money.cnn.com— In 2010, chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned $11.4 million in total pay, on average, far more than the typical American worker
Apr 19, 2011View in Crawl 4
The summary says it all - "..at some of the nation's largest companies..."
Most CEOs (by number) do not make nearly this kind of money.
If a company is successful, the man (or woman) at the helm gets the credit (and the paycheck). The Board of Directors will not award the CEO money that takes them out of profit and into the red.
This suggests a strong link between performance and executive pay. That has not been the case in the past. But, this article suggest that may be improving.
The Watson Wyatt's annual analysis of executive pay trend revealed that for the first time in years, CEOs associated with non-performing companies were granted lesser pay opportunities than their counterparts at companies that were performing relatively better. Total direct compensation for CEOs at low performing companies was $8.1 million from 2005 to 2007, noticeably lesser than the average pay of $10.7 million for CEOs at high-performing companies, the survey said.
Union leaders are just as guilty as corporate leaders. Most union top dogs walk off with a major portion of their members dues while negotiating their members out of their jobs, benefits, and pensions. How many UAW bosses are hurting like their members are? How many newspaper union bosses went bankrupt having their members strike until their newspapers and jobs disappeared? Both corporate and union leaderships are corrupt to the extreme.
I doubt newspapers are having trouble because of unions (any more than Borders got in trouble because of the iPad). Adapting to the new economics of the digital era has been the real problem they've faced. One example: I understand that the popularity of Craigslist has cost them significant revenue in want ads alone.
Most newspapers disappeared long before the personal computer arrived. Unions went on strike constantly in the 60s and 70s to protect featherbedding (forcing papers to hire 2 employees for each job). When automated typesettting arrived, unions put their employers out of business rather than let new equipment be purchased and put into the production process. Automakers faced the same problem. As they automated the production line, unions struck until auto manufacturers were paying people to not work, which put them at a cost disadvantage competing with the efficient Japanese car companies.
During the 1960s, the U.S. Steel companies tried to modernize their production plants for increased efficiency. The Unions, back by John F. Kennedy's Presidential orders prevented them from doing so, and the entire steel industry ended up belonging to the Japanese, whose Unions saw how Kennedy had screwed up and encouraged their executives to modernize ahead of U.S. companies.
You know, I don't remember most newspapers disappearing in the 70s. In fact, it seems they were doing okay as a whole. This article, for example, even says that they were increasing profits in the 1970s because of new automated typesetting technology that newspapers were using.
As far as the American automakers, in the 1980s their problem wasn't so much the UAW as their terribly poor product lines. Ford, Chrysler and GM as companies had gotten fat and happy and lazy and were not prepared to compete with the more fuel efficient and, at that time, higher quality japanese cars.
This article, from a conservative site, is referring to recent history, but makes strong points that, while management often would like to blame all their problems on unions, in reality much of their problems in competing lie in their own poor business decisions and practices.
Because someone still needs capitol to invest, and be willing to take a risk on a union owned shop. And who ever fronts the investment, wants to get back with interest.
30 years of failed fiscally conservative economic policy at work here folks. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, putting greed up on a pedestal, and predatory capitalism at work have created this mess.
Trickle down has failed, and it's long past time to stop the insanity of this legalized theft from the workers who actually create the wealth in America. We need a NEW New Deal, and a more level playing field that gives everyone a chance at socioeconomic mobility.
*note- since this article points out the exploitation of the poor by the rich, cue the economic purists and corporate shills to invade this comment stream and take a big crap on it for their masters.
Its nice to see you've immediately labeled anyone who disagrees with you a corporate shill. Perhaps it is is you who has the master, an ideology that won't allow the possibility of any honest or rational basis for disagreement and requires anyone with a dissenting opinion must be ignorant, racist, or beholden to some corporate masters pulling the strings.
Actually, it's just that we see no reason to let corporate shills get away with spewing their garbage. just like how you are constantly being called out for being an ignorant, bigoted pile of crap.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I always feel guilty making a point with no supporting evidence, but then you came along with a reply calling me two of the three slurs I said are always tossed out against those of us who disagree with people like you and the OP. Stay classy though, nothing like a personal insult to let me know you don't have any real argument.
It seems like you're the ignorant one considering that you think anybody who disagrees with a certain point of view is a "corporate shill".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Right, and you just happened to 'not' notice the growing income disparity? I'm sure the shrinking middle class is not at all concerning. While most struggle, your fine to sit on the sidelines and trumpet the fact that nothing is wrong.
And CEOs get that golden parachute regardless. And let's not forget that CEOs are paid out not for long term but short term achievements. I can guarantee you that my company is NOT set up for the long haul at this point.
Well sure if your in the company that tanks then that sucks. But still it is the failings of his company that he would lose his job. But for people to complain about CEO's and evil corporations is silly. You can't tell a private industry what to pay their employees from the bottom barrel feeder to the CEO. They can pay whatever they want to pay to their employees. That's my say and really not my say but that is how it's done and should always be done. I don't need Obama to tell me what I need to pay my own employees or any government official.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
But that's not the point on this thread. This thread is that CEO's are bankrupting the middle and lower class by thinking short term, and building escape clauses for themselves while leaving the vast majority of workers to flail about.
As a society, as a country, that's hurting us. Since most CEO's aren't getting that message, we need someone to stop in and say "Knock it off! NOW!"
OK I see that and yes when a large corporation falls it can affect our entire society like Lehman. But let's not punish the whole for the wicked few. Unless it's a massive problem, I don't know.
Fixing that issue is what a lot of us are working on, but the moment when we initially point it out, the first comment is "You can't tell businesses how they should run".
As for massive problem... the top 20% own 85% of this countries wealth. The next 20% own up to 95%. The top 1% own 33%. The bottom 40% own less than 1% of all the wealth of the nation. 60% of our country is at the financial whim of very few people.
Chart 4 is the real point for me. But chart 9 is interesting too.
The wealth is being sucked out of the lower and middle class to a group of people who have no interest in re-investing it in America. They're taking their jobs and such overseas, and the tax rate isn't going to stop that because if we have nothing to spend, they have nothing to sell, and there's no reason to stay. They'll come back when we rebuild... and do it again.
Chart 9 in what I sent addresses that. Specifically, the CEOs are keeping pay low and pocketing the difference, widening the gap between the rich and poor, destroying the middle class.
That issue is why there needs to be some oversight on how the CEO's treat their employees, and our citizens.
Who cares? Ummm, I care. Short term focus of so many companies has led to many problems. The push to impress Wall Street with quartlery and annual numbers is bad for the country's future. So yes, I care.
I get your point. What a private company does is their business. But, if you look at the sum of companies in America and all of them are generally rewarding short-term performance, I'm quite happy to see them hammered by the press and society.
It's perfectly acceptable that many rise up with indignation regarding practices that lead a few to do so well while most struggle. And often, this happens with pay out of proportion to performance. How? Incestious relationships with Board of Directors has been one problem in the past.
Really? All those successful companies are successful because of the CEO? did the workers play any part? Did the Upper and Middle management help? No, CEO's come in and out of companies fast. And in the past, they were rewarded on the upside and protected on the down. This mass desparity between the Top and the average worker is a problem. In Japan, the disparity is more like 10 to 1. Many their would feel 'shame' to take such riches. Here? Who cares. Take as grotesque amount of money as you wish.
I have worked as a security manager at a volunteer position for 4 years now... does that make me worthy of a bigger cut of a non-existant pie?
Management training is useful, and it does earn some additional compensation, just not unlimited compensation. I put more value in the people working then the man overseeing them.
Perhaps CEO's jobs are 343 times harder, require more education, and are more demanding than typical workers jobs?
Just a thought.
I agree that 343 is a huge multiplier but you'd have to agree that they ARE harder and more demanding. The exact multiplier is what's at issue here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
As someone who has worked with more than a few executives for over 25 years I can assure you that while many of them are hardworking and talented, their skills and value do NOT justify that compensation multiple. Are they worth more than the typical worker? Yes, but I would place the compensation multiple closer to that practiced around the globe...approximately 40 times median wages. American executives are grossly overpaid considering the economic value they deliver and it's wasted on them. The same goes for Wall Street bankers who also take credit for the economic value and contributions of others.
Executive pay is based upon the "old boy" network, nothing more. Why do you think there's so much crossover participation on the Board of Directors?
How many have you worked with over the years? Bankers OR CEO's?
As someone who has overseen compensation practices for BOTH groups, I can assure you that there's not as much distinction between them as you believe. For the record, there's an indistinguishable difference between the egos and greed that drive both groups.
For non-private companies, I think it is an issue that the directors can stack a compensation committee and the shareholders should have more rights in this case.
Sure. Be born of parents with a lot of money. Let them get you into the best schools and get a C average or better. (Daddy's money can help with that.) Get into the most popular fraternity or sorority. (Daddy's money will help with that.) Make a lot of acquaintances and impress them that you will inherit a lot of money when Daddy finally kicks the bucket. Finally, learn to compliment all the people you will meet along the way that either have a lot of money or that stand to inherit a lot of money once their parents die.
It would help to create a company that rakes in $5billion a year but it is not necessary.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Unless one is born into the right social circle, inherit a significant ownership stake or have a long track record of significant achievement in the corporate world with an Ivy League pedigree, it's VERY difficult to join.
Most of the time, it's based upon who you know and socialize with at premier country clubs (i.e., networking). Consulting and venture capital/investment banking can serve as backdoor entry points if one is sufficiently political and astute.
Then it must be easy for you to create a competing firm that runs more efficiently and is more profitable because it doesn't over-pay it's executive employees.
Funny thing about being a compensation expert...you design pay plans that reward employees for PERFORMING. As a direct result, I've NEVER wasted money on poor performers and my firm has always delivered value for its clients.
It's a shame most of Wall Street's venerable institutions and U.S. corporations can't make the same claim. Their shareholders would be wealthier if they had implemented similar executive compensation and benefit plans. You want to know why they don't? Most of their compensation plans are designed by the people who benefit from them (i.e., conflict of interest).
How at risk is the low level employee of getting fined or getting the boot because someone in a completely different division screwed up and released a dangerous product?
The last two CEOs at HP were fired (one for incompetence, one for basically defrauding the company) over ten years they were paid a quarter of a trillion dollars.
In my experience, nobody works harder in America than the blue collar people near the bottom. They bust their asses and sacrifice their bodies for very meager wages. I don't think there is a CEO alive that could survive some of the roughest, most physically demanding blue collar jobs for even one week.
In the words of Bing Crosby
"...his back is brawny but his brain is weak,
he's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak,
And by the way, if you hate to go to school...
you may grow up to be a mule."
Choices have consequences, Novenator. Maybe it was not going to school. Maybe it was that drug conviction or that drunk driving arrest. Maybe it was that choice to f**k around and get pregnant. Could be lots of reasons. We used to warn people to take care of themselves, but now they're all convinced Uncle Sucker will keep them from getting in too much trouble.
What percentage of the country is going to be in management? Everyone else are working as mules. That would not change even if every single person in the nation had a doctorate, there is simply not room at the top of the pyramid for everyone.
So my question is: are you saying there shouldn't be a top of the pyramid, that those who reach it shouldn't be rewarded or incentivised to reach it, or what?
