Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
Engineer09
4987 Followers
ONOLAST CARD
3682 Followers
Huffy Henry
300 Followers
Regina Rodriguez
1644 Followers
Basilyando
3164 Followers
frayedknotjeffJun 29, 2011
When your company's are too big to fail, bringing down the world economy with their fail, yet those CEO's still bring home millions regardless of their bad actions. Then you can bet your ass I'm going to be there with a rectal scope ready to check, recheck, and scrutinize your every move.
magnumxJun 29, 2011
Oh, so information is the real enemy? Not the ridiculous conpensation packages that rob the company of it's long-term worth, game the market via insider trading, and disguise the actual human capital assets the company has?
In most other industrialized nations (like Japan) this is not only disclosed, but it's actually enforced by law. A CEO can only make so many times more than his lowest paid full-time employee. This is good for the company and the stockholder since it forces the CEO to tie his worth not to big bonuses and conpensation packages, but to the company's stock price. If the company doesn't do well, he doesn't do well. Seems like a sensible strategy to me. Only in America can you ruin a company and be paid like $40-$50 million just to go away. If I screw up at my job I don't get to say that my employer should just pony up a half year's pay so I can move on...Why should they be so privleged?
Oh, I forgot that regulating CEO compensation (when it's a huge part of national economic nightmare because it puts ALL the incentives in the short-term...) is "Socialism." GASP! So, we'll continue to work for people who are litrally trying to raid as much as possible from every source (corporate, financial, federal, state, municpal...) they can get their hands on. When will people begin that those that actually tax us aren't the people in congress, they're in the board rooms.
skywiseJun 29, 2011
Regulating CEO compensation *IS* socialism.
If a company board wants to pay its CEOs some stupidly ludicrous wage that is THEIR right to do so and a PRIVATE decision between the board and the CEO. Not you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
Socialism is a broad term. The scientific socialism of Marx is very much with us in all forms of industry. Industry requires planning; most of what industry calls planning subsists precisely in the elimination of market forces. Markets are unpredictable, and most people prefer stability -- regular growth in the stock market and price stability at the store. That's not the market's doing -- that's the result of planning. The federal reserve is central to this -- we've had socialism for quite some time. You don't hear many people calling Nixon a socialist for freezing wages and prices, there are times when these sorts of actions are appropriate.
skywiseJun 29, 2011
Everything requires planning that doesn't make it a socialist trait. Industry requires *logistics* to ensure the supply chain and market forces are VERY MUCH accounted for. Industry can avoid market forces through derivative contracts (the things progressives abhor right now) or by monopolistic practices. On the other hand, industry can also use that same free market to its advantage by out negotiating its competition or by innovating in new source materials.
Politicians WANT a stable and growing market because it makes them look good. But investors want a mix of stable and unstable markets for capital growth. The catch here is that you don't want the market to crash and dissolve everyone's value overnight which is why stable fiduciary instruments are around. But planned markets can't work in the long run because the sources can never be regulated in a stable fashion of growth over a long period (crops will fail, natural disasters will occur, competition will disrupt supply chains). If you keep denuating the losers and exaggerating the winners to maintain a stable growth rate you end up with a lopsided market and the market WILL crash which is what happened in 2007.
And I call Nixon a socialist for freezing wages and prices. It, more than anything, led to the Carter Malaise years.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
"Industry can avoid market forces through derivative contracts (the things progressives abhor right now) or by monopolistic practices"
I would argue that monopoly and oligopoly are much more prevalent in industry than most people admit. All the different brands of computers you can buy give the illusion of competition, but really this just masks a more widespread collusion. Intel makes all the chips. One or two firms make all the graphics cards. A handful of firms make all the drives. If you are a graphic designer you're using Adobe software. There are barriers to entry erected by file formats, the industry-centric orientation of academies that train students to work with monopoly software, by firms that will buy their competition outright to eliminate it or sell their own products at a loss. And this is not unique to the computer industry. Even Coke and Pepsi don't really compete, at least not on the basis of cost economics: they each sell essentially the same product at the same cost.
eraptorJun 30, 2011
@skywise,
You don't get it. Executive compensation disclosure is NOT a private matter between CEO's and the "rubber stamps" they call their Board of Directors. Public disclosure is designed to inform SHAREHOLDERS. You know, the people who OWN those companies.
