Updated: Activision CEO Earned $64.9 Million in 2012

[Assassin Xaero]

But this is still too much for one man who's doing the least amount of work.

And what exactly makes you think he is doing the least amount of work? Do you think a CEO just sits there doing nothing all day? Maybe once you get into the real world you'll understand.

 

[Lawyer105]

Imagine that your job never really stops. You don't have weekends, and going home to see your family doesn't mean jack. If you screw up, you cost hundreds of people their jobs and piss away the money you borrowed from hundreds more. Also, no one will ever hire you again. CEO salaries aren't that ridiculous when you factor that stuff in.

I would work in such a job for ~3-6 months and make enough money to never NEED to work again and not NEED to give a fuck about anything or anyone ever again, just me and my family (and future generations).

If you do that you would only make 500,000 - one million because his base salary was only two million during the year. He normally makes well under ten million a year total after all his bonuses.

The vast majority of what he earned fifty six million was stock awards which is not actually cash but stock in the company. This would come with a massive amount of paperwork attached to it. He wont be allowed to do anything with that stock except collect dividends for a quite a few years. He has also been working there for over twenty years and did a massive amount of work to earn that salary and rewards.

So what if he only makes a million in that 6 months? As a highly qualified professional, working in an international company at the top end of middle management (before I quit because of the stupid hours), I used to have an annual salary (before tax) of £50,000-ish. That puts me at around 2.5x the national average income. And even if you ignore tax (which you can't) it would take me TWENTY YEARS to make a million. If you include tax, it would be 27 years - the vast majority of my working life.

As long as you're living a reasonably frugal life, it's entirely possible to live for the rest of it on a million, whether you're talking USD or GBP. Whether this dude's total income is $60m or $8m, it's still an immoral obscenity as far as I'm concerned.

But this is still too much for one man who's doing the least amount of work.

And what exactly makes you think he is doing the least amount of work? Do you think a CEO just sits there doing nothing all day? Maybe once you get into the real world you'll understand.

Don't be so naive. I've been in the real world. I've worked with CEO's of big multinationals. Hell... in some cases, I've even been "in charge" of reviewing their pay packages (in as much as I had any say in the matter...). The vast majority work hard... I don't deny that... but they don't work any harder than I used to, and most of them work less. THEY would go home to their families, while I was still sweating away over the files/accounts/other stuff and say "I'll look at it tomorrow morning... just make sure it's done!"

Maybe it's you that needs to spend some time in the real world...

 

[caballitomalo]

Read the head line, my hatred for Bobby went up.

Read the update, my hatred for bobby went back to its normal level.

Thought about it, my hatred went back up again.

 

[caballitomalo]

Imagine that your job never really stops. You don't have weekends, and going home to see your family doesn't mean jack. If you screw up, you cost hundreds of people their jobs and piss away the money you borrowed from hundreds more. Also, no one will ever hire you again. CEO salaries aren't that ridiculous when you factor that stuff in.

I would work in such a job for ~3-6 months and make enough money to never NEED to work again and not NEED to give a fuck about anything or anyone ever again, just me and my family (and future generations).

If you do that you would only make 500,000 - one million because his base salary was only two million during the year. He normally makes well under ten million a year total after all his bonuses.

The vast majority of what he earned fifty six million was stock awards which is not actually cash but stock in the company. This would come with a massive amount of paperwork attached to it. He wont be allowed to do anything with that stock except collect dividends for a quite a few years. He has also been working there for over twenty years and did a massive amount of work to earn that salary and rewards.

So what if he only makes a million in that 6 months? As a highly qualified professional, working in an international company at the top end of middle management (before I quit because of the stupid hours), I used to have an annual salary (before tax) of £50,000-ish. That puts me at around 2.5x the national average income. And even if you ignore tax (which you can't) it would take me TWENTY YEARS to make a million. If you include tax, it would be 27 years - the vast majority of my working life.

As long as you're living a reasonably frugal life, it's entirely possible to live for the rest of it on a million, whether you're talking USD or GBP. Whether this dude's total income is $60m or $8m, it's still an immoral obscenity as far as I'm concerned.

But this is still too much for one man who's doing the least amount of work.

And what exactly makes you think he is doing the least amount of work? Do you think a CEO just sits there doing nothing all day? Maybe once you get into the real world you'll understand.

