a company, and you lose profits for that company...why should you get a bonus?

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]jcknouse[/nom]I have but one question:If you are running a company, and you lose profits for that company...why should you get a bonus?[/citation]
Strictly speaking, you shouldn't. However, a lot of these executives came in at a time (earlier than the last couple of years, obviously) when the economy was ever growing and so their contracts don't take into account negative growth. So they end up getting the minimum bonus stipulated in their contract. The company is obligated to pay those bonus by law. The short-sightedness is on the part of the board members who agree to those contracts in the first place, because they are squandering the company's money at a time when it could ill be afforded.

An even better solution would be for the government to stop bailing companies out. If a company makes stupid decisions, or enters into unrealistically generous contracts with any of its employees, then it should suffer the consequences of those decisions. If that means they go bankrupt, then so be it.

 

[AdamB5000]

So let me get this straight. Microsoft never required any federal bailout money (our tax dollars) and they are giving their chief's a pay cut. Large bank received billions of dollars in bailout money just so they would not go out of business due to extremely poor financial and general business choices and they bonused themselves hundreds of millions of dollars.

That doesn't add up. I guess the bailouts really did a lot of good, right? Bleh.

 

[Yoder54]

[citation][nom]endif[/nom]@apmyhrI don't think you understand how business works from a CEO perspective. With the title of CEO anything that were to happen to Microsoft from a legal or financial standpoint, he is at fault. If there were jailtime involved with any actions Microsoft were to take he has the highest amount of risk to do the time. I say he is getting ripped off.And I don't care what anyone says. Mental stress is much worse then physical stress when working. With the positions that those employees are in, they need compensation for that. I would never want their job.[/citation]

Run an honest company and you won't have to worry about law suits or jail time.

Stress...give me a break. Try teaching teenagers...they have tons of strees, get shit for pay, and are expected to do miracles with kids whose parents don't give a squat. I have little respect for many of the goons on top.

 

[r0x0r]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]I hate statements like this. Ok, first of all, "worker" is a Marxist term. You are not forced into servitude, as such in the U.S. we have EMPLOYEES, not workers (other than using that term generically).Second, businesses do not exist to provide you with a job and health care benefits and retirement plans, etc., etc.; businesses exist to make money. When they hire an employee, they do so because they require their services in order to achieve their ultimate objective... MAKING MONEY. Your compensation is in proportion with how valuable you are to that business. Your value comes from one of two avenues in either a direct or indirect fashion: either you make the business money, or you save them money. If your wife makes $12/hour, then that is the value of her services to that business. If she feels that is not fair compensation for her time and skills, then she should go elsewhere or start her own business (the same goes for you).Third, what are you talking about "fight a fair fight?" It is very easy for people to villify corporate executives (and to be fair, they are some who deserve it), but do you really know anything about their life? All you see is the money. What you don't see are the 80 hour work weeks, the constantly being on call, the being responsible for the performance of a company and, by association, for the well-being of their employees. These guys make millions of dollars a year because that is their level of value and responsibility to the company. I've seen and worked with corporate C-level executives up close and I can tell you unequivically, I would not want that job.[/citation]

+1.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]...Stress...give me a break. Try teaching teenagers...they have tons of strees, get shit for pay, and are expected to do miracles with kids whose parents don't give a squat. I have little respect for many of the goons on top.[/citation]

Try working 80-100+ hours a week trying to build your business whilst being literally millions of dollars in debt and having an unstable income... Chances are that's the beginnings of some of the richest people in the world.

If you're stressed out about a handful of teenagers you should contrast that with CEO's who are responsible for 10,000+ employees.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Didn't Gates make like $1 a year or something? Ballmer doesn't need a salary he's worth billions. He probably takes one due to some SEC thing or something like that. I could be totally wrong though but like I said...he doesn't need a salary.[/citation]

I believe that was Steve Jobs, in the Guiness Book of Records as the lowest paid CEO. $1/yr salary, but with the right to exercise his stock options.

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]danish_2828[/nom]Steve Balmer seems to be the most responsible one of all the Execs with the lowest pay. I think they should all make less than him and then they wouldn't have to lay anyone off.[/citation]
Steve Ballmer is just a figurehead.
The software coders are the ones that deserve the pay. They are the pnes doing actual work.

 

[ossie]

Salary is proportional to the ability to drain the last cent of customers pockets, and the last drop of blood from the drones.

"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Software coders need to be told what to code. The real tough stuff is deciding on strategy and identifying trends and threats in the fast moving tech sector. There are huge decisions that have to be made, with no clear cut best answer and no way to tell what the best path is until years later and after the fact. Microsoft recently launched Bing, a project that will cost tens of millions if not hundreds of millions in the next few years. Good decision? Hard to say, should Microsoft just cede the search business to Google? Microsoft still has a decent share, and having a share is something, only a few companies have any sort of share in the search market and that is valuable.

The Microsoft Marketplace idea is brilliant. Microsoft is able to sell stuff to Xbox users with Marketplace like movies and even unrelated items. The Xbox has been a money loser so far, it'll take years to figure out if Microsoft will ever be able to make money off of Xbox and if it was a good idea to launch it.

See, these are the tough decisions that will ultimately keep Microsoft #1, or destroy the company. The software programmers are skilled people so they get compensated a good amount, but you know right away if code sucks or doesn't. At the very least you know if it complies or not. With these business decisions, there's no way to tell what the best path is and no way to know if you're on the right path until it's too late or you're well on it.

I believe shareholders should have more control over executive compensation. Yes there are executives who are overpaid because they decide how much to pay themselves, something unseen in the rest of the business world. Microsoft's executive compensation is a great steal for shareholders, profits are still going to be in the billions and your top salary is only 8 million or so. That's a good deal. Microsoft generally has been very good in terms of corporate governance, perhaps it's because Gates owns so much stock that any anti-shareholder moves would hurt him, perhaps it's because he and Balmer are very rich already (though that hasn't stopped Larry Ellison) or perhaps it's his friendship with Buffet. Whatever the reasons, Microsoft isn't an abusive company with regards to shareholders. Too bad I had to sell the stock to buy real estate, Microsoft is a good buy at these prices in my opinion.