I think that's exactly what he means PyriteGenie. That is unfortunately the way many Americans feel right now since all we're hearing in the press and from Washington is that rich people are evil because they have all that money that they got by exploiting unfair tax loopholes and using daddy's money. That they are being unfair or unpatriotic for not giving more of it to people who haven't even tried to better themselves and take some personal responsibility.
Are you saying that the we should not be concerned about how Far that top removes itself from the rest? Would any desparity upset you? How about 10,000 to 1? If you look out one day and see no middle class and lots of have nots, will that be concerning?
Your entire argument operates on the false assumption that everyone in the United States has the exact same start. I would argue that those who are poor, who live in tough neighborhoods, or who barely see their parents because their parents work three minimum wage jobs, all have a much harder time going to school or making good choices than someone born into a rich family. One can't argue that everyone is privileged or not simply based on their choices as it is easier for some to make good choices and easier for others to make bad choices.
As an extreme example, look at Paris Hilton. I do not believe she earned or deserve the money she has, she was born with it. It's difficult to argue that CEO's deserve their enormous pay poor people deserve their hard lives. A person born into a rich family will undoubtedly have an easier time avoiding drugs, getting a better education, and working a better job. While one who grew up in a bad area of town, going to a public school, and having to get a job early to support their family would have a much more difficult time earning a good life. Things are not black and white in life as many conservatives would insist. People do not always get what they deserve.
" I would argue that those who are poor, who live in tough neighborhoods, or who barely see their parents because their parents work three minimum wage jobs, all have a much harder time going to school or making good choices than someone born into a rich family."
Your argument would be wrong.
If you are intelligent, you will rise to the top. Especially here in America.
The reason it looks like opportunity/birth matters is because because the biggest factor in determining your own intelligence is your parent's intelligence. You can still be a genius if you are born to below-average parents; it's just that the odds are against it.
So when you see what looks like intergenerational poverty is really intergenerational stupidity.
That's not strictly correct, either. The standard "intelligent" jobs are doctor, lawyer, professor, etc, all of which pay well above the median but far less than typical executive pay. Successful business moguls are usually shrewd, decisive, and willing to take risks, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their intelligence.
Regarding intelligence and genetics, intelligence isn't really a measurable trait (the IQ test isn't exactly designed to measure business acumen, much less the broad range of skills it takes to be successful), so I'll argue on the basis of academic achievement. Plenty of children in low-performing schools are capable of higher order learning, but they frequently get held back by social pressure, parental apathy, and a culturally ingrained desire for immediate gratification. It's also abundantly true that children from low-achieving but hard working families often vastly exceed their parents' earnings potential. A particular married couple I've been friends with for quite some time provides a superb example. The husband is an optometrist, and the wife has an MBA and an RN. Their parents were a farmer, a bomb factory worker, another bomb factory worker, and a miner, of whom only one person completed high school. In short, I'm not inclined to believe achievement is a matter of genetically-endowed intelligence when all of the evidence I can see points to culture and childhood circumstances being most frequently correlated among the successful.
Corvin, that doesn't happen overnight you know, that happens when generation after generation settles for it and stops trying. It's the same thing with the privileged people that you seem to hate so much, are you faulting them with the fact that the generations that came before them happened to work hard and build up wealth therefore benefitting their families for generations to come? Could you not also say that the poor you talk about born in the tough neighborhoods didn't earn or deserve to have parents that settled for that lifestyle and didn't try to start the process of improving their standing. At the very least they could take an interest in raising their kids to want something better instead of just complaining that it's not fair.
Could also be that unwillingness to work beyond 8 hours/day.
CEOs, or those on the track to get there, typically put in much more than 40 hours per week.
I do manual labor for a living. You may say "willing to work more than 8 hours", but many days of 8 hours, all I want to do is sleep, feast, shower, or drink. 10 hour days can be beyond the scope of people with the roughest jobs, at least on a consistent basis. When all you do is work, eat, and sleep, that is not much of a life.
If you are "working" as a CEO, going to lunch with someone is considered "work". They have no idea what ground level labor is like (thus the shock on that show where the owners apply for entry level jobs).
I too have been in jobs where the physical aspect of the work was challenging. But I have - and have seen many others who have - gone beyond 8 hours often. I 'drive a desk' these days, but the work is nonetheless challenging.
Sadly, this is the disconnect. Minimum wage cannot support even one person, and many low education jobs dont pay much more then that.
Regardless of a job, a person should be able to food, cloth and house themselves. If it doesn't work this way, you will see our country fall to the likes England. This wealth difference will be the death of this country, as it has been the death to EVERY SINGLE EMPIRE that has tried this. Middle class was the reason of our country rise to power, NOT corporate greed.
First, Iived and supported myself off of minimum wage. Not easy, but possible.
"Regardless of a job, a person should be able to food, cloth and house themselves. "
What if that person's work isn't worth that much?
Min Wage jobs are starting positions, often taken by people who don't support themselves fully to begin with. It gives them the chance to learn skills so they eventually will have enough productivity to support themselves and more.
I learned a lot from the multitude of min wage jobs I had.
That is a good point, jobs for teenagers and such. I agree there. The problem is the single mom whos dad wont pay child support leaves them working 2 minimum wage jobs and unable to educate themselves.
If it worked exactly as you stated it, then i can see that, but it doesn't. I have known tons of people who need to support kids on there own and working at minimum wage jobs. The cost in food, fuel, rent and healthcare is rising far faster then these people can keep up. When the top stops trickling down success of the company, then you get disparity's such as this and eventually a rebellion.
"I have known tons of people who need to support kids on there own and working at minimum wage jobs. "
That was their mistake and any attempt by the government to correct it will make it worse.
The Great Society subsidized poverty - and created more of it.
"When the top stops trickling down success of the company, then you get disparity's such as this and eventually a rebellion."
Government it was causes the gushing to reduce to a trickle that can lead to that kind of rebellion.
It's the poorest who suffer most when the government creates market distortions by artificially increasing the price of unskilled labor (raising the minimum wage).
Neither do the CEOs. If a company fails, it fails. It's relatively easy to blame it on things like the economy, lack of creativity internally, loss of valuable employees, regulations, and all sorts of other things.
The CEOs might get some publicity if a company fails, but it's the blue collars who lose their homes, cars, food, and dreams to the whims of a CEO.
But you're right, blue collars don't carry the burden of shareholders, they carry the burden of their family's well-fare and that's more than any CEO has ever had to carry.
And when they screw over all those people they get to have a nice shiny golden parachute to help ease their suffering. The victims of their incompetence, however, are lucky if they get two weeks notice and a cardboard box for their belongings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Many workers carry lots and lots of burdens. I'm not sure I feel for people like Jack Nardelli so much however. Sure, he carried the burdens of Home Depot shareholders. And they gave him a nice 220 million dollar parting gift.
Example: In 2001 I was 22 and was hired as a temp to do data entry. It was a four month job for three people to do the data entry.
It turns out that the information we were data entering was coming from an electronic source and then getting printed out for manual entry into their front-end data entry program.
So I told the boss I could do all of that work in few hours using a simple database conversion tool.
The next day they offered me a job. I picked a really high number, thinking they would counter offer something lower. But they didn't hesitate to accept my initial offer (leading me to believe I didn't ask for enough).
Anyway, the universe doesn't' care how hard you work, it cares how productive you are.
Which is why the right executive can make more in a day than you will in your entire lifetime.
Don't act like you can really quantify effort. Do blue collar factory or construction workers often do a lot of physically taxing, manual labor? Sure. Does that mean they are harder working than an electrical engineer who spends all day in a mentally taxing job? Hardly. And, if the manual laborer clocks out at 5 but the executive lives his job 24/7, how do you quantify the harder worker then? You can't. Face it, while I don't typically agree with ballooning CEO salaries, the best way to determine a worker's pay is based on that person's unique ability to be productive over available replacements. Sure, many executives have sweetheart deals with ironclad job security, but most CEOs and VPs are fired if they don't produce for their shareholders. If you're a fry cook at Wendy's but are the best one they've ever had, you have a good chance of becoming manager or climbing the ladder in some other fashion.
Also, why did the AFL-CIO examine executive pay at only 299 companies on the S&P 500? Did the others drag the 343 number down too much? They're comparing the largest companies in the world vs average worker pay for all workers at all companies in all industries throughout the country, which even you can admit is going to cause distortion in some fashion.
No no, many who believe mass wage disparities are just fine would prefer to think everybody else is just lazy and 'less brilliant'. Many others in the real world no things don't work that way.
Logged in, just to digg you up. People don't realize that most of these individuals had to work hard throughout their entire lives to get where they are now. 'Chief Executive Officer', they obviously have the company's future in their hands and deserve to earn a fair amount of money.
What are you talking about? A lot of CEOs grew up in well-off families, went to Harvard or Stanford, and many made contacts (through family, college friends, etc) which allowed them to get where they got.
No one is saying CEOs don't deserve pay, but 300+ times more then the employees, employees who are struggling in many companies? Employees who get laid off, fired, or watch as the factory doors shut down for weeks on end? No, I don't think so.
You're right, I'm not going to be biased and say all CEOs deserve to be making as much as they do. I'm just saying a good amount of them didn't just have their positions handed to them and deserve recognition for the accomplishments they have made.
Why would he do that nosking, he will never admit that any of them 'deserve' their position or pay because his justification for not being a high achiever would become null and void. As long as he can convince himself that everyone else got ahead because of 'unfair' advantages that he didn't have he won't have to deal with the reality that he maybe just needs to try harder or didn't try hard enough in the past.
It wouldn't be so bad if unemployment wasnt 9%, gas prices where almost 5.00 and the middle class was actually growing. Actually, i dont think it would even be a headline.
It is not what they make, its that they make it while everyone else is making nothing. CEO have a responsibility to company's health, underpaid workers who are not happy does not help the company.
We had a second lieutenant go through every division on my ship and made full commander inside of six months. (Prior enlisted, worked through the ranks.) Full command of a brand new ship as ours was decommissioned. Best Captain we ever had.
He was fast tracked because he'd learned the ropes, listened to his people and made good, decisive decisions that benefited morale, productivity, and you don't see many like him. Too often leaders can just seem so clueless as to how an operation is running, and getting compensated way too much for way too few good decisions.
The majority of CEO's I've met are salesman that never invented anything and never started a business of their own. But boy, can they sell themselves well. So well in fact that people like you actually believe that in general they deserve to compensate themselves huge amounts money in terms of bonuses and stock plan. All built on top of a pyramid of regular tax payers, er, stock holders, who have little alternative but to throw all there money into a 401(k) because for some reason giving your money to Wall Street is a tax reducing incentive. But maybe you're one of them and your doing what you supposed to do and keep on shoveling, er, selling the s**t all the CEO patsies on this blog are buying?
Yeah, in any organization you generally have the dreamers, who, despite any (human) flaws, at least dreamed and started something.
These (as a rule) are followed by necessity by the brown-nosiers. (Otherwise, too many cooks in the kitchen...) These guys are actually less then worthless and have done an incredible amount to damage the US, and the world. (That and the bankers, which is another rant...)
I can't say enough about this, and it's something our (US) founding fathers saw and took steps to curb. Steps that have been thrown totally by the wayside at this point.
A bit back I was asked if I "respect conservative values." I'm 100% cool with small business dreamers. But this? This deserves nothing but contempt. This is exactly why we had charters and the rest of it.