As an investor AND a capitalist, I have every damned right to know how much executives pay themselves since it comes out of MY wallet. How else would company owners know whether they're getting their money's worth? If ANY CEO supports this initiative, they deserve to be FIRED on the spot for reckless stupidity and corruption.
amazetbmJun 30, 2011
A applaud your pragmatism. No...I'm not being sarcastic.
LowandBeholdJun 30, 2011
Don't use the word socialism in such a broad manner. It does not give you any credibility. We went through this during the elections and while I opted not to vote I will this time because of the fear mongering.
novenatorJun 30, 2011Submitter
Logic is socialism!!!
anomaly100Jun 30, 2011
Your comment is socialist!
mrteflonJun 30, 2011
Your Dog is Socialist!
:)
publiclurkerJun 30, 2011
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
D1gst1llsuxJun 30, 2011
Inconceivable!
lutianaJun 30, 2011
You socialism is not necessarily a bad thing. No matter what you call it or how feel about it there is something very wrong when a company is laying off tons of workers and continue to pay the CEOs a full salary and in some cases raise their compensation.
A CEO is important to a company no doubt, but he is no where near as important as the dude on the assembly line or the guy in front of his/her customers.
D1gst1llsuxJun 30, 2011
I agree, if Sarah Palin can be a CEO in charge of 25,000 people anyone can do it.
D1gst1llsuxJun 30, 2011
Truth is always the enemy of the fascist.
trashbin67Jun 30, 2011
Your heart is in the right place, but this is nonsensical idealism with a dangerous undertone of "you can go this far, no further." How would you like to be an enterprising entrepreneur who was told "sorry, all this money you are making, it's too much for you so I'm going to take it!" How do you grow a business? How do you expand?
The Capitalist system is based on growth fueled by capital. Take the capital out of the equation and you take away the growth. That stagnates the job market while population expands.
You can scream social injustice all day, but socialist economic theory hasn't worked out very well in the last 100 years.
piccolojrJun 30, 2011
Hear, hear!
agmlauncherJun 29, 2011
Public companies = public salary information, end of god damn story.
duncan202Jun 29, 2011
I think you misunderstand the term public company. If you mean the public that actually owns stock in the the company, they your are correct.
agmlauncherJun 29, 2011
I mean, the public who can BUY stock in the company. The public has a right to decide whether they want to buy stock in a company that invests a disproportionate amount of money into one person or not.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2011
I wonder how many investors would actually even consider that when purchasing stock in a company? Investors, by definition being people looking to make money.....I say not many, if any at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
duncan202Jun 29, 2011
It should be the buyers choice to care or not. If the company chooses not to divulge the info, the buyer can pass on it if they care.
agmlauncherJun 30, 2011
Oh ok. Well I guess then that means public companies can choose not to disclose who their CEO is, what their profits are, what businesses they're buying, who they're owned by, or any other such info too right? By that logic, then investors can simply pass on them.
Same goes for anyone looking to get a loan from a bank. Why should a bank disclose the rate or anything else? Consumers can just pass on it if the bank doesn't tell them what their rate is, right?
There's a reason we have laws that force businesses, even private businesses, to be as transparent as possible. I fail to see why making it ultra clear just how disproportionate the pay is between workers and executives should be any different.
redstringJun 29, 2011
Corporations here in America are too far gone. Profit, war, corrupting politicians, installing dictators. Its so far gone it doesn't seem real... but it is.
Mark7AJun 29, 2011
I agree corporate influence on government is wrong, but why is profiting "going to far"? My retirement investments are based, in part, by corporate stocks. I want them to profit like crazy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
People aren't complaining about just "profit". They're complaining about "profit by any means necessary, no matter what or who we have to kill", which is what the corporate standard is evolving into.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Not from what i see. Some people are complaining against any profit at all, because they don't feel they should have to make an effort to make it in life, they feel it should be handed to them and can't handdle the fact that others have put forth the effort and are doing well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
You are employing a logical fallacy.
