The Wide Divide (Graph of CEO pay vs Average Worker)
graphics8.nytimes.com — Picture speaks for itself.
dodgejon- 1777 diggs
- digg it
- dodgejon, on 06/16/2008, -9/+100CEO Salaries still rising despite a hurting economy!
http://digg.com/business_finance/CEOs_pay_chugged_ ...- sunyata76, on 06/17/2008, -6/+26Thank goodness. Perhaps they'll keep buying more stuff to stimulate the economy.
- Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -5/+23And hiring all of us, so that we can have jobs.
- publiclurker, on 06/17/2008, -3/+15I take it you live in India.
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -2/+20Actually, they'll hire or fire you based on what the economy is doing. Right now no one's buying goods like they used to, so the company can't make the money it used to, so the company lays off about 25,000 employees, saving the company millions of $$$. And that money goes right into the pocket of the CEO who made that call.
Of course the company in question is doomed since they helped create the unemployment and thus the recession that led to their own demise. - Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -7/+2The reason jobs go to india is because of the corporate tax being the highest in the US in the entire world. And Obama wants to raise it even more.
- nitemonkey, on 06/17/2008, -7/+5@Aero
"so the company lays off about 25,000 employees, saving the company millions of $$$".
The role of the company is to make '$$$' as you put it. It's not a charity. It doesn't owe anyone a job. If you are outraged at layoffs, then you should be equally outraged at the current propensity of workers to change job every 3 years on average. How selfish of them.
"And that money goes right into the pocket of the CEO who made that call."
No...it goes into the pockets of the shareholders who own the company. If the CEO is a shareholder, that includes him/her. The shareholders through their representatives (the board) may choose to increase the CEO's remuneration based on performance.
"Of course the company in question is doomed since they helped create the unemployment and thus the recession that led to their own demise."
No, the company will probably survive. It will continue to provide goods and services for you to consume. During the next boom, it will create more employment. If its so cheap now, take my advice and buy some shares :) - pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4we should give them all our money and wait for it to trickle down.
- bjornski, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6@pintomp3
You kidding? I'm still waiting for Reagan's "trickle down". - DillonHinson, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Very well said, nitemonkey
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2They've got so much money because financial institutions have been creating it out of loans that will go bust and keeping it for themselves. Otherwise there wouldn't be the money around to pay these people so much.
But really, no sane people of the working class or even the middle classes could say this is a good thing. These people have got 350 times the power of us.
They could buy up all the land and houses and force us all to rent (or work our entire lives for mortgages) - Yes, they've already done that.
They could get richer by making us pay more for our food and energy by buying all of them and selling them on for a profit - Yes, these are speculators.
The point is, these people have vast amounts of money that they can't spend. So they invest it to make greater returns. The problem is they get their greater returns by making things more expensive for the rest of us. - elnerdo, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2nitemonkey, the difference is that people are people, and we should pity their hardships. Companies are not people. They are ruthless, selfish money-making machines. We should have no pity for them.
It's not the same to say "how selfish of them" to workers, because people matter more than corporations. - nitemonkey, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1elnerdo, the comment was sarcasm, of course employees should not be criticized for moving to a new job, in most cases it's in their own best interest, and as members of the animal kingdom, we are programmed to make decisions that are beneficial to ourselves. The point I was making is that it is also ridiculous to expect that companies should owe their employees a job indefinitely.
The employee puts in X amount of work, and gets paid Y as compensation. If the employee does not agree that Y is fair, they are free to seek employment elsewhere, or not take the job in the first place. If the employee feels that the employers have the upper hand, they are also free to risk their own capital or take a loan and start their own company. Just be prepared to work much harder.
And by the way, a company is not some money making robot existing for the purpose of screwing the little people. Like VOLTRON, it is made of smaller pieces (shareholders). If the company loses money, we may indeed have pity, for it is the shareholders that lose their money. The shareholders might be rich people, or they might be mothers and fathers who have invested their life savings for their children's sake.
I hope I get at least 1 digg for the VOLTRON reference.
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Wow! You classy 80's Reaganaut, you.
Trickle down economics, what a very Republican thought.
- Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -5/+23And hiring all of us, so that we can have jobs.
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9I wonder if the world is being dominated by a larger number of monster corporations than the past; thus, leading to the articles statistics. If you think about it, forms of communication were limited and time consuming back then, making a huge dis-economies of scale for businesses. Now, because of the internet, business can expand in a more "economy of scale" type international fashion.
On another note, the amount of world speculative financial capital has more than doubled since the beginning of the last housing boom...more speculative capital = higher salaries?- phunlee, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3I appreciate your thoughts and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.
- otros, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1In the age of blogs and RSS feeds, I don't think that joke is funny anymore.
- phunlee, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3I appreciate your thoughts and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.
- Rusticles, on 06/17/2008, -20/+14CEO's make more in most cases because 1) They created the company and the jobs for all their employees or 2) They have the experience and education needed to run a company. Most of them worked their asses off to get there and now it's paying off. I think that's awesome, good for them, and it's just part of a capitalist economy. If you don't think so you're probably the stupid schmuck that wears Che shirts and preaches the benefits of a socialist economy and don't have any ***** appreciation for the freedoms you currently enjoy.
Your jealousy is only proof that socialism is merely Utopian BS.- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -6/+18I'm not complaining about my lot in life, I'm a system administrator with 5 years experience and make a descent wage- but i've also flipped burgers for a few years and have come far enough to know that the lower the wages are for a specific job, the more work is demanded in it.
(Ask anyone making 7$ p/h if they don't get their asses kicked if they go get a drink of water for 2 minutes. The economy doesn't reward hard workers, it 'capitalizes' or USES them and tosses them away with out a second thought whenever it suits them. You are a bastard.- Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -5/+3Its true, the less you make, the harder you work. Its YOUR job to take life by the horns and choose your own place in life.
- Rusticles, on 06/17/2008, -5/+6Anyone can flip burgers, it takes education and experience to work your way up in our society. Yes, it's not easy, but at least we have the freedom to pursue a better life. You are the proof!
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -3/+4We live in a world where not everyone has the good opportunities, there are examples of people beating the odds and making it well off in life despite their backgrounds, but it stands to reason that no one that's never had to sweat a little in their life on a job should get 750x the salary of someone working 10x as hard.
I will never make my living Capitalizing on others unfortunate place in life in a greedy and unfair way. - Rusticles, on 06/17/2008, -4/+1The problem is that you are focusing on the extreme cases and not looking at the details (thanks media, another sheep for your flock).
That CEO pays 50% of his salary to taxes which should be used to improve society and help those that are less fortunate*, and even more when Obama gets elected. Plus, if he's a good CEO (hopefully the reason for getting paid so much), he's creating jobs that give back much more to the society than what the CEO's being paid.
* in Bush's case the only good thing he's done with the taxes is to fight Aids in Africa. - Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Japanese CEO's make far less of a spread than American CEO's and still generate revenue and jobs. One of these days Karma is going to come back in a big way here in America.
- shockoj7, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Who the hell was the person who dugg that this comment down??? You are pathetic! Someone finally makes an intelligent comment on this godforsaken site and you digg them down because your stand on the foundation of ignorance??? screw you! Intelligence is an asset, and we gain it to make ourselves just that, an asset. Whether it be for a company, or better yet a family. because Lord knows we need it for both.. To reiterate what was said, if you can flip a burger, great... people go to college SO THEY DONT HAVE TO FLIP BURGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How hard is that concept to realize.... This generation is in debt because we have invested so much into education so we dont have to flip a damn burger!! Get your head out of your ass and obey a simple economic concept: Supply and Demand!
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -3/+4We live in a world where not everyone has the good opportunities, there are examples of people beating the odds and making it well off in life despite their backgrounds, but it stands to reason that no one that's never had to sweat a little in their life on a job should get 750x the salary of someone working 10x as hard.
- gryphon50, on 06/17/2008, -0/+10so let me get this straight- the majority of the success of an entire corporation rests with one man? What about the thousands of other people, at all levels, in that corporation? And how do you explain CEO's that have giant bonuses when their corporations are actually going bankrupt? I hate people with this knee-jerk reaction that all CEO's are personally, all by themselves, responsible for the corporation's success, especially when some come in with huge signing bonuses, stick around for a few disappointing quarters, and then are retired from their jobs, with more bonuses of course. Meanwhile these same corporations will give paltry raises and cut benefits because they "can't afford it."
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -0/+14CEO's for a hundred years prior to 1980 had those qualities you mention, and their companies did fine with more reasonable gaps between their salaries and those of their employees.
In point of fact, CEO's today have lower productivity and yield far lower earnings for their companies per earnings for themselves than CEO's did during the years between WWII and the 1980's.
So your assertion is not based on fact, but merely on emotional blind ideology. Even more ironically, your free market fundamentalism is being exploited to support corporate socialism, as the government bails out big corporations and big corporations reward failed CEOs, and neither bear the consequences a true fair and free market would impose upon them.
Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and class mobility in the US is the worst it has been in 100 years - and worse than in nations with a history of class consciousness such as the UK and India.
In fact, statistically, in today's America, the best predictor of your average future income is....the average income of your parents.