Although to be a little more fair, there is a big difference in physical activity and mental activity for what needs to be done as an employee and a CEO. But it does show that the low end employees do work their asses off and in return get a lot less money for it.
Using your intelligence and education to run a large company is MUCH more valuable than someone with a blue collar job. why? The CEO will make or lose many millions and billions. The blue collar worker does not. Each gets paid accordingly.
That show is very annoying and shows how many of these CEOs are out of touch. They go to work in the 'employee's job' and end up Amazed at what the employee deals with. Really, you don't know your employee's working conditions?
Then, they always end up promoting those employees they went out and met. Really? What about the other 100,000 employees you didn't go 'meet'? Reward and promotion because you just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Why should we promote based on objective measures and merit?
Hilariously, if those promotions were into management roles, studies show that the results are equivalent. Randomly promoting people tends to give better results than promoting people based on previous performance in non-manager roles.
No, they aren't. Thiee parasitic pay scale is simply a result of a lack of workers having any control. If unemployment were lower, they would not be able to get away with it, and if unions were more widespread, they would not be able to get away with it.
Which is why many businesses found it wise to give ownership to the workers. And actually, you're only referring to private companies. Public companies belong to the shareholders. Those shareholders better hope those 'owner less' employees still want to work hard and do right by the company.
Why should the workers have any control? Because workers who feel empowered tend to produce higher quality product.
You are confusing personal with business. And I chaffe at it when companies try to make you think that you are part of something more than a transaction (although creative types - and many of them have worked for me over the years - really need to feel that).
My post was in response to the idea that workers, by default, should be in control as they are in France and other parts of Europe, where the owners rights are secondary to the workers in terms of controlling the company.
Besides, no one 'gives' ownership to workers. They allow workers to 'earn' ownership, mostly by working.
Ok, so why don't you start a fortune 500 company and run it with 10,000 employees. Then you can show us all wrong and pay yourself the same you pay your workers.
Most CEO's started their fortune 500 companies? And, who said a CEO should earn the same as the worker? Though, I do prefer Japan's system where a worker makes only 10 times less. Look at the revolving door of CEOs at companies. These guys often didn't start the company. And their performance has been disconnected from pay in many ways. It's just not that simple.
Is their a wage disparity that would upset you? 1,000/1?
10,000/1?
i agree with gegan. These guys have gotten 2 masters and a PhD thats the usual for guys that run investment banks; their smart as can be in their fields. They have been raised to atten the most prestigious schools. Their masters and phd is what about 4+2+3=9 years of schooling? which = $250,000 a year X9 = allmost 2.3 million and then add another 4+2= 6 years of schooling which = $250,00 a year X 6= 1.5 million; 1.5m+2.3m= about 3.8MILLION IN THEIR EDUCATION; UMM I THINK THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY MAKE BECUASE THEY TOOK THE RIST TO TAKE ALL THAT MONEY OUT FOR SCHOOL. Not like these iddiots who have f**ked up all in school and now work making $25 an hour and complain "why do these ceo's get so much!" CAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO WORK THE SYSTEM, LEARN RETARD LIFE ISN'T FAIR!
I assume it's the corporate apologists and/or conservatives that are digging you up, because I could barely comprehend anything you said.
I would GLADLY take a $25/hr "unskilled" job. Also, it's interesting to hear a conservative/corporate apologist say that their "expensive" education is OK. But when it's an employee saying they don't feel that they're being paid enough the response is (from your group) "LOOK ELSEWHERE." So my response to your claims of their expensive education is to have them LOOK ELSEWHERE if they can't afford that school. Don't pawn your college debt off as an excuse that you should make 300 times more then the average employee.
BTW, these "idiots" that you talk about make life much better for you. No PhD is going to come around to pick up your trash, unclog your drains, fix your roof, paint your house, or grow/raise/slaughter/cook your food. I would highly suggest taking on a more appropriate and respectful tone when insulting those who do. Someday you may find you're in need of one of their services, if you haven't already.
Funny how Digg liberals care about what CEO's get paid, even though it's not their money and none of their business. In the meantime, they'll defend to the death the right of useless government union leaches to directly steal billions of our money while not employing anyone or creating any wealth, and retiring at 50.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
They are not. I don't understand the mentality of some people these days. It seems that if someone makes more than you they are crooked, liers, and cheats....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't understand the mentality of some people. An article points out that CEOs make Way more than the regular worker in the U.S. (much more than other countries) and people are supposed to just say 'fine'.
While the 'haves' and 'have not' disparities grow, people are supposed to just look the other way? Quiz: which group has seen their incomes rise dramatically in the last three decades?
Most people do not say 'fine'. That's the 'most people are like me' bias. I'd buy your argument, whmeroe, if we were not so 'out of line' with other countries. There are systematic things causing a widening gulf between haves and have nots. You may be fine with not trying to figure out why that's happening. I am not. It's not good for the country's long term future.
Ayup. In California 1% of the people pay 80% of the estate tax.
Meg Whitman thinks that is so unfair.
Why?
What that means is that 1% of the people have 80% of the real wealth.
The estate tax was created for the express purpose of preventing family dynasties from continuing. It doesn't look like it's working so well, and that is why this income disparity is going to be big trouble in the near future if something doesn't change.
Did you know that when Mercedes-Benz bought Chrysler a few years ago they discovered that they had to go down through 6 layers of management before they found some poor slob who made less than the M-B CEO?
Oh good. They totally deserve it, The rest of us are lazy and undeserving. Even the white ones. We shouldn't even get healthcare. What is the point of extending the life of parasitic working class? </s>
Then explain how they receive exorbitant golden parachutes for screwing their company over? If they were accountable they wound't be getting millions of dollars for leaving their company in shambles, they would be kicked out the door and lucky to be allowed back to their offices, escorted by security, to pack their stuff and GTFO.
I'm not saying there aren't d-bags out there that are going to screw up, but the extra pay comes to attract the other 95% that lead those companies to success.
Really? I can remember quite a few companies that CEOs bankrupt or burn into the ground. Look at Donald Trump, he bankrupted 4 companies...I don't need a college education to do that.
He bankrupted his company twice, and only because it allowed him to run a better business both times. He used the existing LEGAL laws to further his business, and I think he's a genius for it. You have companies going bankrupt quite often to get rid of extra baggage so they can function better.
I live in Minnesota, and a few years ago Northwest Airlines went bankrupt. This allowed them to null all contracts and operate as a much more efficient company. Personal and corporate bankruptcy are very different. GM SHOULD have gone bankrupt so they could do the same thing, but instead the taxpayers had to foot that bill for an $11 BLN loss now.
GM and Ford use the same suppliers and if GM filed BK that would have caused the suppliers to file BK due to lack of demand and it would have caused Ford to file BK due to the suppliers filing BK.
If the suppliers would have also filed for bankruptcy (which I highly doubt) then they would also having the benefit of operating a more efficient company.
Do you really think GM should continue to be unprofitable just so that another company can be? I'd like to see you sell that business plan.
My apologies, it was actually 3 companies, but 4 times he bankrupted (Trump Entertainment Resorts = 2 times)
Taj Mahal Casino - unable to meet loan payments
Trump Plaza Hotel - unable to meet debt payments, gave up 49% stake, loss of pay as CEO/loss of ability to command day-to-day ops
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts - debt restructuring
Trump Entertainment Resorts - debt restructuring, resigned from the Board of Directors
And at least 2 of those were because the companies he was running were broke. In at least 2 of them he lost some ownership and in 1 of them he was forced to resign from the board. Obviously Trump Entertainment Resorts wasn't ran better after the first bankruptcy.
Yes, but the high wage is there to attract the other 95% who don't screw up. You are going to find d-bags in any industry/position/pay-rate. One such d-bag is Donald trump, he is just a d-bag who can get a lot of press. Although a college degree is not required to drive a company into the ground, is is most helpful to the 95% who successfully lead their companies.
Actually no, they don't require college educations. Many CEOs graduated only from high school. And no, they are responsible for the 'short term' future of their companies which has become a real problem at places like GM.
What companies pay their executives and their workers and the differential between them is the business of those companies and their shareholders. My only problem as a shareholder is when it is done in such a way as to encourage short-term stock price movement at the expense of longer term growth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What business is it of yours what these CEO's make? I'm getting tired of people pointing fingers at those with more. You want more? Go make it yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Inevitably it's about supply & demand. These are the largest companies, with several billion dollars of revenue. It's "typical" workers vs atypical CEOs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wow, I am extremely impressed by the quality of comments to this forum.
Both sides of this argument however are equally ignorant, and at the same time, more interested in offending the other.
The idea that someone can "take the initiative" to become a "wealthy CEO" is practically spelling out the concept of the American Dream.
The idea that we should "mind our own business" in regard to money, is a load of trash. Look at the dollar, that handy piece of paper is FEDERAL PROPERTY. Everyone who is a citizen owns it, and the government owns it. If you have a problem with that? deal with it.
If you make bazillions of dollars, more power to you. However, it does not mean you are more "highly educated" then someone who is NOT a CEO. Most particle physicists, doctors, lab workers (like myself), teachers and engineers are undergoing constant education, and never stop. I will have to take 80 hours of education every three years just to maintain an MLT status, and more when I become an MLS. Ask a CEO how his product effects things on a scale of anything but profits or loss, and he probably won't be able to answer.
I have never met a CEO that has the level of education comparable to Doctors, computer scientists or particle physicists. I probably never will.
CEO's can be lucky (born into the job), greasy (shook the right hands), criminal (bribed the right people) or genius (found the right market). Unions can be the exact same. The difference? most unions don't own Yachts and small island nations. Also, most Unions pay their taxes instead of scream for lower ones.
in the end, does the top 5% need more then one mansion? No. Does the top 5% need their own private jet? no. Do the poor need better schools? yes. Do the poor need help to be inspired to do great things? yes.
remember, as terrible as liberals sound, they are responsible for the legislation that keeps children in school and not in coal mines, makes sure mercury is not in our water, keeps radioactive waste contained, and prevented the extinction of the bald eagle.
What have conservatives done? Dragged us into two hopeless wars, disenfranchised Michigan, tried to prevent gays from serving in the military, and things that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Small government this makes not.
#1 companies pay a lot less dividends. theres an idiotic theory that if you let companies keep all the money they earn, that they will invest it at a higher return than if they gave it back to you, but in reality, companies awash in cash waste it, and the first thing they do is inflate the C Suite salaries/bonuses.
#2 they started paying CEO's with huge amounts of shares, which sounded like a good idea, but that gave CEO's huge voting rights and often chair positions, making bonuses/raises easy for them to attain.
#3 CEOs get huge rewards for off shoring jobs, which puts downward pressure on worker salaries.
Lets's see if I understand this correct. Get paid 347x more than those who actually do work to run a company into the ground and then ask the government to bail them out using our tax-dollars so they get approve themself a bonus for ineptitude or corruption?
Anybody can become a CEO. I think it costs like $200 bucks to setup the company. Ohhh the part about actually thinking of an idea, executing, hiring people, finding a market, etc is the hard part?
Really? So, if we take your advice, we can pay $200 and begin earning 343 times the typical worker on day one? Exactly. The topic of the article was excessive executive compensation, not entrepreneurship/becoming a CEO.