There is no evidence whatsoever that being lower income means lazy or non-hardworking. Some of the hardest working people I've ever seen were doing construction, 12 hours a day for minimal pay. Or take a look at soldiers. 15 or more hour days, every day, for what averages to less than minimum wage.
The amount of money earned has absolutely NOTHING to do with how hard the work is, or how good the work is.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
Along with this fallacy is the flip side, the hatred of the poor, and the implicit assumption that personal wealth is the best indicator of personal worth. It's a fallacious assumption that somebody deserves a high salary just because they are given it; and that if somebody is poor or needs government assistance, that they have nothing to contribute to society.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
I don't believe so, i think your reading more into my comment then is there.
I'm not talking about the person out there busting there butt for 12 hours a day, I've been there done that and payed my dues.
I'm talking about people that have never had to accually work for a living or have nerer had the insperation to better themselves through sweat and sacrafice, but will sit there and complain about those that have.
You know the type, those that will sit and blog about how bad they have and feel it's the duty of those that have made it in life and in the business world to give it to them so they don't have to make an effort.
You know generaly those that don't have a clue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
juniorbJun 29, 2011
"I'm talking about people that have never had to accually work for a living or have nerer had the insperation to better themselves through sweat and sacrafice"
Like the children of the super rich?
Fr0sty_0neJun 30, 2011
"I'm talking about people that have never had to accually work for a living or have nerer had the insperation to better themselves through sweat and sacrafice"
Like the children of the super rich?"
So what your saying is Rich people should'nt have children.
Or are you just continuing on with the class warfare theme.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
patrickbwellsJun 30, 2011
"So what your saying is Rich people should'nt have children."
Children of rich people don't inherit their drivers license, or their college degree. Why should they inherit management of resources?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2011
Patrick - Yeah. Much better to hand it over to the Government because their record of efficiently managing wealth is so good! /s
iiiearsJun 29, 2011
Google "Banana Republics" It is interesting reading.
Or The history of oil discovery in the middle east.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2011
frosty - Thank you. Thank you! Thank you!!!
That's what it is all about and the left is driving the class warfare. But the "warfare" as it were, is between those that accept responsibility and are willing to sacrifice and work to achieve the goals they want in life.....and those who feel they are somehow entitled to rewards and benefits they are unwilling to even attempt to achieve for themselves.
I have worked in some very difficult fields. I have enjoyed a degree of success. I don't know the times I have heard people say, sitting on the porch in the shade while I was sweating bullets working, "I wouldn't do what you do for ANY amount of money!"
And to that, I say "Fine!! I don't ask you to." Just don't try to take the fruits of my labor from me later.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manicpedanticJul 3, 2011
For someone who is such a huge proponent of capitalism you don't seem to understand it. Effort deserves reward? Seriously? If I were to go out in my back yard and dig ditches all day for weeks at a time, am I now entitled to some sort of compensation for it? I mean, there are ditches that need to be dug, and I've spent weeks improving my ditch digging skills. I've "paid my dues," as you say, so where's my f**king money? Where are all my lucrative ditch digging contracts?
The fact is, capitalism is based on the principle of supply and demand, not on the principle of supply and demand and effort...
manicpedanticJun 30, 2011
In reply to your comment to dauntless1, I just wanted to point out that in saying you "payed [your] dues" you seem to indicate that you are now owed something.
I find it interesting that some people I've met who are incredibly enamored of capitalism feel that, when they make some kind of effort, they deserve to be rewarded because of it. Someone I know once tried to argue that, because he had a college degree, he deserved to earn more money than someone who didn't. He believed that he "paid his dues" and thus deserved to reap the rewards. The belief that everyone with wealth somehow "earned" that wealth through great effort seems to foster this belief that effort itself deserves reward...
Closed AccountJun 30, 2011
manic - "...effort itself deserves reward..."