All the wonderful benefits capitalism was supposed to bring - and which it, to a large extent, did bring for decades in this country - have been flushed down the toilet because some clever marketing folks figured out how to ring your "socialism" bell and get you to salivate and press the button that sends more of your money to them, more of your stock portfolio to pay golden parachutes to incompetent management, and more of our tax dollars to bail out their incompetence.
Culminating in the rewarding of one of the most incompetent failed CEOs of all, George W Bush, with the keys to the Treasury.
Oh, but never mind - look a shiny "socialism" flashy thing.
Rube.
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -6/+18I'm not complaining about my lot in life, I'm a system administrator with 5 years experience and make a descent wage- but i've also flipped burgers for a few years and have come far enough to know that the lower the wages are for a specific job, the more work is demanded in it.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3Only parts of the economy are hurting. The stock market is doing incredibly well, despite problems in the credit market and a weak dollar.
I can't help but wonder if the reason (at least partially) that CEO salaries are still rising is because the stock market is the only place left to put your dollars. The interest rate is so low, that keeping your money in a savings account is probably generating losses via inflation (especially if you adjust for rising oil & food prices). Even CDs and bonds don't make too much sense right now. Perhaps CEO salaries are rising because people are pouring their savings into stocks, and the companies are just deciding to spend that on executive pay.
I don't get why people complain about CEO salaries though. The reality is that we are talking about CEO's of public companies. It's up to investors to make good decisions. If they are pouring their life savings into a company that's sinking, which decides to give the CEO a HUGE bonus... well, maybe they shouldn't be putting there money there? And if the CEO's of successful companies are getting paid a lot... well, if they are successful you are going to see a return on your investment, so who cares what the CEO gets paid? Clearly, he's doing a good job.
I'm just not sure I necessarily see the problem with executives getting paid a lot.- senatorpjt, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1I don't understand why people DON'T complain about CEO salaries. I don't mean people sitting in their basement grousing about it on Digg, I mean the shareholders. Just handing over the money to some ***** isn't increasing the value of their stock.
- nafango2, on 06/17/2008, -4/+1gee, what a surprise
- glutamate, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWI WANT MONEY BUT THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY
I'M NOT AMBITIOUS OR COMPETITIVE ENOUGH TO GET THAT MONEY
EVERYONE SHOULD BE EQUAL
[/the economic left wing] - shockoj7, on 06/17/2008, -7/+2HAS A POOR MAN EVERY EMPLOYED YOU????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? YOU LIBRAL ***** HEADS IVE HAD IF WITH YOU
- incubusoad, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1To be honest, I am not so sure I am upset about how much these people get paid. My aunt is a VP of a children's hospital. She has 8 lawyers she is in constant contact with. The man who formally held her position went to jail for breaking a law he didn't know existed. She has a lot of pressure and more responsibility than i would ever care to have. She works monday through friday (at the least 10 hours a day) and puts in a good 8 hours on both sat AND sun (I'll do the math for you: at the very least she works 66 hours a week... this doesn't include the work she does at home). She enjoys her job though. Both of her kids are out of the house and out of college, so why not? To be honest with you, I am not so sure her wages compensates the fact that she rarely gets to see her grandchildren and doesn't get to spend much time with her husband. She has no life, except for that hospital. Not to mention all the pressure she is under and the fact that she NEEDS 8 lawyers just to conduct everyday business.
Me? I would rather hold down my 8-and-skate job... 40 hours/week, 40k/year-job and not have ***** for responsibility.
- sunyata76, on 06/17/2008, -6/+26Thank goodness. Perhaps they'll keep buying more stuff to stimulate the economy.
- ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -21/+15At the top many people lose their sense of selflessness.
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -6/+25At the top, many regard those below as lesser humans.
- The_Red_Monkey, on 06/17/2008, -12/+10Actually studies show that rich conservatives give more money to charities that serve the poor than do Liberals. The liberals tend to donate to museums and prep schools.
- ElectroBot, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11Only because of the following reasons:
- they get tax benefits by donating (most probably claim them)
- they have more excess income (they can spend without worrying about paying the bills)
- they get fame (either through publicity or by having something named after them)
- the feel guilty (I wonder how many do it because of this reason)
Most rich people don't donate because they feel an obligation to. I'm willing to bet that if you were to take the above factors into account especially the excess income one, then you'd find that people in the lower/lower-middle class donate more percentage wise (they know that there are some that need it even more than they do). - skav, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9[Citation Needed]
- flip360, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7Whose studies? Where?
- metaknite, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1@Electrobot "Most rich people don't donate because they feel an obligation to."
They don't. - dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -3/+4[citation needed]
And that doesn't change the fact that the elite rich who roll with the rest of the elite rich, look down their noses at the rest of humanity? - pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3i wonder what the stats are once you factor donations and to churches and tithe out of the equation.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Would that be like Cindy and John McCain's "charity" to help victims of landmines, which, in reality, is a tax shelter for hundreds of thousands of dollars they paid to their childrens' private schools?
- lowhauler, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4Actually studies show that the rich give much tinier percentages of their wealth to charities than does the middle class. Easy to give when you've got more than you could ever possibly use.
- ElectroBot, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11Only because of the following reasons:
- The_Red_Monkey, on 06/17/2008, -12/+10Actually studies show that rich conservatives give more money to charities that serve the poor than do Liberals. The liberals tend to donate to museums and prep schools.
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -6/+25At the top, many regard those below as lesser humans.
- Surferess, on 06/16/2008, -10/+37Pop Quiz: What is wrong with this picture?
- DrCrankenstein, on 06/16/2008, -7/+44Actually wrong with the graph itself? The executive numbers are taken including all compensation, e.g. bonuses, options, etc., while the average workers are only salary.
Really wrong? 100 times the workers pay!? Are you ***** me?! This is why the luxury market is doing fine through the tough economy. If they took a little bit of a hit and the workers didn't take the brunt of all this *****, we'd be in a much different situation that would benefit everyone.- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -3/+22not 100 times... 700+ times.
- alexforcefive, on 06/17/2008, -4/+8in 2000.
- alexforcefive, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5Why am I being dugg down? The graph is right there!
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1lol it is. you're right. :( but, ... you weren't alive in 2000, or what? why do you want to discount the recent history, the most important part of a graph like this?
- cazlar, on 06/17/2008, -0/+17Except the average worker usually doesn't get much over their salary. Maybe it is different in different industries, but most average workers don't get options etc.
- lolwutpear, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0The comment about 350 is wrong - it happened in 2000, not 2004 according to what the graph actually shows.
...I think.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -3/+22not 100 times... 700+ times.
- BoonTobias, on 06/16/2008, -3/+32the shadows
- KingGorilla, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9This graph scares and confuses me
- iLemon, on 06/17/2008, -2/+11It doesn't include entertainers and athletes?
- ihatehippies, on 06/17/2008, -10/+3how about the fact that the data is from 4-8 years ago and the poi reflects a unique time period that hardly reflects the average or current economy.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2That unique time period is known as a gilded age.
- JeffD, on 06/17/2008, -2/+14Well the first questionable thing I noticed was their astrix at the bottom: (paraphrasing) "executives are defined as the top three earners at the 50 biggest companies in the country". That means they only counted 150 people in their definition of executive which is not a large enough sample to be statistically significant. Also, they failed to define who they consider to be an average worker.
If their graphs are to be taken seriously they should take their average worker values from the same 50 companies from whom they took their executive data. The fact they they did not state that they did so leads me to assume that their average worker refers to the average worker for the entire countries economy, which may very well be much lower than the average salary in the top 50 companies.
Edit: I wanted to add that despite these potential flaws in the graph I don't dispute the fact that there is a widening gap between the rich and poor in America (which is a bad thing).- connorf, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1if there were no widening gap wouldn't we be in hypocrisy as we fight for capitalism and disown it at the same time. communism is our shameless lover.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Where's this capitalism you speak of doesn't that require investment back into the economy? When is this trickling effect going to happen?
- jhelmer, on 06/17/2008, -11/+18Nothing?
The reality is that the CEOs making this type of money are typically responsible for making decisions that are way bigger than most of us can imagine. If you have a CEO that is responsible for a one billion dollar company it makes a *LOT* of sense to hire a CEO that has history of success for 5 million dollars a year as opposed to hiring someone less qualified for $200,000. Mistakes at that level can cost a company hundreds of millions of dollars. With that in mind, 5 million dollars to reduce the risk of losing 100 million dollars seems like a pretty sound strategy. Now granted, not all CEOs prove to be worth that money, but companies take a calculated risk that the guy who can demand that type of salary (and you can't demand it unless you have delivered in the past) is going to be much more likely to be successful at the helm than most of the thousands or millions of people that they could get for a fraction of that rate. If shareholders didn't feel that a CEO was worth that, they would pay less or find a replacement.
I've made this point before, but I'll make it again. The Indianapolis Colts could hire 100 quarterbacks and pay them each $140,000/yr for what they pay Peyton Manning. Why don't they? Because they feel that Manning is *worth the money* they spend on him.
You may not like the fact that someone else is getting paid so much more than you, but if the shareholders feel that the CEO is worth that type of money, why do you care? It doesn't hurt you.- failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -4/+5Most of the CEO's on this list are making hundreds of millions of dollars, not just 5 million.