I don't know where you studied compensation practices, but MOST of the people earning that pay were hired/appointed into their positions. They didn't start those corporations/enterprises from scratch.
How would I know this? I've been working with executive compensation, benefits and perquisites for decades. What's the source of your expertise/opinion on the subject?
...Or I could climb back in my mothers womb and come back as the son of a rich family that can call a few numbers and me into an Ivy league. All those golf lessons that they put me through will come in handy when I meet those venture capitalists.
Forget it, I'll take the easy route. I'll keep working at Walmart, but file for corporation papers when I get off the evening shift and then go around trying to get a start up loan using my 1985 Mustang 5.0 as collateral.
If what you're saying is true (which I doubt), good for you. You're the exception, NOT the rule.
As for my views on the subject, they come from YEARS of experience with executive compensation and benefits. I've seen what works and what doesn't in this area. When it comes to compensation, your ideological beliefs/compensation practices have collapsed so many companies over the years that I've lost count of them.
You say it's nobody's business, but yours, and that's where you couldn't be MORE wrong. When ideological morons, such as yourself, champion these kinds of pay practices, you bleed your company dry, then proceed to harm company shareholders, creditors, employees, customers AND anyone affiliated with your company. The problem is that you're so self-absorbed, you ignore the damage you leave in your wake until it's too late. Even then, you deny it and simply move on to destroy other commercial enterprises. That's what the S&L executives did in the early 90's.
But, make no mistake, "what goes around, comes around". When it does, you'll be lucky to attract the capital needed for a lemonade stand. Disagree all you want, but I know where you're headed and the trail of failure you're destined to leave behind.
Take it from one of the precious few U.S.-based management consultants with a LONG track record of building successful corporations.
I agree. It's the OWNERS of the company that are paying CEOs whatever they are getting. If you are not an owner then it's none of your damned business.
Typically it's the Board of Directors who set the compensation for their executive officers. Obviously you've never ran a company, I have. The BoDs don't own the companies, they're usually (in public companies) elected by the shareholders. They then set all other policies with their choice of executive officers.
Wait, you earned 1000 times your average worker's pay? I'm not sure that's too be applauded.
And, what makes you think it's not ok to observe societal trends and speak out? Executive pay is out of whack in the U.S. and it's quite fair to speak up about it.
Wait, I gotta disagree. ANYONE can start a company, making themselves CEO. Sure, it takes a good idea, a decent plan and solid implementation to make that new company successful. And with a real innovative idea, Joe "new CEO" Smith may be earning in the millions.
But still, the odds are way easier than becoming a pro athlete.
Are you sure? Anyone can throw a football and gather some friends for a game, but that's as likely to make someone a professional athlete as it is to make a business owner a successful CEO.
In both cases, it takes a substantial amount of intelligence, skills, hard work and luck to achieve. The odds of achieving the pinnacle in sports and business are equally as remote.
If you want a CEO position you are always free to make your own. Why rely on someone else to give you something or make it available to you? Create the opportunity yourself.
Actually these are the CEOs of "some of the nation's largest companies", so you're talking about 20 or so jobs. There are far more than 20 professional athletes.
i think you mean responsible for trying to offshore the remaining 15000 employees. that has been CEO's primary responsibility in the last 2 decades. Get paid big bucks for being able to move as many jobs as possible to china and such.
This is not entirely fair. We are talking about CEO's not republicans congressmen. Some probably spend more time on yacts then at a desk, but the majority I would say do, in fact, do something involving their company for 8 hours a day.
There are no guarantees that what they do is ethical, legal, or good for the nation as a whole, but they do work.
All Ceos and upper management positions have traditionally been very highly paid for a long time. Usually tied into bonus plans. Their retirement and insurance packages are close to the yearly salary in many cases.
The trend to over-pay the executives and ceo..is spread across america and even effects 'small town' management...like zoning boards and small town govs.
Take a look at the budget for your small town or neighborhood association people. Around here a regular board member is paid over 100k a year, full medical package and retirement program that pays in close to the same as the salary.
People tend to take what they can get, if they make the rules.
misteratozApr 19, 2011
The corporate ladder at a glance: http://bokov.net/lj/s**t_tree.jpg
lp1236951Apr 21, 2011
342 Jobs!!!
cocacolaman93Apr 20, 2011
thats how pyramid schemes work
the tops always get the most
2% of the world population has 98% of the world wealth
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
And what is your point?
miklkitApr 20, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
5urr3al5amApr 20, 2011
thats exactly like sports.. the survival of the fittest
dauntless1Apr 21, 2011
Except all the evidence is that the "fittest" and "CEO" have NOTHING in common.
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
The summary says it all - "..at some of the nation's largest companies..."
Most CEOs (by number) do not make nearly this kind of money.
If a company is successful, the man (or woman) at the helm gets the credit (and the paycheck). The Board of Directors will not award the CEO money that takes them out of profit and into the red.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
This suggests a strong link between performance and executive pay. That has not been the case in the past. But, this article suggest that may be improving.
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=72605F7715064713BF8742C0355FAE3E
The Watson Wyatt's annual analysis of executive pay trend revealed that for the first time in years, CEOs associated with non-performing companies were granted lesser pay opportunities than their counterparts at companies that were performing relatively better. Total direct compensation for CEOs at low performing companies was $8.1 million from 2005 to 2007, noticeably lesser than the average pay of $10.7 million for CEOs at high-performing companies, the survey said.
sduncan000Apr 21, 2011
Any merit-based pay/raises/bonuses is positive at all levels.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Agreed. Let's hope they choose the right things to reward.
bdbrApr 20, 2011
The BLS doesn't even list CEO as the highest-paying job - it's #9, behind eight medical jobs.
ricksiteApr 20, 2011
Why don't the unions just start their own companies and pay their CEOs the same as the employees?
vbdonApr 20, 2011
Union leaders are just as guilty as corporate leaders. Most union top dogs walk off with a major portion of their members dues while negotiating their members out of their jobs, benefits, and pensions. How many UAW bosses are hurting like their members are? How many newspaper union bosses went bankrupt having their members strike until their newspapers and jobs disappeared? Both corporate and union leaderships are corrupt to the extreme.
mcarrelApr 20, 2011
I doubt newspapers are having trouble because of unions (any more than Borders got in trouble because of the iPad). Adapting to the new economics of the digital era has been the real problem they've faced. One example: I understand that the popularity of Craigslist has cost them significant revenue in want ads alone.
vbdonApr 21, 2011
Most newspapers disappeared long before the personal computer arrived. Unions went on strike constantly in the 60s and 70s to protect featherbedding (forcing papers to hire 2 employees for each job). When automated typesettting arrived, unions put their employers out of business rather than let new equipment be purchased and put into the production process. Automakers faced the same problem. As they automated the production line, unions struck until auto manufacturers were paying people to not work, which put them at a cost disadvantage competing with the efficient Japanese car companies.
vbdonApr 21, 2011
During the 1960s, the U.S. Steel companies tried to modernize their production plants for increased efficiency. The Unions, back by John F. Kennedy's Presidential orders prevented them from doing so, and the entire steel industry ended up belonging to the Japanese, whose Unions saw how Kennedy had screwed up and encouraged their executives to modernize ahead of U.S. companies.
mcarrelApr 21, 2011
You know, I don't remember most newspapers disappearing in the 70s. In fact, it seems they were doing okay as a whole. This article, for example, even says that they were increasing profits in the 1970s because of new automated typesetting technology that newspapers were using.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo8IY5oMpX4C&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=newspaper+decline+1970s&source=bl&ots=NL4LXS1XE7&sig=f4P0lskB1NluZvf2frTzEBMpvdY&hl=en&ei=o7ivTa6_EsPfiAL5wOGvBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=newspaper%20decline%201970s&f=false
As far as the American automakers, in the 1980s their problem wasn't so much the UAW as their terribly poor product lines. Ford, Chrysler and GM as companies had gotten fat and happy and lazy and were not prepared to compete with the more fuel efficient and, at that time, higher quality japanese cars.
This article, from a conservative site, is referring to recent history, but makes strong points that, while management often would like to blame all their problems on unions, in reality much of their problems in competing lie in their own poor business decisions and practices.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/22/are-the-unions-to-blame
4bitApr 20, 2011
Because someone still needs capitol to invest, and be willing to take a risk on a union owned shop. And who ever fronts the investment, wants to get back with interest.
But when they can... they do...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2009/09/bostons_first_unionrun_charter.html
novenatorApr 20, 2011
30 years of failed fiscally conservative economic policy at work here folks. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, putting greed up on a pedestal, and predatory capitalism at work have created this mess.
Trickle down has failed, and it's long past time to stop the insanity of this legalized theft from the workers who actually create the wealth in America. We need a NEW New Deal, and a more level playing field that gives everyone a chance at socioeconomic mobility.
*note- since this article points out the exploitation of the poor by the rich, cue the economic purists and corporate shills to invade this comment stream and take a big crap on it for their masters.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
matt do you get 343 times the rest of digg? hehehehe shame on you.
miklkitApr 20, 2011
Here is a little bit of history on just how the pay difference got so huge. It wasn't always like it is now.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
novenatorApr 20, 2011
This interactive visual can really help represent it to folks too, so they understand how insanely large the theft has become: http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007/06/salary_comparison
barackalypseApr 20, 2011
Its nice to see you've immediately labeled anyone who disagrees with you a corporate shill. Perhaps it is is you who has the master, an ideology that won't allow the possibility of any honest or rational basis for disagreement and requires anyone with a dissenting opinion must be ignorant, racist, or beholden to some corporate masters pulling the strings.
publiclurkerApr 20, 2011
Actually, it's just that we see no reason to let corporate shills get away with spewing their garbage. just like how you are constantly being called out for being an ignorant, bigoted pile of crap.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseApr 20, 2011
I always feel guilty making a point with no supporting evidence, but then you came along with a reply calling me two of the three slurs I said are always tossed out against those of us who disagree with people like you and the OP. Stay classy though, nothing like a personal insult to let me know you don't have any real argument.
immunofortApr 20, 2011
It seems like you're the ignorant one considering that you think anybody who disagrees with a certain point of view is a "corporate shill".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonApr 20, 2011
You are a worthless flame baiting troll, that is all.
PyriteGenieApr 20, 2011
"a more level playing field that gives everyone a chance at socioeconomic mobility."
Thanks for insulting every immigrant who ever came here with nothing only to build a fortune.
4bitApr 20, 2011
Name one in the last 30 years.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Right, and you just happened to 'not' notice the growing income disparity? I'm sure the shrinking middle class is not at all concerning. While most struggle, your fine to sit on the sidelines and trumpet the fact that nothing is wrong.
linuxpersonApr 20, 2011
30 years? Try over a century.
markglApr 20, 2011
Wrong.
corsleymaxwellApr 20, 2011
Well, CEO's jobs is not easy also. The rise and fall of the company depends on the CEO.
carolynyerak1Apr 20, 2011
You wouldn't glad to earn those money, if company falls.
ajajadudeApr 20, 2011
And CEOs get that golden parachute regardless. And let's not forget that CEOs are paid out not for long term but short term achievements. I can guarantee you that my company is NOT set up for the long haul at this point.
markglApr 20, 2011
So what? That is the companies problem, not yours.
