What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Cybercrime makes more money than illegal drugs. view!
everyclickmatters.com - See the top masterminds behind the biggest cyberscams ever—and what they cost us all.
177 Comments
- novenator, on 05/02/2009, -12/+67There was a time that CEOs were not paid significantly more than the lowest paid worker in a company. Those days are over. Today we have many millions who either make minimum wage, have no health insurance, are employed only part time, or temporary workers. These folks hardly make a 'living wage', but corporations depend on exploiting them to maximize profits.
In 1980, the average CEO made 50 times what the lowest paid worker in a company did. That started to balloon as soon as Reagan took over and has continued to an average of over 400x today! http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/we ... - SRSco, on 05/03/2009, -3/+58Why are bank CEOs on this list? Good grief.
- Firstdaughter, on 05/03/2009, -4/+40So after 1980 Reaganomics was born and greed and excess became the American way... Screw the little guy, it's all gonna trickle down right? :P /s
- Pecheckler, on 05/03/2009, -4/+35Dugg for having the entire list on one Web page, I am sick of seeing this kind of list on 10 different pages.
- novenator, on 05/03/2009, -1/+28holy smokes! That's an embarrassment!
Ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay (n:1)
Japan 11
Germany 12
France 15
Italy 20
Canada 20
South Africa 21
Britain 22
Hong Kong 41
Mexico 47
Venezuela 50
United States 475 - inactive, on 05/03/2009, -4/+31There used to be a rule of thumb in America that the CEO or the President would earn something around 20 times what the company's lowest paid worker earned. That is the way it was in the USA until the '80s. It really changed in the '90s. Now the calculation is more like 400X.
At 20X, if the shop floor guy makes $12/hour, his annual income is around $24,000 per year and that means that the CEO would earn somewhere around $500,000 - (reasonable)
At 400X the shopfloor guy gets $24,000 and the CEO - $9,600,000 - (unreasonable)
There are a number of reasons for this, among them the emphasis on quarterly profits rather than long-term strategies that is imposed by institutional investors. Another reason is that most of these companies work in areas in which they are partners of the government or they are protected by the government and therefore not exposed to normal market forces. - scschwa, on 05/03/2009, -2/+27http://www.cab.latech.edu/~mkroll/510_papers/fall_ ...
Comparison of CEO pay in the US to other developed countries & regions around the world. - Roadvirus, on 05/04/2009, -0/+24Numbers 4, 6 & 10 should be listed as "Corporate Pirates"
- novenator, on 05/03/2009, -2/+25Absolutely. I've heard about some corporations where it's as high as 1200x, which is a ridiculous situation that should never exist. The CEO would make more money before his morning coffee than some ppl would make all year long. How can anybody 'earn' that? That's just pure exploitation and stupidity.
I agree 100% with the futility of having an emphasis on quarterly profits as well. Everything (government, business, industry, etc.) should be based on 50 year plans like they do in the Netherlands. Long term feasibility is superior to short term dividends. - holyskeleton, on 05/04/2009, -1/+23Motorola posted at least 2 quarterly (I think) hundreds of millions of losses already and their CEO is getting all that money. Looks like it's gonna stay in a bad shape for a while.
- woodsjransom, on 05/03/2009, -3/+23After reading http://digg.com/politics/Olbermann_Senate_F_ks_Hom ...
I don't like bankers anymore. - freedomjoe, on 05/04/2009, -4/+23Amazing to read all of the Republicans defending these CEOs saying it's "free market capitalism" and "envy" if you don't agree.
FYI: DO they teach you people anything at Fox News? CEOs are hired by boards. Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to make a profit. As a shareholder of many of these corporations, I can tell you that the irresponsible money management these boards have shown by paying CEOs oodles of money when the company is not making money is an outrage.
You call yourselves fiscal conservatives and yet, you know nothing about fiscal conservatism. Any company that wants to be successful has to balance their own budget. You pay people out of your budget. Capiche? you make no money, you pay no money and you start with upper management - not lower management. Any business class teaches you this. I guess they all took lessons from your boy George Bush, who couldn't balance the budget so he simply took the Iraq war and the tax cuts to the rich off his budget. He must have thought if he didn't have to show the numbers it didn't count.