- jhelmer, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5What list? I don't buy it. Yes, there are people who pull in 100+ million in some years because of salary + stock options, but those stock options are finite and they are only worth something if the CEO has caused the stock price to go up. If the stock has gone up so much that the CEO can exercise those options and take home 100 million dollars then it's likely that they have done a pretty damn good job for the shareholders.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7Please show correlation between the obscene increase in the ration of CEO pay to average employee pay, and performance of corporate stock. Please compare to performance before 1980.
Then explain why people earning more and more for poorer and poorer performance is a) the free market at work - in which case the free market doesn't work; or, b) corporate socialism disguised as "free markets".
Then explain why a system in which fewer and fewer people accumulate more and more worth while driving their company's into the ground and impoverishing workers (and the average American stockholder) is a good thing. Explain why shielding CEOs from the consequences of their market failures, and bailing our large corporations from the consequences of their market failures, is somehow "the invisible hand of the market at work".
A rising tide is supposed to life all boats, ain't it? Well, if everything is trickling *up*, and things are getting worse all over, then perhaps something is wrong with the system. Either that, or free markets don't work after all.
I believe that, just as democracies don't work without accountability and regulation to counter corruption and greed, neither do markets.
By the way, Adam Smith agrees with me. Few free market fundamentalists have ever actually read what the father of modern capitalism had to say about the need to regulate and restrain the inherent imperfections and corrupting influences of the marketplace, to ensure fairness and accessibility to all.- fatejudger, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Sorry, but classical economics has about as much relevance today as a horse drawn carriage. Maybe you might find it easier to pay attention in your econ class if you spent less time reading Ron Paul blogs all night.
- leftyslament, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3Why don't you just come out and say "CEOs get paid more than workers because they're better than workers". Do you really think CEOs are getting all of these pay increases and bonuses because the shareholders think that CEOs deserve them? The CEOs are giving themselves the raises and bonuses. It's called corruption.
- spidur1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2The only flaw with your argument is that the board of directors usually sets the pay for a company's CEO. Also, the members of corporate boards all seem to be part of one big club of old white men with small dicks who look out for each other f'uck everyone else in the world.
Get back to work, bitch. The man needs more money. Its never enough...- MatthewDuke, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The US GDP is far far greater than the next closest country. I think these board of directors are doing something right...
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Exactly.
In fact, I would argue that the CEO is worth half the revenue of the company, why stop at 5%?
I mean, it's just so hard to find *smart* people who make *decisions* with *money*.
Last night, I was making a decision about money but my worker brain couldn't decide the right action. Yes, these people are worth every penny.
Obviously the people on the board are very smart too and are doing things for the good of the company. I mean, how much would you pay one of your good mates?- MatthewDuke, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1This attitude is why you are and always will be middle class.
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2I thought the comment was too obvious for the sarcasm tag.
I was wrong. - roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2So you're suggesting by being against paying CEOs ridiculous amounts of money, that will keep me middle class?
That's a good thing. Because otherwise there would be a tiny percentage of obscenely rich people, and a vast majority of impoverished people - like there was before the middle classes existed.
The middle class is a good thing. They are the reason why america and the industrialised world is such a great power currently. And you think that's bad?
Besides, you really think you're going to be part of the rich? Don't make me laugh! If you want truly large amounts of money become a military contractor or go into the banking sector. Large amounts of money aren't hard to make, you've just got to have a bit of brains and throw your enjoyment of life away to get it. Unless you enjoy working your life away.
Myself, I'm going to concentrate on knowledge and travelling.
- failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -4/+5Most of the CEO's on this list are making hundreds of millions of dollars, not just 5 million.
- Locke2053, on 06/17/2008, -3/+6Not much. A CEO's pay is between himself and the shareholders. Nobody else has any business telling me, the shareholder, how much I can pay my employee, the CEO.
There is one exception: If PUBLIC money is used to bail your ass out of bankruptcy because your company is indispensable to the economy and you went and bankrupted it, then taxpayers should also get a say. But this is a rare exception (see: subprime banks and brokers. Those CEOs owe taxpayers a big refund check from their personal bank accounts.)- BM5k, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Right, but if your employee, the CEO doesn't pay me, I'm outta here.
The robots don't fix themselves.- Locke2053, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2True true... part the CEO's job is to make sure the company keeps making as much money as possible, which includes making sure he pays employees enough to stay with the company (but not TOO much, cause that's MY money!)
- BM5k, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Right, but if your employee, the CEO doesn't pay me, I'm outta here.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -5/+4Shareholders don't set CEO pay, the board does, and the board is usually appointed by the CEO's. Public money bailing out public corporations is socialism.
- siszam, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4 No. Public money bailing out corporations is Neo Con, corporate welfare. Socialism is helping people achieve quality of life and social justice by using their taxes to help them instead of kill them. Read a book and stop watching Fox news.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1I don't watch fox news, neocons are socialists you reactionary nub, I read all the time. Socialism does help people when it's not the fascist variety.
- leftyslament, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2I was gonna ream you about your complete misunderstanding about the definition of socialism but siszam beat me to it. *Shakes fist at siszam*
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1I grew up in Canada I think I might have a better grasp on socialism than most Americans. Socialism if done well is benefits everyone, corporatism on the other had is the use of socialist principles to enrich the few.
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Idiot.
Public money bailing out corporations is corporatism, a branch of facism.
It never fails to surprise me just how shockingly little americans know of socialism.
Maybe you'd have better living standards over there if you knew just a little more. - Locke2053, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Board sets CEO pay. Shareholders elect the board. The board is often made of of the largest shareholders.
So shareholders do set CEO pay.- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The vast majority of shareholders cannot vote they have class B stocks. I've worked at a startup that went public I've been through the entire filing process. Class A shareholders are insiders they appoint the board and are usually colleagues of the CEO.
- siszam, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4 No. Public money bailing out corporations is Neo Con, corporate welfare. Socialism is helping people achieve quality of life and social justice by using their taxes to help them instead of kill them. Read a book and stop watching Fox news.
- DrCrankenstein, on 06/16/2008, -7/+44Actually wrong with the graph itself? The executive numbers are taken including all compensation, e.g. bonuses, options, etc., while the average workers are only salary.
- alapoet, on 06/16/2008, -31/+170What's WRONG with you ungrateful socialists??
We should be happy that our masters see fit to even pay us at ALL!
[/sarcasm]- dshPls, on 06/16/2008, -13/+23You don't have to work for them, you could start your own company. That's too much work without enough easy cash though ;/
- Qong, on 06/16/2008, -19/+17People could try saving for once in their lives, instead of spending every penny the second they get it; then they would be able to pool cash and start their own businesses easily, then they can decide the pay on their own~
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -3/+38Oh, you mean like the CTO of the last company I worked for? Spent less than 2 years at one job, hopped jobs, spent another year, hopped jobs... yet he made $261K a year without an ounce of real interest in technology, just because he had some connections? Oh yeah, and we are talking about the kind of guy who tells people he doesn't think 10% of the people he hires can cut it under his "leadership" which pretty much involves driving 25% of the people who work for him into quitting or getting fired within the first six months?
Yeah, those kinds of people work really hard to get that. Oh, that was his salary too, not counting stock options which were worth almost $1M - nycmac247, on 06/17/2008, -1/+26wow - have you ever looked for startup money? I have a feeling (and I might be wrong) that you have absolutely ZERO experience in regards to what you're suggesting as normal.
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -3/+38Oh, you mean like the CTO of the last company I worked for? Spent less than 2 years at one job, hopped jobs, spent another year, hopped jobs... yet he made $261K a year without an ounce of real interest in technology, just because he had some connections? Oh yeah, and we are talking about the kind of guy who tells people he doesn't think 10% of the people he hires can cut it under his "leadership" which pretty much involves driving 25% of the people who work for him into quitting or getting fired within the first six months?
- Rohhob, on 06/16/2008, -8/+27Yes, b/c everyone has the money to start their own company.
- InsanePenguin08, on 06/17/2008, -5/+47And everyone has the ability to save everything they earn and no one lives paycheck to paycheck, struggling to pay to fix the car when it breaks down so they can get to work.
Honestly, how about investing in some intelligence?- turkeyssr, on 06/17/2008, -8/+2You mean like NOT having children that I can ill afford?? Heavens NO!
- andymci, on 06/17/2008, -0/+18Pretty sure that starting your own business doesn't automatically toss you into a higher income bracket. Just a thought.
- metamethod, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2the big business owners are also your lenders
... and your landlord
where do they invest "their" (your) earnings?
- Qong, on 06/16/2008, -19/+17People could try saving for once in their lives, instead of spending every penny the second they get it; then they would be able to pool cash and start their own businesses easily, then they can decide the pay on their own~
- WraTH017, on 06/17/2008, -15/+9Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. That's pretty much the message.
- sillyjoobs, on 06/17/2008, -6/+11CEOs who throw a company in the gutter and then get multi-million dollar severance pay are not the same as an actual innovator stopping what he is doing.
Don't refer to that naive trash as if it applies to the real world.- metaknite, on 06/17/2008, -10/+3I will when people stop referring to Barak Obama's word as gospel. Don't refer to that naive [man] as if [his ideas for change in the American government] apply to the real world.
