51–60 of 160 posts
Well, he led the company while its value went from $10 billion to $69 billion in 7 years. Doesn't seem ridiculous.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
would you accept $50 bonus and $1 to each of your 450 covorkers if you were set to receive $500 bonus instead?
Would you accept $50 (million dollar)? Hell yeah.
What would you choose between $50 and $500. Maybe $500, not sure if I could live with myself, but I can see how some people would.
But why is $500 even on the table? Why isn't someone (a board, a shareholders' meeting) telling this guy: $50 (million) should be enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
I'm all for taxing the rich and compensating workers fairly. But: - Had the company declined, the CEO would have gotten all the blame and been crucified. Can't give blame if you can't also give credit. - The CEO negotiated this deal, the employees did not. - A good portion of this $500M is from the value of his stock, which is part of his compensation. I don't know the percentage of this payout that comes from stock…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
And if the company had done poorly, would be game for the employees taking a pay cut? It works both ways.
Do all the other workers get a proportionately large cut (relative to their incomes)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
I'm all for taxing the rich and compensating workers fairly. But: - Had the company declined, the CEO would have gotten all the blame and been crucified. Can't give blame if you can't also give credit. - The CEO negotiated this deal, the employees did not. - A good portion of this $500M is from the value of his stock, which is part of his compensation. I don't know the percentage of this payout that comes from stock…
CEOs interests are aligned perfectly in this situation: increase shareholder value. The vast bulk of CEO pay is derived from the stock that's granted to them and vested over time just like it would be for any employee that received RSUs or stock options.
I don't quite grok the idea that employees with no ownership stake in the company are somehow owed a share of the capital gain when they've got no capital of their own at risk.
A big part of my compensation is commission and another big part is RSUs. If I don't deliver results and if I don't align my goals with that of the major shareholders and the market, I don't make as much money. I don't see how this contravenes the startup/get-rich zeitgeist here in HN.
Capitalism for me but not for thee?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
I'm all for taxing the rich and compensating workers fairly. But: - Had the company declined, the CEO would have gotten all the blame and been crucified. Can't give blame if you can't also give credit. - The CEO negotiated this deal, the employees did not. - A good portion of this $500M is from the value of his stock, which is part of his compensation. I don't know the percentage of this payout that comes from stock…
- $230m from "already-vested stock-appreciation rights"
- $190m from "Aetna common stock he currently owns"
- "Between $60 million and $85 million" as part of a "change-in-control package" which is paid out if he's terminated as a result of the sale.
One of my biggest pet peeves regarding reporting of executive compensation is when the headlines pretend that CEOs are being paid hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, when it's mostly coming from stock-based compensation, which is arguably the most fair way to pay a CEO (if they do poorly leading the company, they make much less money).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say I start building a house. I realize I can't do it all by myself, so I get other people to do all the labor involved in building it. All the while providing all the details, instructions, and architectural guidelines to get a good finished product. Not to mention sourcing the materials required, getting the plans approved by the city, and making sure that on-sight construction passes inspection by the city. Who "o…
Comparisons like this inevitably break down at some point. I'm not at all convinced that the Aetna CEO does whatever the equivalent of sourcing materials does in their business. Architectural guidelines? Sure. "All details"? Almost definitely not. Even taking your example at face value, I don't agree with it. The house wouldn't exist without either labourers or the planner. They are both vital. But in the Aetna situa…
I think it's fair to say that no single laborer, it seems, is as important in the process of production than the person making all the decisions to employ labor to some final product.
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
Do you really think the employees making minimum wage are doing "all the work?" If that's true, this guy did literally nothing. Which I doubt. Anyway, it seems like he's done a decent job of trying to spread the wealth around (no idea if the claims are true, of course). FTA: "He is one of the highest-profile leaders in managed care, known partly for sharing his personal health-care experiences after a severe ski acci…