In our they gave out a special dividend worth over 25 million and then did another 20 million of stock buybacks while not giving any raises smh.

The first words I saw were friends and benefits, I thought this might be a psychological analysis of the phenomenon

True, I hadn't actually done the math.

No, it was a flashback episode based on Janice's question of "how many of you have almost done it?"

[deleted]

With that logic then Joey has a connection to Phoebe, since he dated her twin.

If Jill Goodacre somehow counts for Chandler, then that should definitely count

Noice. You are not a reddiot anymore.

Does Coma Guy count for a connection between Phoebe and Monica?

I disagree. The larger the company, the larger the compensation that goes to management. CEO and other officer decision’s have a major impact on a company’s future success.

So they are compensated accordingly.

>If the company is doomed to fail regardless of leadership, then it should fail the quality of the CEO is irrelevant.

But you won't know which companies are doomed to fail until you try, and without compensation they wont try.

>If only shitty CEOs are going to run the bad companies, where do the good CEOs go once there are no longer good companies with CEO slots open? Either they’ll have to swallow their egos and take a lesser position or they’ll have to try to right a sinking ship in the hopes of a future payday.

They work a lower level executive position. Much better than trying to rescue a sinking ship with an uncertain chance of success and minimal pay until you succeed.

>The only way to get a companies as a whole to raise the pay of their works to something commensurate with the work being done by their employees is to tie the wages of the companies leadership to the workers wages and their bonuses to the companies success.
>
>We already have CEOs today making thousands of times the average workers pay running a company into the ground while getting huge bonuses because the stock is going up then getting massive golden parachutes when they leave. That needs to stop, and the only way to do that is to legislate it.
>
>I’m not saying that the CEO should get a pittance. Something in the 500-1000% the average wage should be plenty, and if you have a sliding scale for bonuses where the more workers your company has the higher percentage of the gross profits you’re allowed to receive as bonus, CEOs of top-tier companies will still be able to get massive paydays. There will always be people willing to take the job, and if it weeds out some shitty CEOs that are only doing it for the money, so be it. Those guys probably shouldn’t be CEOs anyway.

Like which companies?

Also, tying to gross profit is another hammer solution that doesn't work for a lot of companies. Growth companies for example rarely bring much of a profit during their growth phase, and yet leadership is extremely crucial during this period.

Looks like a typo in the data. Nice catch.

I was at the gym and saw Ross and Phoebe trying to get it going on a pool table. But I guess that doesn't count.

right, and Mary Angela has to count as some kind of connection since she Joey's sister

that would mean Monica counts as a connection to Ross too though. use dotted lines for these somehow

…percentages can go above 100%. CEO should be in the 500-1000% range of the average employee salary.

If the company is doomed to fail regardless of leadership, then it should fail the quality of the CEO is irrelevant.

If only shitty CEOs are going to run the bad companies, where do the good CEOs go once there are no longer good companies with CEO slots open? Either they’ll have to swallow their egos and take a lesser position or they’ll have to try to right a sinking ship in the hopes of a future payday.

Unless your saying there are more good companies than there are good CEOs, but that just means right now there are shitty CEOs getting massive compensation packages because their company is successful in spite of the CEO.

The only way to get a companies as a whole to raise the pay of their works to something commensurate with the work being done by their employees is to tie the wages of the companies leadership to the workers wages and their bonuses to the companies success.

We already have CEOs today making thousands of times the average workers pay running a company into the ground while getting huge bonuses because the stock is going up then getting massive golden parachutes when they leave. That needs to stop, and the only way to do that is to legislate it.

I’m not saying that the CEO should get a pittance. Something in the 500-1000% the average wage should be plenty, and if you have a sliding scale for bonuses where the more workers your company has the higher percentage of the gross profits you’re allowed to receive as bonus, CEOs of top-tier companies will still be able to get massive paydays. There will always be people willing to take the job, and if it weeds out some shitty CEOs that are only doing it for the money, so be it. Those guys probably shouldn’t be CEOs anyway.

Why? CEO’s like all public company officers are appointed by it’s board of directors.

If the CEO doesn’t perform they are replaced.

The CEO’s decisions have a much greater impact on the company’s success than a low level employee. Thus, the CEO is often compensated according to the impact they make. This compensation can take the form of stock(RSU’s), bonuses, and salary.

Cool!

Ross and Joey have Charlie Wheeler in common, but she's shown as two separate points in the image.

[removed]

I think that past informs its present. The EU would not invade, and if NATO really wanted too, they would not. It’s better to keep the team. Similarly, friend tell me of the nationality section in the surveys they wrote in school as already filled out as Russia, she was descended from Kalingrad Germans deported to north-east Altai.

Yeah but is it 99% RSU’s and 1% cash, the other way around or something else? There’s a huge difference. No ordinary worker one wants to get paid in RSU’s vesting in 3 years. Can’t buy groceries with that.

>They will if they think they can turn it around and get the big bonus options.

That's if they succeed, many companies are doomed to fail regardless of the best efforts of the leadership.

>You’re looking at a single company in a vacuum. If the same rules apply to everyone your options are be a CEO of a sinking ship, or don’t work. And if no established CEOs want to do it, someone new will jump in.

No, you'll just get all the shitty CEOs in the dying companies which will go into bankruptcy, afterwards someone competent may come sniffing around post chapter 11.

They will if they think they can turn it around and get the big bonus options. You’re looking at a single company in a vacuum. If the same rules apply to everyone your options are be a CEO of a sinking ship, or don’t work. And if no established CEOs want to do it, someone new will jump in.

You're right. Even when I was countering, I was thinking it. A CEO's direction impacts the behavior of tens of thousands of employees. Even if those behaviors only average earning the company an extra $10/mo per individual employee, that's already millions a year.

It's worth noting that the CEO's value is also embedded in the structure of the company. The hierarchy guarantees by definition that the CEO can have the biggest impact. If a company were more horizontal in its leadership and direction, then there would be less of a discrepancy in the amount of money different employees can earn the company with their ideas.

Data: https://friends.fandom.com/wiki/Friends_Wiki

Tools: tableaupublic.com, https://tools.ladataviz.com/network

Interactive Version: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/zach.bowders/viz/Benefits_16745859906270/__