Are you aware of what kind of funny accounting games these companies were engaging in? Lying on their financials?
Your ignorant and no doubt parroted defense of an indefensible position for a fiscal conservative explains why the GOP is in such trouble. - novenator, on 05/03/2009, -1/+19Sort of makes the whole bonus thing after the bailout seem pointless, doesn't it?
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -1/+19It's kind of sad that Republican retards come here and defend those CEOs. The only explanation is that typical Republican on Digg thinks he/she is special and destined to become one of those CEOs. Delusion of grandeur.
- nigelmansell, on 05/04/2009, -1/+18Aubrey McClendon is a clown. His own company paid 15M for the art collection he has. WTF?
- novenator, on 05/03/2009, -3/+20That's exactly right. That graph on the link (about halfway down the long page) demonstrates this quite remarkably.
- kvalsi, on 05/04/2009, -3/+20Shareholders should have more influence over Boards to set reasonable CEO compensation.
- SpodTeK, on 05/04/2009, -3/+20what kind of lifestyle do they have when they make that much AND they still say they need their bonuses!?!?! but they wont hesitate to layoff couple thousand employees rather then cutting their salary
- novenator, on 05/04/2009, -3/+18coming from the man with a dollar sign as his emblem. Praise the mighty dollar!
- digg4peace, on 05/03/2009, -1/+13Un-fu*king real!
- novenator, on 05/04/2009, -3/+15When the laws are designed by the very corporations who benefit from them in the first place, *something* needs to be done to balance this out. Our govt should not be in the pockets of only the wealthy, it should represent what is in the best interest of the majority of its people.
I'm not suggesting confiscating the property of the wealthy of course, just leveling the playing field so we have real opportunity again. Social mobility is a prized concept, is it not? - charlesray, on 05/04/2009, -2/+13This is a fun list, it's half successful companies and half ***** companies.
- deathandtaverns, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10"let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps" I believe will be our generation's "let them eat cake." Hopefully for them (mostly 4,6 and 10) we use votes instead of guillotines to usher in some amount of social justice.
- chummers, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10I was a little bit surprised to see the CEO of Juniper on that list
- novenator, on 05/04/2009, -5/+15so in what world is a CEO worth 1200x what the lowest paid worker is? Humans are humans, we all do our jobs and this kind of discrepancy is outrageous. An unregulated market place is ripe for kings and slaves, not a strong middle class.
- MforMike, on 05/04/2009, -3/+13all men
- Lefts, on 05/04/2009, -0/+9You do realize they give to charity because they keep more money that way?
- Darkyuubi, on 05/04/2009, -0/+9Am I the only one who find the fact that Motorola's CEO is the second highest paid a little ridiculous?
I actually think Moto's CEO is earning his keep even less than investment firm CEOs... - scottknick, on 05/04/2009, -2/+10I love the "class envy" mantra from defenders of the Robber Barons. The implication is clear: "You just hush yo mouth and don't git above your raisin', Rastus."
As a taxpayer I support the infrastructure and the education system which allows these companies to exist. As a worker and a consumer I am directly affected by the economy, over which these 10 men hold a disproportionate amount of control. So when I see that skyrocketing CEO salaries have nothing to do with the success or failure of the companies they head, I have a right to question that. And the Security and Exchange Commission, without which the markets would cease to function, has a right to ask what the hell is going on.
So don't tell me to shut up. - okonisfree, on 05/04/2009, -1/+9DAMNIT why are those who are leading the companies down the tubes getting paid so much?
what happened to good work, good money!? - Kstha1, on 05/04/2009, -9/+17The sad part is some people with these types of salaries are in debt.
and these pricks w. all this money still rob people blindd - krazyman, on 05/04/2009, -1/+9Supposedly they had to pay him "incentives" in order to hire him. Doesn't somebody realize what is happening?