4bitApr 20, 2011
? Until they tank, and he looses his job.
markglApr 20, 2011
Then so be it. If a company is stupid then it doesn't deserve to exist.
4bitApr 20, 2011
Your point was it was the companies problem... not his.
It becomes his problem when he's out of a job because the team leaders didn't do their job.
markglApr 20, 2011
Well sure if your in the company that tanks then that sucks. But still it is the failings of his company that he would lose his job. But for people to complain about CEO's and evil corporations is silly. You can't tell a private industry what to pay their employees from the bottom barrel feeder to the CEO. They can pay whatever they want to pay to their employees. That's my say and really not my say but that is how it's done and should always be done. I don't need Obama to tell me what I need to pay my own employees or any government official.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitApr 20, 2011
True. You don't need anyone to tell you that.
But that's not the point on this thread. This thread is that CEO's are bankrupting the middle and lower class by thinking short term, and building escape clauses for themselves while leaving the vast majority of workers to flail about.
As a society, as a country, that's hurting us. Since most CEO's aren't getting that message, we need someone to stop in and say "Knock it off! NOW!"
markglApr 20, 2011
OK I see that and yes when a large corporation falls it can affect our entire society like Lehman. But let's not punish the whole for the wicked few. Unless it's a massive problem, I don't know.
4bitApr 20, 2011
Fixing that issue is what a lot of us are working on, but the moment when we initially point it out, the first comment is "You can't tell businesses how they should run".
As for massive problem... the top 20% own 85% of this countries wealth. The next 20% own up to 95%. The top 1% own 33%. The bottom 40% own less than 1% of all the wealth of the nation. 60% of our country is at the financial whim of very few people.
I'm going with "It's a massive problem." Check here:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Chart 4 is the real point for me. But chart 9 is interesting too.
The wealth is being sucked out of the lower and middle class to a group of people who have no interest in re-investing it in America. They're taking their jobs and such overseas, and the tax rate isn't going to stop that because if we have nothing to spend, they have nothing to sell, and there's no reason to stay. They'll come back when we rebuild... and do it again.
markglApr 20, 2011
I thought we were talking about CEO's? Now you're talking about rich vs poor.
4bitApr 20, 2011
Chart 9 in what I sent addresses that. Specifically, the CEOs are keeping pay low and pocketing the difference, widening the gap between the rich and poor, destroying the middle class.
That issue is why there needs to be some oversight on how the CEO's treat their employees, and our citizens.
markglApr 21, 2011
What do you propose then?
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Who cares? Ummm, I care. Short term focus of so many companies has led to many problems. The push to impress Wall Street with quartlery and annual numbers is bad for the country's future. So yes, I care.
I get your point. What a private company does is their business. But, if you look at the sum of companies in America and all of them are generally rewarding short-term performance, I'm quite happy to see them hammered by the press and society.
It's perfectly acceptable that many rise up with indignation regarding practices that lead a few to do so well while most struggle. And often, this happens with pay out of proportion to performance. How? Incestious relationships with Board of Directors has been one problem in the past.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Really? All those successful companies are successful because of the CEO? did the workers play any part? Did the Upper and Middle management help? No, CEO's come in and out of companies fast. And in the past, they were rewarded on the upside and protected on the down. This mass desparity between the Top and the average worker is a problem. In Japan, the disparity is more like 10 to 1. Many their would feel 'shame' to take such riches. Here? Who cares. Take as grotesque amount of money as you wish.
elizabethwhite011Apr 21, 2011
They have more knowledge and more managing ability, so they deserve it.
zelnikApr 21, 2011
I have worked as a security manager at a volunteer position for 4 years now... does that make me worthy of a bigger cut of a non-existant pie?
Management training is useful, and it does earn some additional compensation, just not unlimited compensation. I put more value in the people working then the man overseeing them.
elizabethwhite011Apr 22, 2011
maybe different situations should be analyzied in different ways. ha ha .you will finally get more from your work except for the money.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Who has more knowledge and managing ability? Is that a Direct Correlation? The deserve 200 times the pay they used to get 20 years ago?
elizabethwhite011Apr 22, 2011
Actually nothing can be seen in an absolute aspect.Even every coin has two sides , isn't it?
gegan249Apr 19, 2011
Perhaps CEO's jobs are 343 times harder, require more education, and are more demanding than typical workers jobs?
Just a thought.
I agree that 343 is a huge multiplier but you'd have to agree that they ARE harder and more demanding. The exact multiplier is what's at issue here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorApr 19, 2011
As someone who has worked with more than a few executives for over 25 years I can assure you that while many of them are hardworking and talented, their skills and value do NOT justify that compensation multiple. Are they worth more than the typical worker? Yes, but I would place the compensation multiple closer to that practiced around the globe...approximately 40 times median wages. American executives are grossly overpaid considering the economic value they deliver and it's wasted on them. The same goes for Wall Street bankers who also take credit for the economic value and contributions of others.
Executive pay is based upon the "old boy" network, nothing more. Why do you think there's so much crossover participation on the Board of Directors?
mweelsApr 20, 2011
Yes, American CEO's are just like bankers. Wow.
eraptorApr 20, 2011
How many have you worked with over the years? Bankers OR CEO's?
As someone who has overseen compensation practices for BOTH groups, I can assure you that there's not as much distinction between them as you believe. For the record, there's an indistinguishable difference between the egos and greed that drive both groups.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Eraptor makes a very compelling and truthfull comment. And you come back with that?
scarredupApr 20, 2011
Any ideas on how to join the old boy club? Is it possible?
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
create a company that rakes in $5billion a year?
rethreadApr 20, 2011
1. Create fake company, cook the books.
2. Rub elbows with the wealthy.
3. ???
4. Profit.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
That won't work. Most of these CEO's didn't create the company.
mweelsApr 25, 2011
For non-private companies, I think it is an issue that the directors can stack a compensation committee and the shareholders should have more rights in this case.
Private companies are just that.
dustbunny52Apr 20, 2011
Sure. Be born of parents with a lot of money. Let them get you into the best schools and get a C average or better. (Daddy's money can help with that.) Get into the most popular fraternity or sorority. (Daddy's money will help with that.) Make a lot of acquaintances and impress them that you will inherit a lot of money when Daddy finally kicks the bucket. Finally, learn to compliment all the people you will meet along the way that either have a lot of money or that stand to inherit a lot of money once their parents die.
It would help to create a company that rakes in $5billion a year but it is not necessary.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rethreadApr 20, 2011
See my earlier link to the NY Times for more on the inheritance aspects of being in the "club". Has to do with making money from beyond the grave.
Because a real go-getter doesn't let a little thing like being dead get in their way of making money :)
caramba421Apr 20, 2011
Harvard MBA.
rethreadApr 20, 2011
Join Skull and Bones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
*That would be Yale University.
eraptorApr 21, 2011
@scarredup,
Unless one is born into the right social circle, inherit a significant ownership stake or have a long track record of significant achievement in the corporate world with an Ivy League pedigree, it's VERY difficult to join.
Most of the time, it's based upon who you know and socialize with at premier country clubs (i.e., networking). Consulting and venture capital/investment banking can serve as backdoor entry points if one is sufficiently political and astute.
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
Then it must be easy for you to create a competing firm that runs more efficiently and is more profitable because it doesn't over-pay it's executive employees.
How's that coming?
caramba421Apr 20, 2011
Oh it would be great, except that it takes money from sucking the dicks of the people that already have the money to begin with,
eraptorApr 21, 2011
@mbraynard,
Been there, done that.
Funny thing about being a compensation expert...you design pay plans that reward employees for PERFORMING. As a direct result, I've NEVER wasted money on poor performers and my firm has always delivered value for its clients.
It's a shame most of Wall Street's venerable institutions and U.S. corporations can't make the same claim. Their shareholders would be wealthier if they had implemented similar executive compensation and benefit plans. You want to know why they don't? Most of their compensation plans are designed by the people who benefit from them (i.e., conflict of interest).
mbraynardApr 21, 2011
You must be grateful your competitors have such poor compensation plans since that gives you an advantage.
What are you complaining about?
eraptorApr 23, 2011
I'm not complaining. I'm simply pointing out that our country and economy could stand significant improvement.
If complacency and mediocrity were economic virtues, those who share your economic views would achieve FAR more than they do.
ridgerunner5Apr 20, 2011
How at risk is the low level employee of getting fined or getting the boot because someone in a completely different division screwed up and released a dangerous product?
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
I'll take that risk, thanks. At these pay rates, if I can 'stay for just one year, I'm set.
eraptorApr 21, 2011
It's higher than you think. Most CEO's surround themselves with "yes men" and as the old saying goes, "s**t rolls down hill".
As an experienced executive once told me, the secret to his executive longevity was to always keep someone between him and the door.
jhbarrApr 24, 2011
The last two CEOs at HP were fired (one for incompetence, one for basically defrauding the company) over ten years they were paid a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Yeah, they really paid for their mistakes!
ridgerunner5Apr 24, 2011
No doubt those were contractual agreements when they took the position.
novenatorApr 20, 2011
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
In my experience, nobody works harder in America than the blue collar people near the bottom. They bust their asses and sacrifice their bodies for very meager wages. I don't think there is a CEO alive that could survive some of the roughest, most physically demanding blue collar jobs for even one week.
odkinApr 20, 2011
In the words of Bing Crosby
"...his back is brawny but his brain is weak,
he's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak,
And by the way, if you hate to go to school...
you may grow up to be a mule."
Choices have consequences, Novenator. Maybe it was not going to school. Maybe it was that drug conviction or that drunk driving arrest. Maybe it was that choice to f**k around and get pregnant. Could be lots of reasons. We used to warn people to take care of themselves, but now they're all convinced Uncle Sucker will keep them from getting in too much trouble.
langfordApr 20, 2011
What percentage of the country is going to be in management? Everyone else are working as mules. That would not change even if every single person in the nation had a doctorate, there is simply not room at the top of the pyramid for everyone.
PyriteGenieApr 20, 2011
So my question is: are you saying there shouldn't be a top of the pyramid, that those who reach it shouldn't be rewarded or incentivised to reach it, or what?
svtpeteApr 20, 2011
I think that's exactly what he means PyriteGenie. That is unfortunately the way many Americans feel right now since all we're hearing in the press and from Washington is that rich people are evil because they have all that money that they got by exploiting unfair tax loopholes and using daddy's money. That they are being unfair or unpatriotic for not giving more of it to people who haven't even tried to better themselves and take some personal responsibility.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Are you saying that the we should not be concerned about how Far that top removes itself from the rest? Would any desparity upset you? How about 10,000 to 1? If you look out one day and see no middle class and lots of have nots, will that be concerning?
PyriteGenieApr 21, 2011
Equilibrium happens.
mbraynardApr 21, 2011
That's not true.
If everyone had a doctorate, we would have enough brain power to make robots for the crap jobs. (2% of America has a doctorate now).
However, there is unlimited room at the 'top.' The problem is you are looking at the world through the Marxist eyes of owners/workers.
This is a free agent nation. I'm (for the most part) a free agent. All the contractors who work for me are also free agents.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Agent-Nation-Working-Yourself/dp/0446678791
miklkitApr 20, 2011
Bing Crosby had a golf course named after him.