Don't be so naive. I've been in the real world. I've worked with CEO's of big multinationals. Hell... in some cases, I've even been "in charge" of reviewing their pay packages (in as much as I had any say in the matter...). The vast majority work hard... I don't deny that... but they don't work any harder than I used to, and most of them work less. THEY would go home to their families, while I was still sweating away over the files/accounts/other stuff and say "I'll look at it tomorrow morning... just make sure it's done!"

Maybe it's you that needs to spend some time in the real world...

I would say that in corporate terms, or in any sort of work terms really, you don't get a higher pay because you do "more". Just doing tens of hours of simple labor isn't going to make you much. Indeed, 10 hours of manual labor will earn you more than 8 but the pay grade is the same.

The way I see it, and I don't want to defend the savage capitalism that has become the norm around the world too much, you get pay more in terms of 2 things. The quality and complexity of your work and on the levels of responsibility and accountability you have.

CEO don't get payed more because they can crunch numbers better than anyone else, they get payed more because its their responsibility to oversee an entire company or part of one. And believe me, pushing paper, crunching numbers or even intellectual work (even the highly graded one) is nothing compared to having to deal with people.

If someone told me, "here take this 600+ employees company and make millions with it" I would surely as hell would have to get payed a lot of money to be accountable for all those workers.

 

[loc978]

Imagine that your job never really stops. You don't have weekends, and going home to see your family doesn't mean jack. If you screw up, you cost hundreds of people their jobs and piss away the money you borrowed from hundreds more. Also, no one will ever hire you again. CEO salaries aren't that ridiculous when you factor that stuff in.

I think you are the only person in this thread who is able to see the situation sensibly.

...replace jobs with lives and that's a bit like being a noncommissioned officer in the military. The ones that make ~$40,000 a year (if you count benefits... it's under 30 for actual pay) and tend to live quite comfortably on that. I know I did.

Of course, now I do considerably less with a whole lot less responsibility while making more in the private sector. This system is completely fucked up even on the low levels where I exist. Compensation based on real-world contribution simply isn't a thing in this country.

 

[The Inquisitive Mug]

"THIS MAN MAKES MONEY. THEREFORE HE IS AN ASSHOLE! FUCK HIM!"

Da fuck, people? You don't have to like how much he's making, but how many people have straight up called him a prick in the first page alone? Someone they've never met and know nothing about save for his name and his salary.

P.S. The article has been amended, and apparently his earnings last year were only $8.33. I suppose it remains to be seen whether or not he's still automatically a piece of shit at this salary level.

 

[Colt47]

The original article probably should have illuminated the fact that a good portion of the income figure would be stock based.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Da fuck, people? You don't have to like how much he's making, but how many people have straight up called him a prick in the first page alone? Someone they've never met and know nothing about save for his name and his salary.

Have you been living in a cave without internet access for the past 5 years, or have you just missed the articles about Activision's business practices that has been floating around, like the Activision vs. Jason West and Vince Zampella lawsuit? Even the more unbaised article paints a picture of Kotick being a cynical, brutally pragmatic businessman at best, or a greedy, petty cut-throat at worst.

 

[Glaice]

I want to see that shitstain live on 1% or 0.5% of his fortune a year..

 

[admiralzephyr]

As a gay liberal atheist working at minimum wage spending all my time playing video games and browsing internet forums. Part of that 63 million should be mine for simply existing.

 

[90sgamer]

Imagine that your job never really stops. You don't have weekends, and going home to see your family doesn't mean jack. If you screw up, you cost hundreds of people their jobs and piss away the money you borrowed from hundreds more. Also, no one will ever hire you again. CEO salaries aren't that ridiculous when you factor that stuff in.

I think you are the only person in this thread who is able to see the situation sensibly.

...replace jobs with lives and that's a bit like being a noncommissioned officer in the military. The ones that make ~$40,000 a year (if you count benefits... it's under 30 for actual pay) and tend to live quite comfortably on that. I know I did.

Of course, now I do considerably less with a whole lot less responsibility while making more in the private sector. This system is completely fucked up even on the low levels where I exist. Compensation based on real-world contribution simply isn't a thing in this country.

Compensation is based on contribution in most cases (in America). A CEO is contributing several things that most people do not have: 1. an education suited to the task, 2. proven experience suited to the task, 3. A business acumen not commonly found in people, and 4. Personal risk.