- sillyjoobs, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1What the hell are you talking about?
- ndepalma, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4I don't think he mentioned Obama once in that post dude.
- demonduck, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6I grew up on Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy and still largely adhere to its basic principles. What this chart illustrates, as sillyjoobs points out, is that it is extremely unlikely to believe that even a Henry Reardon or Howard Roark would deserve this sort of disparity between the mean. There is an obvious mechanism in place that is creating a separate hyper-economy for a privileged class. While this is relatively a no-brainer for those familiar with corporate economic nests, onlookers such as ourselves judge it based on our own nest and its rules --which are somewhat skewed on their own-- but are relatively benign given the larger scheme of things. The point is that, whatever your economic philosophy, this is not meritorious compensation for business genius.
- sillyjoobs, on 06/17/2008, -6/+11CEOs who throw a company in the gutter and then get multi-million dollar severance pay are not the same as an actual innovator stopping what he is doing.
- CosmicJustice, on 06/17/2008, -20/+15Get off your ass and produce something. The problem with the average worker is that he's average. Be exceptional.
- gurudrew, on 06/17/2008, -2/+24and if everyone did that, guess what? They would still be average.
- heliox, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6ROFL...I agree with the OP, but you're spot on...
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Exactly. But for some reason everyone wants exceptional pay.
- glutamate, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2What's your point, you retard?
That's like saying that I should not try to run so fast in the 100m sprint, BECUS GUESS WOT!? IF EVERY1 DID THAT NOBODY WOULD WIN - sickanimations, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4These replies vindicate your argument. People can sit back and say "But if everybody... then nobody..." and do nothing, or they can be different, take a risk, maybe fail a few times, and if they're persistent and lucky enough - maybe succeed :)
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -2/+13Wow average, that's really great obviously you've never had to go work at a real job because your parents paid your way through life including college until you were 28. And so you call everyone else average and call yourself exceptional. We live in a world of UNEQUAL opportunities. I'm not going to cry about it but you're going to have to come down to earth someday, and when you do, you'll find society ready to rip you to shreds.
- ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7Executives don't produce anything...workers produce, executives determine how much they get paid and only occasionally what they produce. I don't think some people understand how corporate America actually works.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11In actual historical fact, productivity of American workers has soared (while average wages have stagnated or declined) during the very same time that CEO's compensation has gone through the roof - and, at the very same time that CEO's productivity, measured as investor ROI and company net worth vs. compensation paid, has gone *down* dramatically.
Look it up- if you dare confront evidence that contradicts your dogma.
The problem with free market fundamentalism is that, like any utopian ideology, it fails to take reality into account. Markets are not truly free and fair, which is why even Adam Smith himself favored a measure of regulation and accountability to society, to ensure that the markets remain in balance and work for everyone.
You're like a Creationist who continues to insist oil is not a depletable resource, because it can't possibly be a "fossil fuel", because fossils are fake - because there is no way the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.- glutamate, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Arguments fails.
People can choose not to work for a salary they're not happy with.
They could also choose to start their own company where they pay their workers better, stealing all the best workers from their previous employers.
But no, not in the mind of the sociaist. - Geiiga, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4People can choose to get what the company decides to pay them or they can choose to starve. Don't act like there's a choice in today's America.
- siszam, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Had to slip in some hate and bigotry at the end, didn't you?
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1@Geiiga
And that's why people hate the current system.
- glutamate, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Arguments fails.
- metamethod, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1lake wobegon ... where all the children are above average
- gurudrew, on 06/17/2008, -2/+24and if everyone did that, guess what? They would still be average.
- dshPls, on 06/16/2008, -13/+23You don't have to work for them, you could start your own company. That's too much work without enough easy cash though ;/
- MollyDee, on 06/16/2008, -16/+4Hey Jon. Has not changed a bit in 25 years. Doubt that it will every change. The big cheese wins.
Deanna - failedpimp, on 06/16/2008, -9/+35I want the CEO stimuls plan.
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -11/+3Then earn it.
- failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -2/+10You earn it. I want a handout dammit.
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2If I earn it i'll hand some out...in the form of 50% taxes.
- failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5Even with 50% taxes, that still mean you take home 350 TIMES more money than the average worker makes before taxes.
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Well thats because I earned it...
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -11/+3Then earn it.
- jeremyduffy, on 06/16/2008, -7/+16Who sets these guys' salaries in the first place?
- dodgejon, on 06/16/2008, -2/+41The Board of Directors will typically determine executive salaries.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/17/2008, -3/+14who are voted in by the shareholders. remember that the shareholders are still voting against lowering executive pay. for example, a recent vote at exxonmobil to lower executive compensation and separate the roles of chairman and ceo failed. in fact, it was even less popular than when it was voted on at the annual meeting last year. the way many shareholders see it: if they lower executive compensation, the good execs will flee and join a company that hasn't lowered exec pay.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4No only class A stock shareholders have that kind of power most public stocks have no voting power. That's why shareholders often have to sue to get their say.
- dodgejon, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Yahoo shareholders, for instance, will be suing.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1class A shareholders are also shareholders, and they have the same interests as shareholders of other classes. i own shares of stock, and i've voted many times.
- gryphon50, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The board, and what do they care how much the CEO's make, it's not money out of their own pockets. They are probably just voting themselves huge salaries also.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/17/2008, -3/+14who are voted in by the shareholders. remember that the shareholders are still voting against lowering executive pay. for example, a recent vote at exxonmobil to lower executive compensation and separate the roles of chairman and ceo failed. in fact, it was even less popular than when it was voted on at the annual meeting last year. the way many shareholders see it: if they lower executive compensation, the good execs will flee and join a company that hasn't lowered exec pay.
- borez, on 06/16/2008, -12/+12They do
- publiclurker, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5And their golfing buddies on the board. In exchange they vote for the pay packages of those friends when they are on their board.
- borez, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5Exactly mate.
- publiclurker, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5And their golfing buddies on the board. In exchange they vote for the pay packages of those friends when they are on their board.
- yoda17, on 06/17/2008, -3/+11The board of directors who are voted in by the shareholders.
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2To clarify, you mean "Class A Shareholders" which Joe's like you and me can't afford, which is why most Boards are made of CEOs of other companies who in turn have the CEO they are giving a raise to as a member of their board.
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -10/+3The free market.
- JKAL, on 06/17/2008, -2/+10The shareholders do vote...
in theory that sounds fair, however the major shareholders of large corporations are the same mix of large corporations via Retirement Funds, Investment Funds, the average mum&Dad or Joe/Jane shareholders make up for a small percentage when added up so their votes basically count for nothing, even thought they are of course taken into account, for legal reasons. So even after all that they (executives) make set their own salaries. - failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -4/+8The workers should vote to determine the CEO's pay.
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -9/+3Great! And when they set it to 0 I'll be glad to set theirs to 0 too! In fact I'll be more than happy to sell all my assets and move to a country that still has it's marbles and the sense to realize that corporations feed the middle class.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3You should read one of the books by Ricardo Semler, CEO of Semco SA, a hugely successful corporation where it's more than 3,000 employees set their own pay and hire their own managers. Semler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler
Considered one of the greatest capitalist leaders in the world, cited by Tom Peters as having overseen one of the most successful company reengineering projects in the history of business, lecturer at MIT and Harvard Business School - and implementer of many policies and strategies you probably would call "socialist", when in fact they are more faithful to Adam Smith than anything the CEO's of Exxon or Countrywide are perpetrating today. - publiclurker, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4I'm afraid that most places in the world would not suffer your delusions of adequacy, and would not even let you in for anything more than a short visit.
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1@rationalist: Interesting read. Seems that the workers were taking around 40% of what the company made. How long was it before it went bankrupt?
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3You should read one of the books by Ricardo Semler, CEO of Semco SA, a hugely successful corporation where it's more than 3,000 employees set their own pay and hire their own managers. Semler
- leftyslament, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Oh noez!1! We can't have that! That would be almost like socialism! And socialism is evil! The man on the TV told me so!
/Sarcasm, if you couldn't tell
//Oh, Lord I'm gonna be buried into oblivion for that one
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -9/+3Great! And when they set it to 0 I'll be glad to set theirs to 0 too! In fact I'll be more than happy to sell all my assets and move to a country that still has it's marbles and the sense to realize that corporations feed the middle class.
- dodgejon, on 06/16/2008, -2/+41The Board of Directors will typically determine executive salaries.
- borez, on 06/16/2008, -10/+4Talk about milking it.
- CMaff24, on 06/16/2008, -30/+19Most CEOs start out as "average workers."
dugg down im sure but its a lens worth looking through. monopoly man's lens?- Ryan166, on 06/17/2008, -4/+21You've been watching too many McDonald commercials.
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7Not at the companies in which they became CEO, unless they were average worker #1 on the payroll of one.
- nycmac247, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9that is so far off it hard to comment.
maybe you are confusing web startups with real life?- jkizzle, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3i know more millionaires that came from lower income families than i do that came from rich families. rich kids typically arnt motivated. the ones that do make it get put high up in daddies company, which daddy probably started from relatively little.
this is a free market. stockholders pay top dime for the best company leaders.
- jkizzle, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3i know more millionaires that came from lower income families than i do that came from rich families. rich kids typically arnt motivated. the ones that do make it get put high up in daddies company, which daddy probably started from relatively little.