Tennessee Ernie Ford on the other hand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU
corvinApr 20, 2011
Your entire argument operates on the false assumption that everyone in the United States has the exact same start. I would argue that those who are poor, who live in tough neighborhoods, or who barely see their parents because their parents work three minimum wage jobs, all have a much harder time going to school or making good choices than someone born into a rich family. One can't argue that everyone is privileged or not simply based on their choices as it is easier for some to make good choices and easier for others to make bad choices.
As an extreme example, look at Paris Hilton. I do not believe she earned or deserve the money she has, she was born with it. It's difficult to argue that CEO's deserve their enormous pay poor people deserve their hard lives. A person born into a rich family will undoubtedly have an easier time avoiding drugs, getting a better education, and working a better job. While one who grew up in a bad area of town, going to a public school, and having to get a job early to support their family would have a much more difficult time earning a good life. Things are not black and white in life as many conservatives would insist. People do not always get what they deserve.
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
" I would argue that those who are poor, who live in tough neighborhoods, or who barely see their parents because their parents work three minimum wage jobs, all have a much harder time going to school or making good choices than someone born into a rich family."
Your argument would be wrong.
If you are intelligent, you will rise to the top. Especially here in America.
The reason it looks like opportunity/birth matters is because because the biggest factor in determining your own intelligence is your parent's intelligence. You can still be a genius if you are born to below-average parents; it's just that the odds are against it.
So when you see what looks like intergenerational poverty is really intergenerational stupidity.
bobthegreat1224Apr 20, 2011
That's not strictly correct, either. The standard "intelligent" jobs are doctor, lawyer, professor, etc, all of which pay well above the median but far less than typical executive pay. Successful business moguls are usually shrewd, decisive, and willing to take risks, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their intelligence.
Regarding intelligence and genetics, intelligence isn't really a measurable trait (the IQ test isn't exactly designed to measure business acumen, much less the broad range of skills it takes to be successful), so I'll argue on the basis of academic achievement. Plenty of children in low-performing schools are capable of higher order learning, but they frequently get held back by social pressure, parental apathy, and a culturally ingrained desire for immediate gratification. It's also abundantly true that children from low-achieving but hard working families often vastly exceed their parents' earnings potential. A particular married couple I've been friends with for quite some time provides a superb example. The husband is an optometrist, and the wife has an MBA and an RN. Their parents were a farmer, a bomb factory worker, another bomb factory worker, and a miner, of whom only one person completed high school. In short, I'm not inclined to believe achievement is a matter of genetically-endowed intelligence when all of the evidence I can see points to culture and childhood circumstances being most frequently correlated among the successful.
caramba421Apr 21, 2011
Every Scandinavian country has a higher degree of economic mobility than the US.
Your argument is invalid.
svtpeteApr 20, 2011
Corvin, that doesn't happen overnight you know, that happens when generation after generation settles for it and stops trying. It's the same thing with the privileged people that you seem to hate so much, are you faulting them with the fact that the generations that came before them happened to work hard and build up wealth therefore benefitting their families for generations to come? Could you not also say that the poor you talk about born in the tough neighborhoods didn't earn or deserve to have parents that settled for that lifestyle and didn't try to start the process of improving their standing. At the very least they could take an interest in raising their kids to want something better instead of just complaining that it's not fair.
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
Could also be that unwillingness to work beyond 8 hours/day.
CEOs, or those on the track to get there, typically put in much more than 40 hours per week.
novenatorApr 20, 2011
I do manual labor for a living. You may say "willing to work more than 8 hours", but many days of 8 hours, all I want to do is sleep, feast, shower, or drink. 10 hour days can be beyond the scope of people with the roughest jobs, at least on a consistent basis. When all you do is work, eat, and sleep, that is not much of a life.
If you are "working" as a CEO, going to lunch with someone is considered "work". They have no idea what ground level labor is like (thus the shock on that show where the owners apply for entry level jobs).
sduncan000Apr 21, 2011
I too have been in jobs where the physical aspect of the work was challenging. But I have - and have seen many others who have - gone beyond 8 hours often. I 'drive a desk' these days, but the work is nonetheless challenging.
letherialApr 20, 2011
"let them eat cake"
Sadly, this is the disconnect. Minimum wage cannot support even one person, and many low education jobs dont pay much more then that.
Regardless of a job, a person should be able to food, cloth and house themselves. If it doesn't work this way, you will see our country fall to the likes England. This wealth difference will be the death of this country, as it has been the death to EVERY SINGLE EMPIRE that has tried this. Middle class was the reason of our country rise to power, NOT corporate greed.
mbraynardApr 21, 2011
This isn't true for a few reasons.
First, Iived and supported myself off of minimum wage. Not easy, but possible.
"Regardless of a job, a person should be able to food, cloth and house themselves. "
What if that person's work isn't worth that much?
Min Wage jobs are starting positions, often taken by people who don't support themselves fully to begin with. It gives them the chance to learn skills so they eventually will have enough productivity to support themselves and more.
I learned a lot from the multitude of min wage jobs I had.
letherialApr 21, 2011
That is a good point, jobs for teenagers and such. I agree there. The problem is the single mom whos dad wont pay child support leaves them working 2 minimum wage jobs and unable to educate themselves.
If it worked exactly as you stated it, then i can see that, but it doesn't. I have known tons of people who need to support kids on there own and working at minimum wage jobs. The cost in food, fuel, rent and healthcare is rising far faster then these people can keep up. When the top stops trickling down success of the company, then you get disparity's such as this and eventually a rebellion.
mbraynardApr 22, 2011
"I have known tons of people who need to support kids on there own and working at minimum wage jobs. "
That was their mistake and any attempt by the government to correct it will make it worse.
The Great Society subsidized poverty - and created more of it.
"When the top stops trickling down success of the company, then you get disparity's such as this and eventually a rebellion."
Government it was causes the gushing to reduce to a trickle that can lead to that kind of rebellion.
It's the poorest who suffer most when the government creates market distortions by artificially increasing the price of unskilled labor (raising the minimum wage).
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
I remember that tune as a child from a VHS we had those old time cartoons... I can't remember which one.
TheTruth00Apr 20, 2011
Yes but blue collar workers don't have to carry the burden of millions of stakeholders on their shoulders.
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
Neither do the CEOs. If a company fails, it fails. It's relatively easy to blame it on things like the economy, lack of creativity internally, loss of valuable employees, regulations, and all sorts of other things.
The CEOs might get some publicity if a company fails, but it's the blue collars who lose their homes, cars, food, and dreams to the whims of a CEO.
But you're right, blue collars don't carry the burden of shareholders, they carry the burden of their family's well-fare and that's more than any CEO has ever had to carry.
TheTruth00Apr 20, 2011
I said stakeholders, not shareholders. There's a difference.
http://tutor2u.net/business/gcse/organisation_stakeholders_ethics.htm
I'm not taking anything away anything from the hard working blue collars, I'm just stating that the actions of a CEO can affect a myriad of people...
publiclurkerApr 20, 2011
And when they screw over all those people they get to have a nice shiny golden parachute to help ease their suffering. The victims of their incompetence, however, are lucky if they get two weeks notice and a cardboard box for their belongings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Many workers carry lots and lots of burdens. I'm not sure I feel for people like Jack Nardelli so much however. Sure, he carried the burdens of Home Depot shareholders. And they gave him a nice 220 million dollar parting gift.
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
Working hard =/= productive value.
Example: In 2001 I was 22 and was hired as a temp to do data entry. It was a four month job for three people to do the data entry.
It turns out that the information we were data entering was coming from an electronic source and then getting printed out for manual entry into their front-end data entry program.
So I told the boss I could do all of that work in few hours using a simple database conversion tool.
The next day they offered me a job. I picked a really high number, thinking they would counter offer something lower. But they didn't hesitate to accept my initial offer (leading me to believe I didn't ask for enough).
Anyway, the universe doesn't' care how hard you work, it cares how productive you are.
Which is why the right executive can make more in a day than you will in your entire lifetime.
alyxvanceApr 20, 2011
And finally a voice of reason enters the room.
PyriteGenieApr 20, 2011
Cool idea, bro. You should pitch it for a realiTV show.
shauncorleoneApr 20, 2011
Don't act like you can really quantify effort. Do blue collar factory or construction workers often do a lot of physically taxing, manual labor? Sure. Does that mean they are harder working than an electrical engineer who spends all day in a mentally taxing job? Hardly. And, if the manual laborer clocks out at 5 but the executive lives his job 24/7, how do you quantify the harder worker then? You can't. Face it, while I don't typically agree with ballooning CEO salaries, the best way to determine a worker's pay is based on that person's unique ability to be productive over available replacements. Sure, many executives have sweetheart deals with ironclad job security, but most CEOs and VPs are fired if they don't produce for their shareholders. If you're a fry cook at Wendy's but are the best one they've ever had, you have a good chance of becoming manager or climbing the ladder in some other fashion.
Also, why did the AFL-CIO examine executive pay at only 299 companies on the S&P 500? Did the others drag the 343 number down too much? They're comparing the largest companies in the world vs average worker pay for all workers at all companies in all industries throughout the country, which even you can admit is going to cause distortion in some fashion.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
No no, many who believe mass wage disparities are just fine would prefer to think everybody else is just lazy and 'less brilliant'. Many others in the real world no things don't work that way.
noskingApr 20, 2011
Logged in, just to digg you up. People don't realize that most of these individuals had to work hard throughout their entire lives to get where they are now. 'Chief Executive Officer', they obviously have the company's future in their hands and deserve to earn a fair amount of money.
martoqApr 20, 2011
'Fair' is the operative word there.
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
What are you talking about? A lot of CEOs grew up in well-off families, went to Harvard or Stanford, and many made contacts (through family, college friends, etc) which allowed them to get where they got.
No one is saying CEOs don't deserve pay, but 300+ times more then the employees, employees who are struggling in many companies? Employees who get laid off, fired, or watch as the factory doors shut down for weeks on end? No, I don't think so.
noskingApr 20, 2011
You're right, I'm not going to be biased and say all CEOs deserve to be making as much as they do. I'm just saying a good amount of them didn't just have their positions handed to them and deserve recognition for the accomplishments they have made.
svtpeteApr 20, 2011
Why would he do that nosking, he will never admit that any of them 'deserve' their position or pay because his justification for not being a high achiever would become null and void. As long as he can convince himself that everyone else got ahead because of 'unfair' advantages that he didn't have he won't have to deal with the reality that he maybe just needs to try harder or didn't try hard enough in the past.
letherialApr 20, 2011
It wouldn't be so bad if unemployment wasnt 9%, gas prices where almost 5.00 and the middle class was actually growing. Actually, i dont think it would even be a headline.
It is not what they make, its that they make it while everyone else is making nothing. CEO have a responsibility to company's health, underpaid workers who are not happy does not help the company.
rethreadApr 20, 2011
We had a second lieutenant go through every division on my ship and made full commander inside of six months. (Prior enlisted, worked through the ranks.) Full command of a brand new ship as ours was decommissioned. Best Captain we ever had.