The latter is one that most people do not realize is present. I believe CEOs are civilly liable for their performance. If a company tanks, the shareholders can sue the CEO for extremely large quantities of money undoing everything that CEO ever earned. Every other employee does not have that risk. CEO's are compensated accordingly. If a normal employee doesn't perform and is fired, that employee can seek unemployment and still get paid without doing any work.

CEO's responsibility is the highest in the company. A CEO manages the direction and policy, which in turn manage every other task, all the way down to the common worker. Lots of delegation happens along the way down but the CEO is ultimately responsible for results.

I am not arguing that I like the pay schedule in America. But it's not has unfair as many make it seem. People who become wealthy on paychecks typically deserve it because they busted their own balls first.

 

[spartandude]

I want to see that shitstain live on 1% or 0.5% of his fortune a year..

0.5% would be $324,500.00

tell you what i would be more than happy living off that for a year. its over x10 what i make

 

[Lawyer105]

I would say that in corporate terms, or in any sort of work terms really, you don't get a higher pay because you do "more". Just doing tens of hours of simple labor isn't going to make you much. Indeed, 10 hours of manual labor will earn you more than 8 but the pay grade is the same.

The way I see it, and I don't want to defend the savage capitalism that has become the norm around the world too much, you get pay more in terms of 2 things. The quality and complexity of your work and on the levels of responsibility and accountability you have.

Agreed... and I have no inherent problem with that. Pay scales should represent both the amount of work done and the complexity/responsibility/specific educational requirements of the job. But I don't think that there's any argument that size of the gap between the various pay scales is excessive (at best) and outright obscene (at worst).

In addition, you've only considered a very small scale issue (pay scales between employees and management). This problem is way bigger. Is it right/moral/whatever that major multinationals are abusing third world countries in order to maximise their profit margins in first world countries? Is it right/moral/whatever that the entire capitalist "democracy" seems bent on ensuring their continued economic dominance, to the detriment of humanity as a whole?

No... this problem is way bigger than corporate payscales, and it's far more complex than can be discussed on an internet forum (like us internet dwellers have either the knowledge or the power to actually have anything useful to say on this anyway...).

CEO don't get payed more because they can crunch numbers better than anyone else, they get payed more because its their responsibility to oversee an entire company or part of one. And believe me, pushing paper, crunching numbers or even intellectual work (even the highly graded one) is nothing compared to having to deal with people.

If someone told me, "here take this 600+ employees company and make millions with it" I would surely as hell would have to get payed a lot of money to be accountable for all those workers.

And if they were ever held responsible, I might agree with you. But, basically, they aren't. Ever. Look at the banking crisis. The credit crunch. All the various bankruptcies, insolvencies and just plain screwups. How many of these people were ever held to account? No matter how badly you screw up, the worst that can happen (barring involvement in blatant criminal activity) is that you get "asked to step down". They don't even fire you... And even though a few might get sued, how many of those cases really ended up with winners (outside of the lawyers involved)?

Hell... I saw it regularly here in the UK (having been a specialist in regulatory implementation and compliance for the financial sector). The banks, the government, the FSA (the UK financial regulator) basically have a revolving door at the senior management level. Be a senior banker for a while, and when you step down, the FSA will hire you for your experience. After a while of that, you go into government as a financial consultant/advisor etc. And once you've done that for a while, any big bank will take you for your "knowledge, experience and credentials, which are vitally important in these difficult times".

It's BS. We're still slaves. Slavery never went away. They just gave us the illusion of freedom, and convinced us to pay for our own food and housing. /tinfoilhat

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

While the figure is huge, the actual amount available is relatively small in comparison. Considering its over a span of a few years, and a projection due to stock options, the real amount could be smaller. In other words, stock options are just a way of being rewarded for success and punished for failure.
I don't have any problem with people who make insane amounts of money, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. If you really think it does, you don't know how the tax system works at all in the US.
People who are in the top 50% of earnings pay nearly 100% of the taxes in the US, while the bottom pay around 3-4%. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of taxes and the top 5% pay nearly 60%.
So I don't know how anyone can say the rich don't contribute. They don't get money back at the end of the year like a large portion of the country (EITC).

 

[Lawyer105]

While the figure is huge, the actual amount available is relatively small in comparison. Considering its over a span of a few years, and a projection due to stock options, the real amount could be smaller. In other words, stock options are just a way of being rewarded for success and punished for failure.
I don't have any problem with people who make insane amounts of money, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. If you really think it does, you don't know how the tax system works at all in the US.
People who are in the top 50% of earnings pay nearly 100% of the taxes in the US, while the bottom pay around 3-4%. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of taxes and the top 5% pay nearly 60%.
So I don't know how anyone can say the rich don't contribute. They don't get money back at the end of the year like a large portion of the country (EITC).