Generally speaking, it does.
dauntless1Jul 4, 2011
@hrearden
Not under capitalism it doesn't. Read a little more please. Under capitalism, no one can inherently "deserve" ANYTHING, for any reason.
mrteflonJun 30, 2011
Or Lay Off and get cheaper in another country.
jacquelynekJun 30, 2011
Profiting like crazy is what is hurting the world. There needs to be responsible profit built into these companies... Somehow you make a profit in your retirement but you are paying in some other way... (E. g. Corporation dumps toxic waste in your back yard or someone elses to cut costs. )
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Do you feel the same about the SEIU or any other goverment union that donates 100's of millions of dollars in return for political favors or is your argument strictly class warfare based?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miguelbiqueJun 29, 2011
of course not! that happens in our country (Mozambique) all the time! they don't want us to see how much they get paid while WE do all the work!
Mark7AJun 29, 2011
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel entitled to see how much they make?
illinestJun 30, 2011
I don't care about ceo pay in the least - but I do care that there are efforts being made to prevent people from knowing.
laurahoustonJun 29, 2011
really is absurd anyone would pay lobbyists millions? perhaps billions to block something like payscale information.
Shows how horrid and distructive the American lobbyist system is.
don't any NEW conservative groups start-up and spend even several million to lobby for anything good, moral and decent anywhere?
so selfish those consertive groups and corporations....
I wish we could BAN lobbyists from washingtondc...and make taking any bribe..even a free invite out to the ranch-- a federal crime.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Hmmmm.......didn't someone in a very high political office say something about no lobbiest a few years ago. I can't remember how that worked out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lutianaJun 30, 2011
Can someone please ban and close stephenalex55's account!!!
rb1248Jun 29, 2011
It's a little unfortunate to see "_3" at the end of this page's URL, but oh well...
rb1248Jun 29, 2011
I should add, though, this isn't a slight against novenator. You submit awesome articles!
skywiseJun 29, 2011
Salary has been and always will be a PRIVATE affair.
It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS that's why they're called PRIVATE companies.
You want absurdity? You guys can't even get the government in the US (a PUBLIC company, funded by US) to accurately report their numbers. Try starting with that first.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
I'd say that's true for an entrepreneurial firm, but among industry, the distinctions between public and private are blurry. The entrepreneurial firm has about as much to teach you about the industrial firm as a piggy bank has to teach you about the fractional reserve system.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
Ok. Let's start with the DoD, shall we? They've been refusing to disclose real numbers for years, with the full support of both parties.
spatula7Jun 29, 2011
They are not private companies, they are public companies. And yes, we can get pretty accurate numbers on the government. But there are a lot of politics trying as best they can to hide how money shifts around for obvious reasons. Well obvious to some of us...you...maybe not so obvious.
stinkypete312Jun 29, 2011
the comparison is f**king useless. so an executive makes $10 million more a year than a regular employee...big f**king deal. if a regular employee wants to make the big bucks, go to college and grad school, study hard and work your ass off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
A lot of these companies get subsidies and special tax breaks. Doesn't the public have a right to know if these corporations are benefitting unfairly, especially since CEO-to-worker pay has increased from 20:1 to 400:1 since the 60's, millions of people have been laid off since the 80's, nobody can afford health care any more, and public bailouts keep the credit flowing for these corporations?
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
You'll be buried for understanding that we the people have every right to hold corporations accountable for their actions.
wilke2000Jun 29, 2011
I know. Even when I cite free-market theorist Friedrich Hayek I get buried. These people have no idea where the ideas they support come from, what they mean, what markets really look like, they just have stock phrases from lunatics on tv. They choose willful ignorance every time.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
You meen that if I don't even graduate high school and go to work for Wal-Mart as a cashier, were all I have to do is scan an item and put it in a bag and not even know how to count back change, that because the company makes Millions in profit and the CEO make 1000 times more then minimum wage for running a multi-national company that I should'nt have a starting wage of 20.00 an hr. That is just so friggin unfair. The CEO should work for like 100,000.00 a year and no bonus's so we can spread the wealth and I can make 20.00 an hr....geez.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ROGU3WAV3Jun 29, 2011
You forgot the /s.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Thought it was pretty obvious and didn't need it. I was trying to do my best I'm still in college and don't have a clue on how the real world works impersonation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digitaldeadstarJun 29, 2011
*billions in profit
Walmart has poorly decided CEOs, that is why they change every few years. And they all walk away with a fair amount of cash.