- dunderballer, on 06/16/2008, -25/+65The US provides room for extraordinary accomplishments that warrant extraordinary pay. Shareholders (and the board of directors they elect) should be able to pay their CEOs whatever they wish. Unreasonable compensation hurts their investment much more than it would the average worker, if at all.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -10/+2Yeah, in fact, if they want to pay them in asian babies, they should be able to just buy some of those to compensate them, too!
- Chicken, on 06/17/2008, -9/+4No, they're all just getting greedy. Besides, they'll probably just use the cash to get around tax loopholes and get more money.
- pyro789x, on 06/17/2008, -0/+26The reason why we've decided in this country that it's justified for business owners to charge more than they need to meet overhead and pay themselves extra is because they've worked hard for the company, through their enterprise and hard work they were able to make an honest profit off of a hard day's work, and deserve to reap the awards. The other side of the coin is that, during hard times the owner of a company may forgo pay so that he can continue to pay his workers and work the company through it, and when the business fails the business owner has to bite the cost. That's also understood, and it's perfectly acceptable to me. It's the nature of the business.
What I don't accept is people making money that they don't deserve. People creating public businesses with stocks then voting pay raises for themselves while laying off workers and raising prices because their companies just don't have the money do not deserve the money that they are making. Then, when their businesses fail because of their poor business decisions and ineffectual CEO skills, they expect to be bailed out with government money, stating that the government should not allow them to go under because of the huge hit our society would take due to the lost of the business. In the end, they get to keep their insanely high paying jobs for their lack of skills and their undeserved money while we lose ours to them for no benefit. That's not the way our system should work. If you believe that our entrepreneurs should be able to reap the benefits of their hard work as I do, then you should also believe that we should not get involved when ***** hits the fan. and that's that.- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Great point
- bixel, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Hear Hear!!! And why the ***** are we bailing out Bear Sterns??? When I hear somebody shouting 'let the market decide" then please, let the Mark Decide and let Bear Sterns go the way of the Titanic.
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -2/+11Hmm, let's take professional sports as an example -- I'm paying taxes for the next couple of decades to pay for not one, not two, but three professional sporting event arenas... these companies appear to have PLENTY of money to pay for their own...
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Yep, I fight that one to. We voted to not give the NFL Cardinals any money to build a stadium, so they left.
- Geiiga, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Be fair. Getting rid of the Cardinals is a good move. St. Louis would still not have a Super Bowl winner had they not gotten rid of the Cardinals.
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Yep, I fight that one to. We voted to not give the NFL Cardinals any money to build a stadium, so they left.
- MelvinSchlubman, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Ideological zeal causes starry-eyed conservatives to overlook real world factors such as the good-old-boy network of board of directors membership.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2the thing is man, it's always been extraordinary pay. 100 times what someone else makes is really extraordinary... all the more so when you realize that we're not exactly lagging economically compared to anyone else.
the number is pretty extreme even if it is only 50 times. the specific number doesn't matter, but that fact that it comes from an environment that has been changed to maximize the ability of psent-thrift capitalism, at the cost of the social benefits of the people they are making so much more than, means we're hanging some of the poorer people in order to make the rich richer. if it lifts the whole economy in a way that is correlative, then it is worth it. the economy has increased ... but proportionally? I'm not so sure its worth it. - bcldsm, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Shareholders do not determine executive pay.
The board of directors do and the board of directors is appointed by the executives.
See the problem here?
- mooseontheloose, on 06/16/2008, -39/+136This is sick. I should get to decide how much they get paid. That seems like a fair solution. And by coincidence I think that the maximum salary should be right around what my salary is. Because getting paid more than me is just plain unfair, and I'm a precious little snowflake
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -8/+17Well said. Let the shareholders democratically decide...it's their money.
- Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -4/+9They do already.
- metaknite, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5I hope that is what andy's comment implied.
- andy314159pi, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5No a board of directors decides the compensation of the executives. They are elected by the share holders, but shareholders don't typically have any information about what relationships the board members have with the executives.
- nitemonkey, on 06/17/2008, -5/+7Andy you're spot on. The large corporations are owned by individual shareholders, both directly and indirectly. A lot of people complain about CEO remuneration as though it was being taken from the pockets of the poor like some type of tax, which of course is ridiculous. It comes from the pocket of the shareholder. If the shareholder perceives value, the CEO will continue to earn that money and possibly more. If the shareholder does not perceive value, the CEO bites the dust. If consumers are outraged by the salary, they can boycott the corporations products and services.
CEOs are paid well because there is a lack of supply and huge demand. If there were more people capable of doing the job, the salaries would reduce. This is the most basic form of economics.
If people are truly suggesting that executive pay should be limited by a price-ceiling, they must also accept that supply will reduce (as executives move offshore). This will result in a talent pool flooded with talentless hacks, lower earnings due to said hacks, and ultimately layoffs at the bottom end of the scale.- SwiftKick34, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Someone who took an actual economics course on Digg? I don't believe it
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2seriously...economics 101. But the average person doesn't understand economics so they blindlessly bitch.
- Geiiga, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Yup. Definitely not higher than a 100 level course or it wouldn't be so hopelessly, simplistically wrong.
- pedm, on 06/17/2008, -2/+0lol, supply will reduce? what's the point of having a supply if the average worker can't buy anything?
- andy3109, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2That was the dumbest statement i've ever heard.
- nitemonkey, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1"lol, supply will reduce?"
supply of executives, not supply of goods and services you dunce.
lol.
- pedm, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0lol, let them "democratically" decide.
that's the funny part
the basic principle of democracy is taking power 'from the wallet to the ballot'
labor should not be a commodity, humans should not be traded.- nitemonkey, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1pedm, what are you advocating exactly?
- Muyoso, on 06/17/2008, -4/+9They do already.
- IanRReardon, on 06/17/2008, -3/+17Best comment ever
- ElderBieler, on 06/17/2008, -3/+12seriously. that was freaking poetry.
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -10/+7I'm not complaining about you're salary- I'm complaining about how you raise it every time you just finish laying off 25,000 workers from your plant, then reward yourself for a job well done. (Then get tax breaks from a corrupt administration.)
So yeah i'd say the american people have about every reason to hate you.- saxmaster, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4Business is business. Executives get paid to hire and fire, and do whatever makes the company work better. Overall, it's better for the economy for companies to just get the job done and not worry about making everyone happy.
- SwiftKick34, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1They are performing their duties by making tough calls. You obviously wouldn't have the desire to lay in bed at night knowing that you just sent 25000 people out of a job but these individuals are willing to make that decision and many others which is what justifies their high salary.
- Adelski, on 06/17/2008, -3/+7Go back to Russia.
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Actually, with a name like Adelski, you need to go back to Russia.
- shadowsurfr1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6It's summer. A bad time to be a snowflake in many parts of the world.
- tyywebb, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2You do know it's winter in the southern hemisphere, right?
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -3/+9no no, let's have an plutocracy instead.
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of few, but we can't have both." - US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis - shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -6/+2Great! decide how much i get paid as an executive. When you set my salary to 0, I'll be glad to set your's to 0 too! If that doesn't work, I'll be glad to sell all assets and retire comfortably on an island while you have no job. Idiots.
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Haha.. delusional. Do you know how much your shareholders would sue the crap out of you for that?
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Haha, I don't answer to shareholders if i own it. And if i did offer an IPO, i still would not answer to them. No one has a right to control my business except me.
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Haha.. delusional. Do you know how much your shareholders would sue the crap out of you for that?
- shockoj7, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1sounds great... ill quit... you quit... and we will both find jobs in a competitive market... and when we find jobs... ill get paid like a CEO should get paid and you will get paid like an intern should get paid... (your comment only enforces that point)
- andy3109, on 06/17/2008, -8/+17Well said. Let the shareholders democratically decide...it's their money.
- FranklinStaples, on 06/16/2008, -22/+16"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
-Martin Luther King Jr.- ericnorris1, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4Ummmm, wrong story guy, try the one about health care
- mrraven200, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4Wow just wow, digging down MLK talking about justice white upper middle class gen ys really are spoiled entitled little ***** aren't you?
- FranklinStaples, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0ummm was that directed at me? i think im too old to be gen y by bout 5 or 6 years
- mrraven200, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1No I think it's cool you put the quote up I was bashing the spoiled little ***** digging you down.
- FranklinStaples, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0ummm was that directed at me? i think im too old to be gen y by bout 5 or 6 years
- chester27, on 06/16/2008, -55/+81Damn it! People being rewarded for their hard work, intelligence, and education! Why is life so unjust?!
- omgbanana, on 06/17/2008, -7/+29Yeah, like all of those suits in the airline businesses who walk away with severance packages and bonuses despite driving the businesses into the ground. Having a big edu-penis means they automatically deserve whatever comes their way?
- Acglaphotis, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4According to the graph, yeah.
- Firehed, on 06/17/2008, -4/+7There's nothing stopping you- start your own damn company. If you've got an idea worth its salt, the free market will fill your bank account right up. It's really not that difficult... as a HS freshman I was making more than my teachers (most unfortunately, the market for items in diablo II has rather faded away).
