11–20 of 46 posts
[1]:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1840036-usa-today-reveals...
This isn't an issue, despite the article's implication otherwise. Being a president of a college isn't exactly a low-impact position: in addition to being a public emissary to the college, they send the majority of their time on the road, raising money for their endowment. Colleges who offer poor compensation for their presidents will generally receive a commensurate return on their investment (though I'd love to see…
This isn't an issue, despite the article's implication otherwise. Being a president of a college isn't exactly a low-impact position: in addition to being a public emissary to the college, they send the majority of their time on the road, raising money for their endowment. Colleges who offer poor compensation for their presidents will generally receive a commensurate return on their investment (though I'd love to see…
U of C has an endowment of about $6.6 billion. Much of the job of the President of the University is to raise money for this fund. In any other context, $3.4 million/year for the chief fundraiser of a $6.6 billion fund would not cause anyone to bat an eyelash. Since 2000, despite two major economic downturns, U of C's endowment almost doubled, from $3.8 billion. About half that time was during Zimmer's tenure, and hi…
I wish more people understood this most basic law of economics.
If the supply of people who are both willing and able to handle the position of university President is low, wages (which are the price of labor) will rise, thus enticing those who are able but not willing to meet the demand. The prevailing average wage rate for university Presidents is simply a reflection of the price point at which the supply and demand curves of capable labor for this position meet. Conversely, if there was an abundance of people who could fulfill this position, wages would decrease commensurately. There is nothing wrong with someone making $1 million, or $10 million, or $100 million for performing a function, provided that wage is being offered to everyone who can perform that function indiscriminately. Of course, a system made up of imperfect agents will not function in a theoretically perfect fashion, but this is more or less how things work. I'm sure that being the President of a university is not without its myriad challenges, and it is unlikely that the average Joe off of the street could perform this function well. Thus, wages for university Presidents are going to be higher than the average Joe's wages. The solution for the average Joe is not to attempt to bring down the wages of the university President, but to aspire to become capable of performing the function of the university President himself.
Simplistic? Perhaps, but sometimes it's advantageous to think of things in simplistic terms. No one escapes the pot when everyone is being pulled back down.
This isn't an issue, despite the article's implication otherwise. Being a president of a college isn't exactly a low-impact position: in addition to being a public emissary to the college, they send the majority of their time on the road, raising money for their endowment. Colleges who offer poor compensation for their presidents will generally receive a commensurate return on their investment (though I'd love to see…
With millions of your countrymen without basic health care, shelter and food, you think it's not a problem that someone makes $1 million a year? Wow.
...this doesn't bother me nearly as much as some people. Certainly not while college football coaches earn far more. The top ten highest paid football coaches are all taking home $3.7 million+, and that's at state universities[1]. Personally, I would value the university president more than the football coach. [1]: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1840036-usa-today-reveals...
This isn't an issue, despite the article's implication otherwise. Being a president of a college isn't exactly a low-impact position: in addition to being a public emissary to the college, they send the majority of their time on the road, raising money for their endowment. Colleges who offer poor compensation for their presidents will generally receive a commensurate return on their investment (though I'd love to see…
With millions of your countrymen without basic health care, shelter and food, you think it's not a problem that someone makes $1 million a year? Wow.
If someone provides this value, then they are this valuable. If they don't, then the salary should be lower. It is that simple.
Or, to put it in entrepreneur terms: If I start a company and sell it for $100M, and I keep $20M for myself, is this wrong, because there is hunger in the world? No!
PG has an essay about this. http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html tl;dr: If you take away inequality, you take away the appetite for people to take any risks, because there will be no payout. You will then have fewer entrepreneurs, leading to fewer big companies, and fewer jobs. Read the article, it is an interesting perspective on the matter.