Not saying that a cashier should start out at $20/hr, but for a company like that, giving a bit more wouldn't hurt. And higher wages lead to better employee performance which leads to high customer satisfaction which leads to higher profits.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Your correct, thats why wal-mart employees get the oportunity for merrit raises (up to 3 a year) and yearly pay raises. I personaly know several people that have worked at wally world for years and are making 20+ an hour as dept. managers. I'm not saying they got that over night they all have been working there for 15 to 20 years. so it's not like there stuck at minimum wage. plus a lot of people don't make there carrer as a wal-mart employee they work for a few years and move on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
And just out of curriosity in your oppinion as a starting employee at wal-mart what is the fair wage for scan and push to the left?
digitaldeadstarJun 29, 2011
Actually they did away with the merit raises, so the only option for a raise anymore is either from a yearly evaluation (up to 50 or 60 cents), or changing positions to a different pay grade.
As for what I would consider a fair starting pay, $10-$12 an hour as opposed to the general $8 an hour or so they start out at. Despite the job being relatively easy, they're also a big representation of the store and company which directly affects customer satisfaction.
All that aside, Wal-Mart can be a very fair company to move up in, as opposed to most other companies. And putting in a few years work and running a store of your own, bringing home $120k a year isn't too shabby.
digitaldeadstarJun 29, 2011
Sorry for the double post, my edit time ran out. I failed to mention around the time they did away with merit raises, they also capped out positions. So, say you're with the company for 25 years, you'll never make any more than whatever your position caps out at.
I should also note that the CEO who made those decisions is no longer with the company.
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Sounds like you worked for wally world, knew all that except for the merrit raise thing didn't know they had done away with it.
From some of the stuff they have done in the last few years i'm surpriced Sam isn't spinning in his grave unfourtunatly a lot of corporate culture has changed since his death.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digitaldeadstarJun 29, 2011
Yeah, I actually still work for them. It pays the bills right now until I get a few things sorted out. I don't mind my job and typically try to keep any criticisms of the company (or any other) fair and as unbiased as I can be about it.
And your comment about the change of corporate culture is extremely accurate. And yeah, from the propaganda we're fed, he seems like he was a pretty fair guy. Something that is sorely lacking from corporate America today.
steve13665Jun 29, 2011
20 an hour for a department head w/ 15 to 20 years of service? Seems there getting under paid a tad to me.
steve13665Jun 29, 2011
Sorry..."they're"
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
Really?, for supervising mabey 1 employee? Look were talking 400 sqare foot area of product and to make sure the prices are correct and the shelves are stocked, it's not 50 employees and hours of meetings and paperwork.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
steve13665Jun 29, 2011
A dept. head with only one employee under him or her? Come on now...
Fr0sty_0neJun 29, 2011
it's department manager, i know what your trying to say but it's not the same, a dept manager at wal-mart is basicly the person in charge of that department on the floor. some department managers don't even have anyone working with them or have a part time floater to help with stocking and price changes. it's not a corporate level position just a store position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mkautzJun 29, 2011
You mean, be born into a upper-class white family, have connections and know the right people?
autonymousJun 29, 2011
I'm all for privacy, and I believe there are some legitimate people (executives) who have not only shepherded their companies to great success, and deserve some of the fruits of their labor and leadership.
Of course, anecdotally, there are many other douchebag company-killers out there lining their pockets on the labor of the company's employees, forcing pay cuts in the name of "cost cutting" then giving themselves a huge salary PLUS a bonus equal to that amount of cost reductions. Once the jig is up, sell the company, spiffy up that resume, play a few rounds of golf, and go find another one. Rinse and repeat. THAT sort of thing needs to stay public or it would seriously increase in frequency and execs would feel no remorse or repercussions for doing it so boldly.
who's guarding the hen house?
roastedpeanutsJun 29, 2011
Comparing CEO pay to the average worker is absurd. The responsibilities that a CEO has and the experience required are not comparable in any way to the average work. Why don’t we similarly compare what doctors are paid to what janitors in hospitals are paid? We don’t because their skills and education are not comparable.