He was fast tracked because he'd learned the ropes, listened to his people and made good, decisive decisions that benefited morale, productivity, and you don't see many like him. Too often leaders can just seem so clueless as to how an operation is running, and getting compensated way too much for way too few good decisions.
spatula7Apr 20, 2011
The majority of CEO's I've met are salesman that never invented anything and never started a business of their own. But boy, can they sell themselves well. So well in fact that people like you actually believe that in general they deserve to compensate themselves huge amounts money in terms of bonuses and stock plan. All built on top of a pyramid of regular tax payers, er, stock holders, who have little alternative but to throw all there money into a 401(k) because for some reason giving your money to Wall Street is a tax reducing incentive. But maybe you're one of them and your doing what you supposed to do and keep on shoveling, er, selling the s**t all the CEO patsies on this blog are buying?
scabnabbitApr 20, 2011
Yeah, in any organization you generally have the dreamers, who, despite any (human) flaws, at least dreamed and started something.
These (as a rule) are followed by necessity by the brown-nosiers. (Otherwise, too many cooks in the kitchen...) These guys are actually less then worthless and have done an incredible amount to damage the US, and the world. (That and the bankers, which is another rant...)
I can't say enough about this, and it's something our (US) founding fathers saw and took steps to curb. Steps that have been thrown totally by the wayside at this point.
A bit back I was asked if I "respect conservative values." I'm 100% cool with small business dreamers. But this? This deserves nothing but contempt. This is exactly why we had charters and the rest of it.
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
Haters gonna hate.
davidtcApr 20, 2011
Ever see undercover boss? Those CEO's are having their asses handed to them cause of how much their employees need to work.
davidtcApr 20, 2011
Although to be a little more fair, there is a big difference in physical activity and mental activity for what needs to be done as an employee and a CEO. But it does show that the low end employees do work their asses off and in return get a lot less money for it.
alyxvanceApr 20, 2011
Using your intelligence and education to run a large company is MUCH more valuable than someone with a blue collar job. why? The CEO will make or lose many millions and billions. The blue collar worker does not. Each gets paid accordingly.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
That show is very annoying and shows how many of these CEOs are out of touch. They go to work in the 'employee's job' and end up Amazed at what the employee deals with. Really, you don't know your employee's working conditions?
Then, they always end up promoting those employees they went out and met. Really? What about the other 100,000 employees you didn't go 'meet'? Reward and promotion because you just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Why should we promote based on objective measures and merit?
spectecjrApr 21, 2011
Hilariously, if those promotions were into management roles, studies show that the results are equivalent. Randomly promoting people tends to give better results than promoting people based on previous performance in non-manager roles.
Freaky, but true.
langfordApr 20, 2011
No, they aren't. Thiee parasitic pay scale is simply a result of a lack of workers having any control. If unemployment were lower, they would not be able to get away with it, and if unions were more widespread, they would not be able to get away with it.
mbraynardApr 20, 2011
Why should the worker have any control? The business belongs to the owner.
Do you want the guy who cuts your lawn to be able to crash on your couch at night.... because he cuts you lawn?
babywookieApr 21, 2011
Why do you hate democracy?
mbraynardApr 21, 2011
Why do you hate freedom?
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Which is why many businesses found it wise to give ownership to the workers. And actually, you're only referring to private companies. Public companies belong to the shareholders. Those shareholders better hope those 'owner less' employees still want to work hard and do right by the company.
Why should the workers have any control? Because workers who feel empowered tend to produce higher quality product.
mbraynardApr 21, 2011
You are confusing personal with business. And I chaffe at it when companies try to make you think that you are part of something more than a transaction (although creative types - and many of them have worked for me over the years - really need to feel that).
My post was in response to the idea that workers, by default, should be in control as they are in France and other parts of Europe, where the owners rights are secondary to the workers in terms of controlling the company.
Besides, no one 'gives' ownership to workers. They allow workers to 'earn' ownership, mostly by working.
neotechniApr 20, 2011
"Perhaps CEO's jobs are 343 times harder, require more education, and are more demanding than typical workers jobs?'
No
alyxvanceApr 20, 2011
Ok, so why don't you start a fortune 500 company and run it with 10,000 employees. Then you can show us all wrong and pay yourself the same you pay your workers.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Most CEO's started their fortune 500 companies? And, who said a CEO should earn the same as the worker? Though, I do prefer Japan's system where a worker makes only 10 times less. Look at the revolving door of CEOs at companies. These guys often didn't start the company. And their performance has been disconnected from pay in many ways. It's just not that simple.
Is their a wage disparity that would upset you? 1,000/1?
10,000/1?
immanuelayaApr 20, 2011
i agree with gegan. These guys have gotten 2 masters and a PhD thats the usual for guys that run investment banks; their smart as can be in their fields. They have been raised to atten the most prestigious schools. Their masters and phd is what about 4+2+3=9 years of schooling? which = $250,000 a year X9 = allmost 2.3 million and then add another 4+2= 6 years of schooling which = $250,00 a year X 6= 1.5 million; 1.5m+2.3m= about 3.8MILLION IN THEIR EDUCATION; UMM I THINK THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY MAKE BECUASE THEY TOOK THE RIST TO TAKE ALL THAT MONEY OUT FOR SCHOOL. Not like these iddiots who have f**ked up all in school and now work making $25 an hour and complain "why do these ceo's get so much!" CAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO WORK THE SYSTEM, LEARN RETARD LIFE ISN'T FAIR!
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
I assume it's the corporate apologists and/or conservatives that are digging you up, because I could barely comprehend anything you said.
I would GLADLY take a $25/hr "unskilled" job. Also, it's interesting to hear a conservative/corporate apologist say that their "expensive" education is OK. But when it's an employee saying they don't feel that they're being paid enough the response is (from your group) "LOOK ELSEWHERE." So my response to your claims of their expensive education is to have them LOOK ELSEWHERE if they can't afford that school. Don't pawn your college debt off as an excuse that you should make 300 times more then the average employee.
BTW, these "idiots" that you talk about make life much better for you. No PhD is going to come around to pick up your trash, unclog your drains, fix your roof, paint your house, or grow/raise/slaughter/cook your food. I would highly suggest taking on a more appropriate and respectful tone when insulting those who do. Someday you may find you're in need of one of their services, if you haven't already.
odkinApr 20, 2011
Funny how Digg liberals care about what CEO's get paid, even though it's not their money and none of their business. In the meantime, they'll defend to the death the right of useless government union leaches to directly steal billions of our money while not employing anyone or creating any wealth, and retiring at 50.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
Well said. It comes down to getting something for nothing.
neotechniApr 20, 2011
Yeah, the CEOs are getting all that something for nothing
sduncan000Apr 20, 2011
you forgot this: /s
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
They are not. I don't understand the mentality of some people these days. It seems that if someone makes more than you they are crooked, liers, and cheats....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
I don't understand the mentality of some people. An article points out that CEOs make Way more than the regular worker in the U.S. (much more than other countries) and people are supposed to just say 'fine'.
While the 'haves' and 'have not' disparities grow, people are supposed to just look the other way? Quiz: which group has seen their incomes rise dramatically in the last three decades?
whmeroeApr 21, 2011
Yes you are suppose to say "fine" or wow I want to be there some day and work for it. If you are a have not become a have. It is your choice.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Most people do not say 'fine'. That's the 'most people are like me' bias. I'd buy your argument, whmeroe, if we were not so 'out of line' with other countries. There are systematic things causing a widening gulf between haves and have nots. You may be fine with not trying to figure out why that's happening. I am not. It's not good for the country's long term future.
bcronosApr 20, 2011
Best comment so far. The social liberals think that the world would be perfect if we would just let them foist their sophomoric ideas on us.
Funny how EVERYBODY thinks that way when they're 17. Most of us grow up, some don't...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rethreadApr 20, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/opinion/12madoff.html
miklkitApr 21, 2011
Ayup. In California 1% of the people pay 80% of the estate tax.
Meg Whitman thinks that is so unfair.
Why?
What that means is that 1% of the people have 80% of the real wealth.
The estate tax was created for the express purpose of preventing family dynasties from continuing. It doesn't look like it's working so well, and that is why this income disparity is going to be big trouble in the near future if something doesn't change.
"Let them eat cake!"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
Did you know that when Mercedes-Benz bought Chrysler a few years ago they discovered that they had to go down through 6 layers of management before they found some poor slob who made less than the M-B CEO?
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Maybe Meg thinks that is so unfair because she's in that 1%.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Really? So if you are incensed by this massive disparity (mainly occuring in th U.S), you are a Liberal? Conservatives aren't upset by this?
Throwing in 'government union leeches' is timely but largely irrelevant. The importance of Unions has been steadily deminshed for years.
generalhysteriaApr 20, 2011
Oh good. They totally deserve it, The rest of us are lazy and undeserving. Even the white ones. We shouldn't even get healthcare. What is the point of extending the life of parasitic working class? </s>
Closed AccountApr 19, 2011
They also require college educations and are accountable for the future of the company.
stubearApr 20, 2011
Then explain how they receive exorbitant golden parachutes for screwing their company over? If they were accountable they wound't be getting millions of dollars for leaving their company in shambles, they would be kicked out the door and lucky to be allowed back to their offices, escorted by security, to pack their stuff and GTFO.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
I'm not saying there aren't d-bags out there that are going to screw up, but the extra pay comes to attract the other 95% that lead those companies to success.
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
Really? I can remember quite a few companies that CEOs bankrupt or burn into the ground. Look at Donald Trump, he bankrupted 4 companies...I don't need a college education to do that.
alyxvanceApr 20, 2011
He bankrupted his company twice, and only because it allowed him to run a better business both times. He used the existing LEGAL laws to further his business, and I think he's a genius for it. You have companies going bankrupt quite often to get rid of extra baggage so they can function better.
I live in Minnesota, and a few years ago Northwest Airlines went bankrupt. This allowed them to null all contracts and operate as a much more efficient company. Personal and corporate bankruptcy are very different. GM SHOULD have gone bankrupt so they could do the same thing, but instead the taxpayers had to foot that bill for an $11 BLN loss now.
BluntzworthApr 20, 2011
GM and Ford use the same suppliers and if GM filed BK that would have caused the suppliers to file BK due to lack of demand and it would have caused Ford to file BK due to the suppliers filing BK.
alyxvanceApr 21, 2011
If the suppliers would have also filed for bankruptcy (which I highly doubt) then they would also having the benefit of operating a more efficient company.
Do you really think GM should continue to be unprofitable just so that another company can be? I'd like to see you sell that business plan.
BluntzworthApr 21, 2011
It would have created a much more dire situation with layoffs in companies that weren't necessary.