- novenator, on 05/04/2009, -3/+11No double standard, excessive income is excessive income. Professional athletes used to make the same as teachers, look at the discrepancy today and compare that to our nations priorities. We need to refocus our objectives and reward those that are doing the most for our nation, not just some corporate entity.
- ShiftyBizniss, on 05/04/2009, -0/+7Truly, WTF... Citigroup's Vikram Pandit takes home $38M while cutting 60,000 jobs and accepting $25B from Uncle Sam? ***** larceny...
- tazmeister, on 05/04/2009, -1/+8just think of how many jobs could be created just by firing the CEO's and using their salary to pay productive employees.
and thats not even counting all the benefits that go with the job that for most people would be consider an expense they have to swallow
Those 10 CEO's are making about $500 million. Just how many jobs is that? - u8myfoood, on 05/04/2009, -3/+10No one said those salaries are reasonable, it's still atrocious in any situation. And there isn't anything we can do about it, the truly rich (old money) stay rich.
- eramos, on 05/04/2009, -4/+10respek, but they better check themselves before they wreck themselves
- jayjayjoni, on 05/04/2009, -7/+13what happened to equality of wealth and equal opportunity?
- Zap2, on 05/04/2009, -0/+6it sure as ***** if your bussiness when your economy depends on good paying jobs for many, so economic growth happens...not to mentions taxes and government bails/funding of projects. Plus if you "use" this companies services, you're funding this!
I'm sick of this "me,me,me" outlook. I understand looking out for number one, its a good idea very often, but not looking out for others is equal bad. - AZRoboto, on 05/04/2009, -0/+6You mean you liked them before?
- NiftyG, on 05/04/2009, -2/+8The difference is that, when a movie bombs, the government doesn't bail out the movie studio.
- Rikkochet, on 05/04/2009, -1/+7That would be a factor of 4.
Look at novenator's list. The CEO in your fictional company is making 2,375 an hour. That's absurd. - HaleyO12, on 05/04/2009, -0/+6I know, Bank CEOs being on this list is absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. Thanks for robbing us blind, heres your huge salaries. Absurd.
- novenator, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5Who is the government for? Shouldn't it represent the best interests of the people, or should the biggest corporations continue to pull all of the strings behind legislation?
Other countries do not have this problem, a CEO in Japan only makes 20x what the average worker makes. In the US, it is over 400 times that. http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6738/payratioceotoa ... - deathandtaverns, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5the working and middle class' have to reel this kind of stuff in once in a while. When the difference between the classes gets too big we do things like end slavery, have the union, labor and social security movements, and whatever we do now to solve this. We're not throwing away what has worked for the last 200 years, we're continuing it. It's these minor revolutions that save capitalism.
- Joodtimes, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5Still lots of money in smokes, eh?
- N01SE, on 05/04/2009, -1/+5The question really is, what do they do with that money? It's one thing if they donate half or more to various charities, research efforts, helping the less fortunate, etc., but another thing entirely if they spend it all on themselves. Anyone can have an extremely high quality of life in the U.S. from just a 100k salary. What do you do with an over-abundance of cash flow coming in, that's really where the ethical dilemma is, it's how you spend it. Of course, there's also the whole Capitalism vs. Socialism issue to boot.
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4They rob us blind with inordinate NSF fees. Lost my job back in November and had some unfortunate automatic charges hit when my account was too low. So this is where those fees have gone...
- bluesdealer, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4Motorola?! Hahaha! Talk about a company that's going down the tubes. They once had a stranglehold on the cell phone market but haven't innovated in years. They produce only one phone (which sells very poorly) for the carrier I work for.
- N01SE, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4News flash, lot's of CEOs are not worth even 1/4 of what they make, people are born into the ranks, you realize that right. You are confusing achievements with something else, the brightest minds in the country graduating from the top schools who are doing research to make our world a better place to live get paid ***** compared to some guy who dresses up and pretends to be someone else everyday (actors), you tell me who has achieved more and has worked harder, the marketplace ***** sucks, people are getting paid WAY MORE than they are worth.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 