Now, if we were talking about how CEO pay for a given corporation is decided and whether this process was fair or not… That is the discussion we need to have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
"The responsibilities that a CEO has"
What responsibilities? Doing the job is IS hard, I'll grant you that, but doing the job wrong gets them just as paid, with multimillion dollar golden parachutes and other bonuses totaling a massive pile of money for NOTHING WHATSOEVER in terms of actual job performance, and if they fail utterly, they lose NOTHING. They are not RISKING anything, so they have no incentive to do it right.
floater50Jun 29, 2011
how much do you pay someone who is responsible for billions of dollars and thousands of jobs? what's fair to you? $1 million, $100 million?
answer: whatever that guy can negotiate with his company.
what would you say to someone that has nothing to do with your job and claims you make too much money?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 29, 2011
"how much do you pay someone who is responsible for billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?"
Simple. He earns a percentage determined by job performance, the same as everyone else. If his company does well, HE does well.
If his company fails, he should too.
"what would you say to someone that has nothing to do with your job and claims you make too much money?"
My salary is determined by actual market forces, CEO wages are not, nor have they been for decades. That entire argument is invalid.
floater50Jun 29, 2011
everyone's salary (even CEO's) are based on what the market will bear.
CEO's are getting paid what "market forces" dictate. just like you.
but you and a lot of other people would rather whine about what others make, than focus on yourselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 30, 2011
I'm not whining, I'm citing facts. You're the one whining about how reality doesn't support your childish assertions.
brainpile3000Jun 30, 2011
Actually, reality does support his assertions since that's what happens in the real world.
dauntless1Jun 30, 2011
@brainpile
No, what's happening in the real world is a ton of economic bubbles, both small and large, bursting because idiots pushed the market towards things it couldn't support. It is entirely possible to push CEO wages too high for realistic support, and they have easily done so.
floater50Jun 30, 2011
@dauntless-
"i'm citing facts"
um. you haven't cited anything.
get off the computer, your mother needs to use it.
digitaldeadstarJun 29, 2011
While I would agree with you, and you make some valid points, the reality of the corporate world is the ol' adage "it's not what you know, it's who you know" plays a fair part. There are a *lot* of people in pretty decent positions based off who they know and not what. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, as I surely wouldn't turn down a great job opportunity because of it. But I'd say it's unfair to say that they all are worth their weight in their pay. Some are, and probably many aren't.
A friend of mine, a high school graduate with no college education, no military background, etc., recently landed a job with the DoD. Obviously he isn't doing a high profile job, but he's got a fairly decent position and has high ranking military officials answering to him. I like the guy, but the only reason he got the job was because of *who* he knew, not *what*.
I've found a good way to see if a CEO is worth a damn or not are the type of changes they make to the company. If they're knowledgeable and understand their business and the customer base, the types of changes they make will almost always be met with positive reaction. Uninformed, poor CEOs tend to make changes that are almost always received poorly.
iiiearsJun 29, 2011
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Corporations and their leaders have purchased influence and that tends to have a corrosive effect on democracy (one man one vote.) They already have convinced the SEC that your stock is less important than theirs.
wardjpJun 29, 2011
Of course the people at the top, mostly with no degrees, pay other people, with degrees, a fraction of their pay to do their work. Of course they don't want the general public to have access to just how insane the amounts of money they take from us is.
wardjpJun 29, 2011
Of course the people at the top, mostly with no degrees, pay other people, with degrees, a fraction of their pay to do their work. Of course they don't want the general public to have access to just how insane the amounts of money they take from us is.
cupofkonaJun 29, 2011
awww, iddy poo!
jhourcleJun 29, 2011
This article did point out one minor issue that I hadn't previously considered ... foreign workers. Now, their argument is likely that it makes it seem worse when they can get child workers for $2/day, so it makes the ratio look worse... but that can always be solved by outsourcing the work to hide that pay discrepancy. They could also do that with janitorial staff and other minimum wage jobs ... make 'em contractors, not direct employees.