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Could always start a chinese gold farming company for MMOs..
- andy314159pi, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3You think there is nothing stopping you from starting your own company? This is true if you want to start a company that requires a modest amount of capital investment, otherwise you will have to acquire capital from an investment bank or a venture capital group. This is *awfully, awfully difficult* to do. So sure, you can start a paper route or a restaurant but you can't start any reasonably sized company unless you are extremely well connected.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -6/+6when you've been here for, I'm guess about 20 more years, the irony in that statement will weigh on you so much you will switch to straight denial.
- CosmicJustice, on 06/17/2008, -8/+4Because you have failed does not imply that others will fail.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3no baby, I did good :)
- CosmicJustice, on 06/17/2008, -8/+4Because you have failed does not imply that others will fail.
- nycmac247, on 06/17/2008, -9/+9watch out! Another self-righteous angry white male!!!
- Kallius, on 06/17/2008, -1/+16Sure, reward the CEO when the company does well. But why reward the CEO when the company does poorly? The "golden parachute" has to go. Otherwise you just reward the CEO by simply existing. If a CEO can be rewarded with 700X the salary of a worker when the company does well, how about forcing the CEO to repay that compensation when the company does poorly? Oh, right, the CEO does not want to helm a company unless he holds all the cards. Because that is the heart of petty greed, which seems to be almost a prerequisite for such a position. If the company does well, it is because the CEO worked hard and was intelligent and well educated. But if the company fails, it is always the fault of someone else!
- yoda17, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2I think most people after making a few million would just call it quits and retire in luxury to some island. How do you motivate someone who is already worth $20million?
- allengeer, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3if you have a CEO who has made his shareholders 20 dollars per share on each of their 700 million shares, and the shareholders give him 50 cents a share for doing such a damn good job, he makes 300 million dollars.
- yoda17, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2I think most people after making a few million would just call it quits and retire in luxury to some island. How do you motivate someone who is already worth $20million?
- jellygraph, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9i'd like to see proof of that please... most ceo's i've met are arrogant ***** who hardly know what they are doing, but know how to make it sound like its a heck of a lot
- mrraven200, on 06/17/2008, -1/+8Very true when I worked at a systems integration company when i was in my early 20s back in the early 90s I knew FAR more than my boss did about computers, he didn't even know AMD existed for example. Yet he would ACT like he knew everything, sigh...
- JKAL, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5yes like the same hard work and intelligence these same banking execs have made to get us where we are with this sub-prime bussines... and of course the the non-execs get the cut, and the execs will still be earning the same or higher income non the less.
- ndepalma, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5I know three people from MIT and none of them make the big CEO bucks. Education only slightly trends with pay. Your job function is still by far the best indicator of pay.Startups barely pay, and that's where most innovators end up.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6right, kenneth lay was such a hard worker.
- enzomedici, on 06/17/2008, -6/+4
All of you are free to use your own personal money, pitch your ideas & raise venture capital and start your own business. Why don't you? Because A) You don't have any ***** ideas B) you are too ***** lazy C) You are scared ***** of losing your job because you are already living paycheck to paycheck. D) You would ***** in your pants if you actually had any real responsibility E) You don't know jack ***** about running a business but think you do. If you did, you would be doing it.- mrraven200, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I am absolutely amazed at how much of a bubble world you people live in. Guess what probably 70% of the U.S. population (higher in most other countries) has neither the personal cash nor the credit line to start the sort of business you are talking about. And actually I DO know what I am talking about as the co-owner of a small landscaping business who also has been doing web design on the side for 12 years. It just isn't true what you say, and if you continue to perpetuate that fallacy all you are going to do is fill the 70% of the population who will NEVER be able to start a large corporation and thus will be your economic victims with rage against you. Is that really the way you want to go? A small elite oligarchy supported by a large underpaid laboring mass is a VERY shaky model for a society, especially in an age of oil decline. You might want to rethink your position of how we can all get through this together unless you just want to see society violently unravel.
- Geiiga, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Greatest comment ever.
- leftyslament, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Props, mrraven200. Finally, someone who gets it.
- mrraven200, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I am absolutely amazed at how much of a bubble world you people live in. Guess what probably 70% of the U.S. population (higher in most other countries) has neither the personal cash nor the credit line to start the sort of business you are talking about. And actually I DO know what I am talking about as the co-owner of a small landscaping business who also has been doing web design on the side for 12 years. It just isn't true what you say, and if you continue to perpetuate that fallacy all you are going to do is fill the 70% of the population who will NEVER be able to start a large corporation and thus will be your economic victims with rage against you. Is that really the way you want to go? A small elite oligarchy supported by a large underpaid laboring mass is a VERY shaky model for a society, especially in an age of oil decline. You might want to rethink your position of how we can all get through this together unless you just want to see society violently unravel.
- ontain, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3execs that get fired for poor performance get more money from severance than the average worker makes in a year. So don't tell me it's just about hard work and intelligence.
- omgbanana, on 06/17/2008, -7/+29Yeah, like all of those suits in the airline businesses who walk away with severance packages and bonuses despite driving the businesses into the ground. Having a big edu-penis means they automatically deserve whatever comes their way?
- Qong, on 06/16/2008, -34/+77Why do people bother worrying about what someone else is being paid?
Seriously, it isn't any of our business and we should have no say in it; the same applies to the government and anyone else that isn't directly involved in the company that the CEO is working for.
If you start a company of your own, it turns out to be profitable (something that you are free to do here in America by the way), would you want someone having a say in how profitable your life's work can be?- carpespasm, on 06/17/2008, -7/+18I'm all for getting to reap the benefits of the efforts you put into a business, but what can you do with hundreds of millions of dollars a year you can't do with tens of millions?
That's a bad argument that we shouldn't have any say in their pay when the company gets that large either. There is only a finite amount of money in the economy, and I seriously doubt that someone working for the average worker's pay is working 1/750th as hard was a CEO who's wiping his ass with 100 dollar bills.- brainpile3000, on 06/17/2008, -7/+5Move to Communist Russia then
- Aero347, on 06/17/2008, -3/+5Actually you're an elitist bastard. I hope you get laid off and your puppy gets hit by a car.
- roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Communist russia?
We've all seen what happened to russia when capitalism slapped it in the face.
That's why a lot of them *actually do* want to go back to communist russia. - Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Russia's economy is just starting to really boom. Nobody in Russia wants to go back to Communism, not a single person.
- CosmicJustice, on 06/17/2008, -8/+8Wow that's one of the most poorly informed opinions I've ever heard. "There is only a finite amount of money in the economy"? Are you serious? http://courses.umass.edu/ppol697d/growth.pdf
- Paulish, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." -Milton Friedman
As long as the government does not get involved wealth is created, not stolen. - saxmaster, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Economics is not zero-sum. People and companies create wealth where there was none by creating a product or service and distributing it. Humanity is wealthier now than at any time in history because we have created it, not because it has been given to us by a government money printing plant.
- Jlaugh, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The government doesn't print much money, they float bonds and the privately held federal reserve prints the majority of the money and the charges us (the public) interest. When banks give you loans they just write a check and the money is created, they only hold a small fraction of that money in reserve. When you get a credit card it is money generated from nothing, then you pay interest on that nothing.
- Qong, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I'm sure that you can do plenty of things with hundreds of millions of Dollars that you can't do with tens of millions. Why would I care what you can do with hundreds of millions of Dollars though? That isn't something that I worry about or focus on. I don't need to worry about what others have to be happy.
Also, about money: "Money" or wealth is constantly created. We run into problems when more money is created than we have things to use it on, at that point money loses its value; it's known as inflation.
But as long as people continue to work and create things that people need, and banks and the government in turn continue to supply money and fund their work, then our economy is perfectly fine.
As was said though, there isn't a finite amount of "money." If you come up with a great idea, something that people want and need, then money will be created and used for whatever it is that you created.
- brainpile3000, on 06/17/2008, -7/+5Move to Communist Russia then
- InsanePenguin08, on 06/17/2008, -6/+5How many CEO's are the ones who started the business, and how many got to their position honestly? Of course it isn't our business, but the scales are tipped a little unfairly. I don't think anyone has any problem with someone starting a profitable business, it's the fact that many CEO are being paid incredible amounts for work they delegate. Sure they work similar hours to the average worker does (unless you work retail *shudder*,) but is the actual work they are doing worth so much more? No. No it isn't.
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6They work similar hours to the average worker? Are you kidding me?
As for the difficulty and value of their job, you try running a Fortune 500 company and let me know how it goes. If it's so easy, you should have no trouble becoming a billionaire. - Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The thing is that their pay is dictated by the company. Depending on how it's set up it could vary from a board of directors to the CEO making setting his or her own salary and options.
What that means is that people outside of the company should have absolutely no say in what happens within. It's a private entity and it isn't your business. It really is that simple.
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6They work similar hours to the average worker? Are you kidding me?
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3we've done pretty good by americans over 20 years, so in that way I agree. our social structure has fallen to pieces though ... the amount we currently owe to SS is about 3 or so times the entire national economy. when that falls apart, the rich will be fine, but the poor, well, not so much. so the poor are taking on real risk so that the rich can be, more rich or something?
Yeah I know, tht's metaphor. Really there's a lot of hard work and swallowing your morals and sacrificing your sense of identity involved in making it big.