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
My apologies, it was actually 3 companies, but 4 times he bankrupted (Trump Entertainment Resorts = 2 times)
Taj Mahal Casino - unable to meet loan payments
Trump Plaza Hotel - unable to meet debt payments, gave up 49% stake, loss of pay as CEO/loss of ability to command day-to-day ops
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts - debt restructuring
Trump Entertainment Resorts - debt restructuring, resigned from the Board of Directors
And at least 2 of those were because the companies he was running were broke. In at least 2 of them he lost some ownership and in 1 of them he was forced to resign from the board. Obviously Trump Entertainment Resorts wasn't ran better after the first bankruptcy.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
Yes, but the high wage is there to attract the other 95% who don't screw up. You are going to find d-bags in any industry/position/pay-rate. One such d-bag is Donald trump, he is just a d-bag who can get a lot of press. Although a college degree is not required to drive a company into the ground, is is most helpful to the 95% who successfully lead their companies.
ajajadudeApr 20, 2011
I went to college. College degrees mean jack s**t if the jack ass running the ship can't think beyond his/her tenure.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Actually no, they don't require college educations. Many CEOs graduated only from high school. And no, they are responsible for the 'short term' future of their companies which has become a real problem at places like GM.
barackalypseApr 20, 2011
What companies pay their executives and their workers and the differential between them is the business of those companies and their shareholders. My only problem as a shareholder is when it is done in such a way as to encourage short-term stock price movement at the expense of longer term growth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
What business is it of yours what these CEO's make? I'm getting tired of people pointing fingers at those with more. You want more? Go make it yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonApr 20, 2011
Stealing is so much easier though, especially when we have uniformed thugs to back it up.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
I don't understand your statement. Are you saying CEO's steal?
linuxpersonApr 20, 2011
Not at all.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
Okay wasn't sure.
brsox2445Apr 20, 2011
Increasing worker pay causes higher input costs which makes us pay more. But increasing CEO pay stops talent from going to other companies.
bdbrApr 20, 2011
Inevitably it's about supply & demand. These are the largest companies, with several billion dollars of revenue. It's "typical" workers vs atypical CEOs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
caramba421Apr 20, 2011
I was going to leave my job, but then I thought about, "what about the poor CEO making $10,000,000/year. What we he do?"
markglApr 20, 2011
So? Work hard and become a CEO yourself!
zelnikApr 20, 2011
Wow, I am extremely impressed by the quality of comments to this forum.
Both sides of this argument however are equally ignorant, and at the same time, more interested in offending the other.
The idea that someone can "take the initiative" to become a "wealthy CEO" is practically spelling out the concept of the American Dream.
The idea that we should "mind our own business" in regard to money, is a load of trash. Look at the dollar, that handy piece of paper is FEDERAL PROPERTY. Everyone who is a citizen owns it, and the government owns it. If you have a problem with that? deal with it.
If you make bazillions of dollars, more power to you. However, it does not mean you are more "highly educated" then someone who is NOT a CEO. Most particle physicists, doctors, lab workers (like myself), teachers and engineers are undergoing constant education, and never stop. I will have to take 80 hours of education every three years just to maintain an MLT status, and more when I become an MLS. Ask a CEO how his product effects things on a scale of anything but profits or loss, and he probably won't be able to answer.
I have never met a CEO that has the level of education comparable to Doctors, computer scientists or particle physicists. I probably never will.
CEO's can be lucky (born into the job), greasy (shook the right hands), criminal (bribed the right people) or genius (found the right market). Unions can be the exact same. The difference? most unions don't own Yachts and small island nations. Also, most Unions pay their taxes instead of scream for lower ones.
in the end, does the top 5% need more then one mansion? No. Does the top 5% need their own private jet? no. Do the poor need better schools? yes. Do the poor need help to be inspired to do great things? yes.
remember, as terrible as liberals sound, they are responsible for the legislation that keeps children in school and not in coal mines, makes sure mercury is not in our water, keeps radioactive waste contained, and prevented the extinction of the bald eagle.
What have conservatives done? Dragged us into two hopeless wars, disenfranchised Michigan, tried to prevent gays from serving in the military, and things that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Small government this makes not.
autokadApr 20, 2011
3 big reasons why CEO salary has swollen are
#1 companies pay a lot less dividends. theres an idiotic theory that if you let companies keep all the money they earn, that they will invest it at a higher return than if they gave it back to you, but in reality, companies awash in cash waste it, and the first thing they do is inflate the C Suite salaries/bonuses.
#2 they started paying CEO's with huge amounts of shares, which sounded like a good idea, but that gave CEO's huge voting rights and often chair positions, making bonuses/raises easy for them to attain.
#3 CEOs get huge rewards for off shoring jobs, which puts downward pressure on worker salaries.
tomt127Apr 20, 2011
More companies should follow Whole Foods compensation for management.
They limit executive pay to 19 times the average full-time worker's salary.
nconn360Apr 20, 2011
"Earn"
thestripApr 20, 2011
Lets's see if I understand this correct. Get paid 347x more than those who actually do work to run a company into the ground and then ask the government to bail them out using our tax-dollars so they get approve themself a bonus for ineptitude or corruption?
autokadApr 20, 2011
your way off base. those ceos that ran their companies into the ground and got corporate bailouts made way more than the national average :P
ss_eaglestalentApr 20, 2011
Is it time for that raise yet?
mweelsApr 19, 2011
Then become a CEO and quit crying.
eraptorApr 19, 2011
Right, because we have an abundance of CEO positions available...
You might as well encourage people to become professional athletes since the odds of becoming a CEO are about the same.
mweelsApr 19, 2011
Anybody can become a CEO. I think it costs like $200 bucks to setup the company. Ohhh the part about actually thinking of an idea, executing, hiring people, finding a market, etc is the hard part?
Exactly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorApr 20, 2011
Really? So, if we take your advice, we can pay $200 and begin earning 343 times the typical worker on day one? Exactly. The topic of the article was excessive executive compensation, not entrepreneurship/becoming a CEO.
I don't know where you studied compensation practices, but MOST of the people earning that pay were hired/appointed into their positions. They didn't start those corporations/enterprises from scratch.
How would I know this? I've been working with executive compensation, benefits and perquisites for decades. What's the source of your expertise/opinion on the subject?
doub1Apr 20, 2011
...Or I could climb back in my mothers womb and come back as the son of a rich family that can call a few numbers and me into an Ivy league. All those golf lessons that they put me through will come in handy when I meet those venture capitalists.
Forget it, I'll take the easy route. I'll keep working at Walmart, but file for corporation papers when I get off the evening shift and then go around trying to get a start up loan using my 1985 Mustang 5.0 as collateral.
mweelsApr 20, 2011
I've started a number of companies and have made 1000 times what my employees do, and it's my business.
Seems like that's the issue now days. Everyone thinks they know what is right for everyone else.
These are shareholder's problems, of the companies they choose to invest in, and employees choose to work at.
Not yours.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorApr 20, 2011
If what you're saying is true (which I doubt), good for you. You're the exception, NOT the rule.
As for my views on the subject, they come from YEARS of experience with executive compensation and benefits. I've seen what works and what doesn't in this area. When it comes to compensation, your ideological beliefs/compensation practices have collapsed so many companies over the years that I've lost count of them.
You say it's nobody's business, but yours, and that's where you couldn't be MORE wrong. When ideological morons, such as yourself, champion these kinds of pay practices, you bleed your company dry, then proceed to harm company shareholders, creditors, employees, customers AND anyone affiliated with your company. The problem is that you're so self-absorbed, you ignore the damage you leave in your wake until it's too late. Even then, you deny it and simply move on to destroy other commercial enterprises. That's what the S&L executives did in the early 90's.
But, make no mistake, "what goes around, comes around". When it does, you'll be lucky to attract the capital needed for a lemonade stand. Disagree all you want, but I know where you're headed and the trail of failure you're destined to leave behind.
Take it from one of the precious few U.S.-based management consultants with a LONG track record of building successful corporations.
kasha34Apr 20, 2011
I agree. It's the OWNERS of the company that are paying CEOs whatever they are getting. If you are not an owner then it's none of your damned business.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
Well said. This spread the wealth mindset is poison. It is none of our business what these people make. I'm happy for them!
0ldb0yApr 20, 2011
dude what are you doing on digg? i mean go out there keep doing what you do. do you have an ebook somewhere on what you do, that i can read?
mlw4428Apr 20, 2011
@Kasha
Typically it's the Board of Directors who set the compensation for their executive officers. Obviously you've never ran a company, I have. The BoDs don't own the companies, they're usually (in public companies) elected by the shareholders. They then set all other policies with their choice of executive officers.
JustSayNoPartyApr 21, 2011
Wait, you earned 1000 times your average worker's pay? I'm not sure that's too be applauded.
And, what makes you think it's not ok to observe societal trends and speak out? Executive pay is out of whack in the U.S. and it's quite fair to speak up about it.
PyriteGenieApr 20, 2011
That whooshing sound you just heard was mweels' point going over your head.
eraptorApr 20, 2011
The point wasn't lost, it was irrelevant.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
Wait, I gotta disagree. ANYONE can start a company, making themselves CEO. Sure, it takes a good idea, a decent plan and solid implementation to make that new company successful. And with a real innovative idea, Joe "new CEO" Smith may be earning in the millions.
But still, the odds are way easier than becoming a pro athlete.
eraptorApr 23, 2011
Are you sure? Anyone can throw a football and gather some friends for a game, but that's as likely to make someone a professional athlete as it is to make a business owner a successful CEO.
In both cases, it takes a substantial amount of intelligence, skills, hard work and luck to achieve. The odds of achieving the pinnacle in sports and business are equally as remote.
whmeroeApr 20, 2011
If you want a CEO position you are always free to make your own. Why rely on someone else to give you something or make it available to you? Create the opportunity yourself.
bdbrApr 20, 2011
Actually these are the CEOs of "some of the nation's largest companies", so you're talking about 20 or so jobs. There are far more than 20 professional athletes.
PyriteGenieApr 20, 2011
Hence the definition of the word "typical."
ThunderBroApr 20, 2011
Here's an idea:
If being paid 1/343th that of a CEO really upsets you, how about you try setting up some goals, like becoming a CEO?
squall1980Apr 20, 2011
too true: I work for KeyBank (Cleveland) and in 2007 I did the calculation. The CEO Henry Meyer made 362x my salary.
coreyshivelyApr 20, 2011
yea and the CEO is responsible for 15,000 employees and making the right decision to keep them at their job. What was your job responsibilities?
autokadApr 20, 2011
i think you mean responsible for trying to offshore the remaining 15000 employees. that has been CEO's primary responsibility in the last 2 decades. Get paid big bucks for being able to move as many jobs as possible to china and such.
goody4youApr 21, 2011
that just ain't right.
threeblmediaApr 21, 2011
articles or research of this nature simply reinforce that capitalism rewards those who do very little
zelnikApr 21, 2011
This is not entirely fair. We are talking about CEO's not republicans congressmen. Some probably spend more time on yacts then at a desk, but the majority I would say do, in fact, do something involving their company for 8 hours a day.
There are no guarantees that what they do is ethical, legal, or good for the nation as a whole, but they do work.
nankobrontteApr 21, 2011
What an amazing number! It's unbelievable.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2011
Capitalism: a love story.
zirchxworldApr 21, 2011
more like, Capitalism: a success story.
jrreddyApr 20, 2011
someone dammed up you trickle down system
juzhaxApr 20, 2011
CEO take all the money !
blklightningApr 20, 2011
of course the rich are getting richer; they have more money that's out there making them more money.
johnalexApr 20, 2011
are we really surprised by this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8TepT_AmdA
laurahoustonApr 20, 2011
All Ceos and upper management positions have traditionally been very highly paid for a long time. Usually tied into bonus plans. Their retirement and insurance packages are close to the yearly salary in many cases.
The trend to over-pay the executives and ceo..is spread across america and even effects 'small town' management...like zoning boards and small town govs.
Take a look at the budget for your small town or neighborhood association people. Around here a regular board member is paid over 100k a year, full medical package and retirement program that pays in close to the same as the salary.
People tend to take what they can get, if they make the rules.
kriatifApr 20, 2011
not surprised.