The real problem with foreign workers is that they're paid in a different currency, so the ratio's likely going to vary with exchange rates, and so yes, they're right, a ratio may not be a good number ... so they should instead publish the min/max wage in each currency, and the problem's solved.
whiteravenJun 29, 2011
Why is this wage information any of our business?
The workers are willingly working for what they are being paid. Nothing else matters.
amtechfoxJun 29, 2011
It should be capped to a certain x percentage of the average pay, with the sweetener being stocks so based on performance of the CEO does he/she and the compnay make any higher money for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bizbee403Jun 29, 2011
Seems fair - not!
garhentJun 29, 2011
There will be no burden whatsoever on calculating the pay. A persons salary in ALL corporations are stored in a relational database with a very well defined system to access said pay. A corp that can't easily track its compensation is going to have problems when it planning a head, whether it be who are getting laid off (only for the American part) and who is getting hired (only for the overseas part).
Money bless America!
chassupJun 29, 2011
Anyone who thinks CEOs get paid "too much" thus requiring government regulations or caps, or thinks it's a good idea to force the public vetting of all Americans' compensation should start a company of their own. That way, they will come to understand the total absurdity of their own argument.I love the illogic: rich people are evil, especially the one who signs my paychecks.
#1 It's none of your damn business.
#2 Who cares outside of angry, jealous, personal failures.
#3 How will it make your life different?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxJun 29, 2011
Okay, it is a know psychological fact that people who look into a mirror are less likely to lie or steal or do other socially not accepted things.
Now - another person *knowing* things about you is kind of a mirror.
It is just a lot harder to tell the underlings 'No pay rise, company has hard time, and by the way we 'need' to fire 10% of you because of the bad economy' - if you KNOW the underlings KNOW EXACTLY that you got a premium and a raise and then some.
So there is a definite difference in behaviour once those information is free.
I could describe you additional social effects if you like.
chassupJun 29, 2011
If you don't trust the man who employs you, or think he's not an honorable man, you should look into a mirror and ask yourself why you compromise your own moral convictions in exchange for a paycheck. It works both ways.
Personal accountability is one of the most powerful ways a society can check the behavior of individuals, and effect positive change in behavior. But it requires you to be the agent, if you abdicate that duty to the government it becomes meaningless.
Example: sexual deviency-- used to be socially unacceptable, and therefor far less frequent. Social mores have changed to the point society rewards deviency and the result is far more of it.
laws won't change the problem you have. Personally, I think the answer is within you-- be what you should be and be grateful, don't allow covetousness to cultivate anger and bitterness toward others' matrial wealth.
If you are a stockholder, do due dillegence and withold investments to corporations that refuse to live up to your ethical standards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jun 30, 2011
"If you don't trust the man who employs you, or think he's not an honorable man, you should look into a mirror and ask yourself why you compromise your own moral convictions"
"Personal accountability is one of the most powerful ways a society can check the behavior of individuals, and effect positive change in behavior."
Ignoring bad behavior does not engineer change.
Allowing these absurd gaps in our income and economic potential simply to appease the filthy rich is by definition "ignoring" the behavior. Especially when every single piece of hard evidence is NOT on the side of massively over-inflated CEO wages. I know many people don't like that fact, but it IS a fact, and it does not need your permission to be true.
chassupJun 30, 2011
So don't allow it. Don't work for a company like that. Don't buy their stuff. Live your life with moral conviction. And don't get mad if a lot of people don't agree with you. Don't worry, be happy.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2011
"It is just a lot harder to tell the underlings 'No pay rise, company has hard time, and by the way we 'need' to fire 10% of you because of the bad economy' - if you KNOW the underlings KNOW EXACTLY that you got a premium and a raise and then some."