Still, for a generalization I think it's pretty apt. - l815, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3It's one thing when you own your own business, it's another when shareholders own your business.
- sporg, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Yes here in America you are more than welcome to start your own business and fail miserably with all the taxes and insurance requirements you will be buried under.
Thankfully large corporations are free of such responsibilities and can easily move headquarters to another country and pay basically no taxes while also importing their goods without duties through "free trade" agreements. Brilliant!- Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Obviously I agree with you on the restrictions on business here in the United States.
We became the wealthiest nation on the planet through economic freedom, yet now we apparently think that it's a good idea to overly tax people that are interested in working hard and making something. It isn't smart at all.
- Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Obviously I agree with you on the restrictions on business here in the United States.
- saxmaster, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2I start making and selling shoes, I can keep as much money as I want. At what point between that and becoming the CEO of Nike do I have my paycheck decided by people who have no knowledge or personal investment in my business?
- Hamletlere, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4When you sell part of your business to the public as stock via an IPO.
- awesometastic1, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1and how
- saigumi, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Even people who aren't shareholders should be concerned. Crud, I can't find the article in the haystack (http://marshallbrain.com/cw-articles.htm), but basically it pointed out how much a consumer pays in CEO salaries.
Basically, it worked like this:
CEO gets $X,000,000 a year which is Y% of COMPANY Z's gross income for the year. So basically, you are paying an extra Y% for a good, just to pay the CEO's salary.
Then, they did the math and figured out that every person in America was paying about $6000 a year for the top 3 C-levels salaries. That money has to come from somewhere. - roodammy44, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2The thing about having tons and tons of money is that you have *power* over other people.
The sort of power that's like "do this for me and you can have these pieces of paper".
And the thing is, when there are lots of people with practically no power (money) and a few people with the power (money) is that they tend to control everyone regardless of democratic conventions.
Is that simple enough for you? So in conclusion, not caring about these CEOs is not caring if your country is a democracy.- Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1That's a terrible argument, is that simple enough for YOU?
How do you feel about Warren Buffet? He's the richest person in the world, his company is publicly traded, does he somehow not deserve to be in the position that he's in?
Or maybe he's different because he supports Barack Obama?
- Qong, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1That's a terrible argument, is that simple enough for YOU?
- toonworld, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3I don't have a problem with the bigwigs making lots of money. What I have a problem is when a CEO gets a 555% pay increasing (NOT counting the bonuses and benefits) and then turns right around and say they have to cut costs, reduce staff (sometimes down to skeleton crew) and increase productivity to the point of people getting burnouts.
THAT is what I have a problem with. If you want to talk ratios, why can't I get a 555% pay increase? - bcldsm, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Executives didn't necessarily start the company they work for and most large companies are publicly traded corporations that are owned by stockholders.
Stockholders should have a say in how much they get paid, but they don't. - aeoo, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2"Why do people bother worrying about what someone else is being paid?"
Mostly people don't. The problem starts when the rich dictate the conditions of life to those who are poorer. Your CEO tells you how and when you will work if you want to work at "his" company. That's what people don't like. The more money they get, they more obnoxiously they behave toward their employees.
So the problem is not money per se, but the social impact of having money and status. People don't like to be abused. I don't think people mind how many toys someone else has. If being rich simply meant more toys, who'd care? We'd see some marginal coveting, but no more. The issue is that the rich are people like your landlords who raise your rent relentlessly, every chance they get, and who use every trick in the book to raise the rent, like installing a washer and dryer and charging you $500 more rent (the damn washer and dryer plus the renovations using cheap Mexican labor do not come out to a permanent $500 dollar rent increase!). You see the problem here? The assholes who own apartments do not work hard. They hire people who work there, for a very low wage. They just sit back and collect the money while making the lives of others miserable. It's this kind of ***** that pisses people off.
If the rich could avoid hurting the lives of the poorer people, then no one would begrudge them. - pedm, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0so you say that the natural market produced such high prices? repeal the taft-hartley act, and maybe they will. but as unions are constantly being stepped upon in the states, this is not at all natural
- carpespasm, on 06/17/2008, -7/+18I'm all for getting to reap the benefits of the efforts you put into a business, but what can you do with hundreds of millions of dollars a year you can't do with tens of millions?
- PresRob, on 06/16/2008, -7/+34First I would like to see this chart changed to reflect the salaries of PUBLICLY held companies not privately owned companies. If Bob of Bob's Ring Flinger Co. makes $10,000,000 a year because he owns the company, more power to him. I find the guys who work for GM, Disney, and all the public companies are stealing money from their stockholders by charging as much as half the company's profits for the year in options and benefits. Private companies will pay the profits to the owner and if that owner hires a guy and pays him outrageously at least he knows it is coming out of his pocket. If Disney pays Bob Iger $50,000,000 a year you only get to try to out vote 5-10 people who hold 80% of the stock. And if the owner of a private company has a bad year, naturally he loses money in proportion to the company's loss, but the CEO of a public company can still get bonuses for meeting whatever softball goals the board sets. Tell any employee what they need to do to get a $10,000,000.00 bonus like CEOs do and I would guarantee those goals will get met.
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12You don't like the way a public company operates? Simple: don't invest in them.
- ontain, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1most of the stocks(85%) are owned by the top 10% so his investment or boycott is meaningless.
- brainpile3000, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Bob Iger has nearly double profit margins at Disney since he's been there, I'd say Disney's return on investment in him is well worth it.
- mbraynard, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Unlike a private company, if you are an equity holder in a public firm and don't like the way it is being run, you will find your equity MUCH more liquid and you can more easily walk away (dump your shares).
Besides, why do you think that you, an individual investor, knows more about the choice and performance of a CEO than the institutional investors who have an entire team monitoring his behavior and own 80% of the company? - NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1The graph doesn't mention whether it includes anything but salary. Stock options could easily make this 100x bigger or more.
- allengeer, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1These salary's are not that outrageous when you consider the agreements these guys make with their board of directors. A lot of CEOs salary is based on stock. Many companies base the CEO salary on stock performance. They tell him (or her), we'll give you .50 cents for ever 10 dollar increase in stock value, and the CEO increases the stock value by 20 dollars a share for 100 million shares, the CEO makes 100 million dollars. Its not that outrageous considering the value increase these CEOs are responsible for creating.
Now there are some CEOs who don't make such a marked increase in value of the company and are still paid high. These shareholders should really be looking at getting a better CEO instead of paying a bad one. - dodgejon, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Home Depot is public...The last CEO had a severance of around 210 million....
- soulkitchen, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1That was one hell of a ***** you wasn't it.
- bcldsm, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Privately held companies do not have to disclose salaries.
This graph shows the 50 "largest companies". Most if not all of them are publicly held.
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12You don't like the way a public company operates? Simple: don't invest in them.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -5/+3great graphic, something I care about too... still I wish they had the numbers in absolute terms so I could see how much the growth in wages of these executives effects the growth in wages in general.
- bmcnally, on 06/17/2008, -13/+13Your point?
Think about it: for some of these companies, placing the reins in the hands of a bad CEO (or board of directors) could mean either the death of the company or a severe crippling effect while a good CEO might be able to turn around the business and bring it to the next level of competition. A line worker on the other hand (or code monkey, middle manager, etc) has nowhere near that amount of power.
They worked hard to get where they are, don't begrudge them that. Rather, ask yourself how you can get to that level.- bobartig, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4yes, but those companies who have been steered astray are still paying their executives record-breaking compensations. They have huge windfalls whether they do well or not. Why are CEO's making 8x what they did 40 years ago? Why do they receive $100,000,000 worth of options and grants in the event that they are ousted by the board, or resign? Why do they charge $100,000s of personal expenses and personal jet use for friends/family/personal use? Why do they get benefits and 6-7 figure consultant gigs for life after retirement? Its simply because they are squandering company resources because they can. Noone can stop them. Their hand is in the cookie jar 24-7 and people like you either are too dim to get it, or you just don't care.
The average american's wages are stagnant, savings vs. income of the american worker has been negative for years. Budgets are getting tighter, benefits are disappearing, headcount is reducing, and the average work week gradually increases so that the top 1% can live even more extravagantly than they already do.
What can I do about it? Don't work for those companies. Check. Divest from those companies. Check. Try not to patronize those companies. This is harder, because they cover so many industries and product spaces - needs work.- jabrooks, on 06/17/2008, -2/+0"savings vs. income of the american worker has been negative for years"
That is because the average American worker is too ***** retarded to realize that if they spend more than they make, something will go wrong. These are the people who realistically can barely make ends meet, yet using several high interest credit cards they buy iPhones and used BMW's.
I don't feel bad for these people in the slightest, and I champion the fact that CEO's get paid for running a company well enough to provide millions of jobs. - jhelmer, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1> Why do they receive $100,000,000 worth of options and grants in the event that they are ousted by the board, or resign?
Why does divorce cost so much? Because it's worth it.
Sometimes if you have a bad CEO it is sometimes cheaper and easier to pay them off, kick them out the door and find a replacement than it is to fight with them.
In general, I don't like golden parachutes, but sometimes they are worth it.