Nobody (at least, nobody smart) has said that the rich don't contribute. The problem is that they take way more from the system than they contribute, usually far in excess of their "real" value (if such a number is even calculable).

Fact of the matter is that the system itself makes it possible for them to earn these excessive incomes, and the amounts they can earn because the system is the way it is, far exceed anything they're paying out in tax.

If somebody said to me : "You're earning 10 million. I'm going to make it possible for you to earn 50 million, but then you're going to be paying me tax of 30 million.", I sure as hell would go for that. An extra 10 million? Hell yeah... And even that is on the assumption that I don't then go and pay some clever tax accountant 1 million to reduce my tax to 20 million.

And don't bring up the whole "they pay 90% of the tax" nonsense. That's a BS strawman argument at best. If they halved the top 10%'s income, they could probably double the bottom 50%'s income at least. Slap a flat 40% on that, and the government would make way more than they're making now.

Your comment is, at best, short sighted and ill-informed.

 

[Kelgair]

I feel pity for the people who live life consumed by envy. It really is quite pathetic.

 

[Lawyer105]

I feel pity for the people who live life consumed by envy. It really is quite pathetic.

There's a difference between envy (wanting stuff for yourself) and being angry that we as society have failed so badly that we never really progressed past "the strong take what they want, the weak suffer". All we've done is redefine the strong and the weak.

Personally, I feel pity for those that have so little self-worth and are so desperate to prove their superiority that they will actively oppose and deride those who want a better life for all, rather than just a few.

 

[The Inquisitive Mug]

Da fuck, people? You don't have to like how much he's making, but how many people have straight up called him a prick in the first page alone? Someone they've never met and know nothing about save for his name and his salary.

Have you been living in a cave without internet access for the past 5 years, or have you just missed the articles about Activision's business practices that has been floating around, like the Activision vs. Jason West and Vince Zampella lawsuit?

Or maybe I've had better things to do over the last 5 years. Like play video games. Or sleep.

If you dislike the man for reasons other than his fortunes then that is fine by me. My comment was not meant for you. But you can't deny that the majority of comments before mine are just bashing the guy for having made an obscene amount of money. If all this hate were coming solely from Activision being dicks, the subject of capitalism wouldn't have even been introduced. Or any fat-cat heart-attacking Muse quotes. That is who I was addressing.

 

[Kelgair]

There's a difference between envy (wanting stuff for yourself) and being angry that we as society have failed so badly that we never really progressed past "the strong take what they want, the weak suffer". All we've done is redefine the strong and the weak.

Personally, I feel pity for those that have so little self-worth and are so desperate to prove their superiority that they will actively oppose and deride those who want a better life for all, rather than just a few.

Hm, my post wasn't necessarily directed at you, interesting you took it that way though. So you tell yourself you are angry, and that you are upset over something righteous. But the basis for that anger is nothing but envy. You are simply envious on behalf of other people, and I'm willing to bet that eventually that envy will include your own. No one has suffered from his income, and the stock options he received are the result of a contract. You truly have no basis to judge if what he earned was too much or too little. And if you believe you should have a say in other peoples living, I want nothing to do with the "better life" you claim to be championing.

 

[The Inquisitive Mug]

While the figure is huge, the actual amount available is relatively small in comparison. Considering its over a span of a few years, and a projection due to stock options, the real amount could be smaller. In other words, stock options are just a way of being rewarded for success and punished for failure.
I don't have any problem with people who make insane amounts of money, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. If you really think it does, you don't know how the tax system works at all in the US.
People who are in the top 50% of earnings pay nearly 100% of the taxes in the US, while the bottom pay around 3-4%. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of taxes and the top 5% pay nearly 60%.
So I don't know how anyone can say the rich don't contribute. They don't get money back at the end of the year like a large portion of the country (EITC).

Ha ha, this reminds me of a song by Dethklok (Metalocalypse) called Dethharmonic. I'm really glad that this article was updated to reflect the amount that is from stock options. I'm right up there with you in the sense that even the original figure didn't really bother me, but it's an important thing to clarify seeing way this thread was going prior to the update.