Things like this have been going on for years. A company lays off a few hundred employees, then spends 100 times what those people would have made throwing a convention somewhere.
My ex worked for one such company. She and I were "rewarded" with an invitation to one of their "employee appreciation" conventions where there were several hundred employees attending. And that's not all. These things were so big, they held several of them around the country to accommodate all their "Special" employees.
But, at this time, they had just gone through a layoff session where several of her close friends had been laid off. (I think the total number of layoffs in this round were well into the multiple thousands) I remember musing to her at the time, as we walked along the numerous free food lines, partaking from the open and free bar, while being entertained by everything from synchronized swimmers to one of the best and highest energy bands I have EVER had the pleasure of seeing....for three days, that what they were spending for this function, which didn't necessarily generate any direct income, would have kept several hundred of those people employed for several years. And being a small business owner myself, I looked at all this expenditure and wondered if it might not be better spent growing the company.
This all happened well over 10 years ago, so it's not like this stuff is a phenomenon that just started happening over the last couple of years. My suggestion is that if you don't like it, start up your own company and run it the way you wish. But one of my company policies was that pay was considered confidential information and discussing pay was cause for termination.
I'll have to offer the caveat that I don't recall ever exercising that option. But I do recall that employees discussing their pay often caused employees to quit or otherwise created difficulties within my company.
dauntless1Jun 30, 2011
"My suggestion is that if you don't like it, start up your own company"
Mine is that in order for voting with your money to work, you spread the word, let everyone know what utter garbage that company is, and don't let anyone forget until something changes.
Of course, that would increase accountability, both personal and fiscal, and also entrepreneurial as well. And who would want that right?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2011
Good suggestion. But I like mine better! :-)
dauntless1Jun 30, 2011
Yeah, people usually do like their own suggestions more than mine. But if I didn't want to hear what others thought, (and argue with them about it) I wouldn't frequent digg.
barackalypseJun 29, 2011
Hell, without that information we'd miss out on our weekly "CEO earns 187 times the average worker at X corp" stories from Alternet.
slangitmanJul 1, 2011
soon. . .just. . .soon. . .gonna start capping ceos.
noonie480Jun 30, 2011
"What millions of unearned dollars are you talking about. I get paid just like everyone else..... but my paycheck is TOP SECRET!"
smity9384Jun 30, 2011
America...you make me sad face.
This used to be the land of opportunity where people DID things.
Now it is the land of the lazy where we expect others to DO things for us. And we bitch about the money that the few who still DO things make.
Move to Russia. Everyone is equal there.
williamfrJun 30, 2011
obv
mojomichaelJun 30, 2011
I thought that initially the requirement to disclose CEO salaries was intended to increase transparency and put a brake on the escalating figures. It in fact had the opposite effect. Just like agents in sports want their athletes salaries public to build the market for the next free agent, CEO's in demand started asking for more and more to set the new standard in the Fortune 500. Since that policy has been in place, CEO salaries have increased as a multiplier of the average workers' salary by a huge amount. It's late, so I don't have sources handy for this. Suffice it to say that it seems to be in the best interest of the CEO to keep these numbers public so that the next one negotiating his or her compensation has a bigger number to shoot for.
hdrkidJun 30, 2011
The only thing an executive can do is talk about cutting expenses. That means out sourcing and down sizing. Yeah, less jobs for us.
LowandBeholdJun 30, 2011
"Yes we Can!"
concerned4usaJun 29, 2011
This is how the average worker gets the shaft of inflation. As Executive pay increases in relation to inflation, the average worker's pay is not. Bunk.
brenisaJun 30, 2011
If you don't like what you are being paid, quit for Christ sake and work somewhere else! I think it takes about $100 to become an executive. Start your own company! No one forces you to work where you do. And if you can't make it work, learn something your local "overpaid" executive who has figured out how to to keep your sorry family fed and his as well, because apparently, he's worth what he's being paid or you'd starve.
concerned4usaJun 29, 2011
This is how the average worker gets the shaft of inflation. As Executive pay increases in relation to inflation, the average worker's pay is not. Bunk.