- jabrooks, on 06/17/2008, -2/+0"savings vs. income of the american worker has been negative for years"
- failedpimp, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Most CEO's job involves deciding if the same job can be done cheaper by someone else. Hence why many companies layoff workers and set up shop in a country with cheaper labor. Now you tell me, can someone do the CEO's job more cheaply? I'm sure you can get someone just as qualified to do the same amount of work for a mere $50 million a year.
- metamethod, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2unfortunately, most CEOs are born to that level. family connections. prep school. trust funds. exclusivity.
most people didn't work hard enough to be born into such a fortunate family.
- bobartig, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4yes, but those companies who have been steered astray are still paying their executives record-breaking compensations. They have huge windfalls whether they do well or not. Why are CEO's making 8x what they did 40 years ago? Why do they receive $100,000,000 worth of options and grants in the event that they are ousted by the board, or resign? Why do they charge $100,000s of personal expenses and personal jet use for friends/family/personal use? Why do they get benefits and 6-7 figure consultant gigs for life after retirement? Its simply because they are squandering company resources because they can. Noone can stop them. Their hand is in the cookie jar 24-7 and people like you either are too dim to get it, or you just don't care.
- nastronomical, on 06/17/2008, -19/+11Jealousy
- shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2Obviously.
- masterm1nd, on 06/17/2008, -12/+26You could make the graph with NFL players or actors or many others. Should they be banned from earning money too?
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -2/+19They should be banned from paying for their stadiums and arenas with civic money, yes.
- Egoist, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4Responses like that are why the toughest decision you should be making is what color socks you should put on today.
What the city spends in their initial investment, they gain back over the next several decades in increased tax revenue, jobs, and population. It's like spending $5 on a lottery ticket that will pay your rent for the rest of your life.
- Egoist, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4Responses like that are why the toughest decision you should be making is what color socks you should put on today.
- mrblue182, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4yes, yes they should.
- multimed, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1No of course not. They really care about the average person because they tell us they do. You know, these same people who talk all about how the rich should be taxed more all the while, not actually donating any appreciable portion of their income to charities.
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -2/+19They should be banned from paying for their stadiums and arenas with civic money, yes.
- SkateItsGreat, on 06/17/2008, -20/+13Don't complain, just become one. Ohh wait that would require work...
- psylemon, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1dugg down because of truthfulness *heavy sigh*
- hackiavelli, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Apparently Digg thinks there's one really hard working CEO in a company and a bunch of workers sitting around doing nothing.
The captain can't sail the ship without a good crew.
- PeckerSlap, on 06/17/2008, -8/+3meh i don't get it.......
- 1720a519, on 06/17/2008, -7/+4While I think CEO pay in some cases IS inflated, the picture does not speak for itself. Executives are under increasing scrutiny and abandoned at will by their BOD. They also deal with much scarier security concerns for their safety, especially in pharma. That being said, they are at the helm responsible for their companies making an exponentially increased amount of money for their shareholders and (tens of) thousands of employees. I do think their pay should be more closely tied to performance- some execs are leading this effort and hopefully more will follow.
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1They're being abandoned by their BOD's *BECAUSE* of inflated salary. Bring in more money than you cost us, or be fired. They never had any "safety" just like the rest of us, and shouldn't. Duh.
- Hamletlere, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The rest of us don't have the "golden parachute", which I would think gives a considerable margin of "safety".
- ElectroBot, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3While I don't believe that ANYONE should be making 350x the average worker's salary, I do believe that a CEO, rockstar, sports superstar, should make more than the average person because they have more responsibility, less privacy and shorter career (for the entertainment/sports positions).
On the other hand, there is no way that a CEO of a company that failed to meet projected profits, had a bad quarter, layed off workers, should be receiving multi million dollar bonuses. This especially goes for a CEO that was kicked out by the BOD or share holders. They should not be getting multi (sometimes in the hundreds of) million(s) of dollars settlements for leaving a company they ruined.
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1They're being abandoned by their BOD's *BECAUSE* of inflated salary. Bring in more money than you cost us, or be fired. They never had any "safety" just like the rest of us, and shouldn't. Duh.
- jayb1rd, on 06/17/2008, -11/+21GREED
- metaknite, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8... drives our world? Why yes, yes it does.
- mbraynard, on 06/17/2008, -5/+8is good.
/finished that for you.- panacean, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1***** you, John Stossel.
- mjw2025, on 06/17/2008, -3/+0What is your definition of greed?
- mbraynard, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The desire to better oneself. That may not be your definition of greed, but that is the type of behavior that is popularly categorized as greed.
- SkittlesUSA, on 06/17/2008, -6/+4By "Greed" you mean the incentive to make money.
And it is this incentive that gives you the clothes on your back, your computer, and this website.
You should thank GREED. - jayb1rd, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Lol. I like how one word caused such an uproar. Yes, I realize that "greed" is necessary in a way...but does it need to be this outrageous?
- yoda17, on 06/17/2008, -6/+12Where are the sports stars salaries? I'd bet many of them are paid multiple times even what the highest executive salaries are and mostly what they do is run around with a ball...
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4You should try running around with a ball since it is so easy...
- SwiftKick34, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3You should try running a company
- FREETHINKER2008, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1I don't have to pay to go see sports. I have to work for a greedy ceo, and yes I know I can change jobs but they're all the same.
- mjw2025, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Start your own company
- FREETHINKER2008, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2Some day hopefully, and I won't be greedy.
- mjw2025, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Start your own company
- gryphon50, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1It would seem to me that it is pretty obvious how well a sports star is performing. It's not like they can "cook the books" or commit all manner of fraud to hide their failures like a CEO can.
- creole, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1To be fair, CEOs aren't risking life and limb on the field.
I still think that the difference between the average worker salary and that of their CEO is outrageous. I wouldn't begrudge the men/women pay for their hard work, even into the millions of dollars, but tens of millions of dollars in bonuses when I can't even get a freaking raise to match cost of living? That's criminal.
- TomK88, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4You should try running around with a ball since it is so easy...
- diggrnumber1, on 06/17/2008, -10/+2*****!!!! ONE OF THE SOURCES IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!! THAT MUST MEAN THIS GRAPH IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY!!!!! *****!
- IanRReardon, on 06/17/2008, -5/+28Corporations are owned by shareholders who in turn control the board of directors, who set the compensation of CEO's. It's their own business, leave it alone.
Its not different than professional sports. If your a big team (Big Corp) you want the best players. Your willing to pay the best CEO's to run your company. How is this any different than Kobe Bryant making millions, but you don't hear people complain about it all day long.- specialK16, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4Meh I see in here people who complain because someone else is making more money than them, people who defend people making more money than them and people that, like me, think that being a CEO is the way to go.
Want money, make your own business and be your own boss. - IanRReardon, on 06/17/2008, -4/+15In fact, CEO's provide more value to society than ANY sports figure. They grow companies which in turn provides jobs, products and tax revenue for EVERYONE. You guys that bash America/Capitalism are the biggest hypocrites. You sit here and complain while you reap all the benefits and rewards that 100 years of capitalism has provided.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2yeah, those guys at enron sure helped out society.
- NateTech, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Some of us do complain about professional sports teams using municipal bonds (taxes) to pay for their places of business.
- johnamus, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4at about 2/3 of the US companies the CEO also chairs the board of directors, can you see the potential conflict of interest here?
Not to mention the fact that shareholders are increasingly comprised of mutual fund companies who vote on behalf of the stockholders who own the shares.
Capitalism is supposed to be about risk and reward. Being a CEO entails no risk, look at Citi, Countrywide, Home Depot just to name a few and check out the pay of their executives during times of horrible performance. It was rewarded with lottery sized sums.
Open your eyes, capitalism is good, but it isn't present internally in most publically owned companies.
Honestly you would do yourself a favor to read up on the subject before taking a side based on conjecture. Read any book by Jack Bogle the former head of Vanguard. Its a good start anyway.- quantax, on 06/17/2008, -0/+0You said it. Shareholders themselves should get more say in CEO pay IMHO. We've seen a disconnect between the whole reward/punishment system of the free market system with CEOs and other high level executives being given golden parachutes even when they performed terribly. They're rewarded by the aforementioned directors which in some of these cases equates to little more than a good ol' boys club. The free market is great but its getting gamed more and more by these wealthy individuals and that ruins it in the longterm for everyone else.
- specialK16, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4Meh I see in here people who complain because someone else is making more money than them, people who defend people making more money than them and people that, like me, think that being a CEO is the way to go.
- sunyata76, on 06/17/2008, -5/+10If the average workers out there want to get paid more, they should demand better wages (I don't just mean through unionization) and not settle for less for very long. Be worth it by cultivating your skill set, taking advantage of educational programs and opportunities, understand how business works, and having a little luck on your side helps too.
The fact is, if there are folks out there who can do your work for less money and are just as capable, they're going to get your jobs. So more people need to be willing to keep the salary bar high. It takes merit, it takes guts, and it takes patience.
Digg me down-- I've got my snorkel. :)- FREETHINKER2008, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9Do you really think that the ceo's care about cultivating my skill set or taking advantage of educational programs.Do the most work for the least money.(ceo mantra)
- JKAL, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6working hard or harder is not the solution, if you think that you will be in that same role for the next 5-10 yrs if you are l