digg

Join DiggAbout

What top tech CEOs really make

networkworld.com — Ever wonder how much the CEOs of tech companies make? Most of them are pretty ridiculous, but they range widely - from one dollar (yes, that's really what Steve Jobs made last year) to $78.4 million. And you may be surprised to learn who makes that fatcat salary.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ubernoggin, on 05/05/2008, -3/+21P.S. I meant to make note that this is a slideshow.
    • themarq, on 05/05/2008, -16/+5I really wish these jackholes would get it thru their heads that hardly anyone is going to click 31 times to read your entire article. I only got to 7 before I said to hell with it.
      • isiz, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7Guess I'm a minority then.
      • ulmedas, on 05/05/2008, -3/+12You lack the perseverance required for using the inter-webs my friend.
      • brundlefly76, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I am guessing that you didn't click through and just imagined it was a Fortune-like slideshow (which admittedly suck ass), which it isnt.

  • Julie188, on 05/05/2008, -4/+86Can you imagine your life if you ANNUAL income was $78.4 million? What's interesting to me is that even with these salaries, so many CEOs still spend their companies $ for perk on things that they well should pay for themselves -- relocating expenses and using the jet for vacation travel, etc.
    • litkaj, on 05/05/2008, -3/+57Why would you spend your own money when someone else is willing to spend theirs?
    • breezytrees, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10That's not his annual that's his 2007 salary. $78.4m was his retirement compensation.
    • isaactwito, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4Hell yeah, that's what I'd do. Sell your soul, get the world. What's a soul good for anyways?
    • clclark33, on 05/05/2008, -11/+4Yeah, people tend to get really angry at CEOs making large salaries. But consider two things... First, many of the same people that get angry at executives making this kind of money don't really mind that their favorite sports team's star player pulls in $30 per season for producing less tangible goods. Second, while the overall compensation of these guys tends to be high, the salaries aren't a great deal more than what our Congressmen and Senators make, but when they spend money on perks, it's OUR money and no one does a thing to stop it.

      These executives are in their positions for a reason: they get their jobs done and make money for their shareholders and provide jobs for many more people, yet they are still viewed harshly for making a lot more money than your average worker. Anybody here would love to have a salary like this, but few are willing to put forth the effort to get that kind of job (myself included, I just don't complain that someone else does).
      • aceakm, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6 CEOs make more, sorry.

        2001 400,0001
        Vice President $208,1002
        Senator 162,100
        Representative 162,100
        Majority and Minority Leaders 180,100
        Speaker of the House 208,100
        Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 208,100
        Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 199,200
        • Dubbsacc, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4lol, yea, base salary. Many of these people have other business interests that they have their hands in.
          • aceakm, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4$400,000 being the most, and having a CEO make 4 Million Plus, I doubt the side interests will top the CEOs.
    • duniyadnd, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Woah.. wait a second!! when a company buys another company, or a company is doing excessively bad, they lay off people, with probably no compensation - a pink slip is the only additional thing they can carry home (if the company does not utilize a golden handshake).

      But if a CEO is ousted cause the board doesn't think they're doing a great job, they'll still get compensated:
      http://news.softpedia.com/news/42-million-settleme ...

      Use the above as an example. And as "leaders" of their companies, they shouldn't be compensated for doing a bad job - they should be treated as an employee which is what they are.
  • louiebaur, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Wow thats crazy money
    • facereplacer, on 05/05/2008, -5/+5crazy disgusting

      I'm sure their presence and decision making ability is worth 78.4 million... W-T-F
      • svtspeed, on 05/05/2008, -9/+4“Greed: A word commonly used by liberals, low achievers, anti-capitalists and society's losers to denigrate, shame and discredit those who have acquired superior job skills and decision-making capabilities and who, through the application of those job”
        -Neal Boortz
        • ophello, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1way to drop a quote and be a moron at the same time.
        • ophello, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"Greed: A word commonly used by liberals, low achievers, anti-capitalists and society's losers to denigrate, shame and discredit those who have acquired superior job skills and decision-making capabilities and who, through the application of those job skills, achieve success."

          Try posting the whole quote next time.
    • creepydarkwurm, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Add it up and it comes to around 420 million dollars for 30 guys and these are the top execs, it doesn't include the other management people in those companies. I'm all for everyone making a buck but it gets excessive sometimes.
    • Berkana, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4What's sick is that there appears to be a negative correlation between performance and compensation. Steve Jobs and Google's CEO (whom I can't remember by name) both got less compensation than the rest of them.
      • alphgeek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That is because each of them is worth billions due to their investments in their respective companies. They hardly need a salary to pay the bills. They will likely get fat dividend payouts each year, or can sell off a couple of % of their holding and have enough to live on in luxury for life.

        But you are right, their isn't always a strong correlation between CEO salary and company performance. Smart CEOs rig their short term bonuses to favour their wallet.
      • Atomic1fire, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Except Jobs has stock benefits
        and I am sure the CEO of Google does too
  • MacBookForMe, on 05/05/2008, -35/+7Steve Jobs is worth much, much more he is getting...no matter the sum he is getting. His value for the business is so much higher, that this are just peanuts (not for me, of course):
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -12/+28Sorry all I heard was *slurp slurp slurp*... Mind repeating that after you pull Steve Job's dick out your mouth?
    • ulmedas, on 05/05/2008, -1/+27Well, he does make quite a bit from other things...He is the largest single shareholder of disney stock (a result of the sale of pixar.) He is doing ok for himself.
    • foofightrs777, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2I was just about to post what ulmedas posted. Only change I would make is rather than "ok" he's doing at least "extremely well" for himself.
      • ulmedas, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Sorry, I have a proclivity for understatements.
    • bobartig, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10That's just his salary, which is officially $1. He's been pulling a Lee Iacoca at Apple. Some other Silicon Valleyites also are doing this, like (I believe) Jerry Yang of Yahoo.
      The implied message is that he doesn't need a salary, and that it is an unnecessary drain on the companies assets. But he's still getting outrageous option grants, which are priced so favorably that they're worth hundreds of millions.
    • falkonv7l, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Taxes
    • nickert0n, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9You are all idiots, read up on steve jobs. The deal is this, he gets WAAAY more stock per year and no salary due to not being taxed as high on his "investments" as he would on his salary, its tax evasion + publicity notthing more.
      Steve Jobs is a *****
      • clclark33, on 05/05/2008, -6/+3Can't we get over this wealth envy crap? They pay way more taxes than you and provide the money in the budget for the country. Tax revenues actually went up after the last "tax cut for the wealthy" because they earned more money overall, and while paid less in percentage of income tax, actually ended up forking over more money to Uncle Sam than before the tax cuts. Educate yourself.
        • tnoy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Its a matter of percentage. Its great that he's forking over more money to Uncle Sam, but what is not great is he's probably paying ~20% for fed+state while I'm paying 35%. Only the ultra-wealthy can exploit this. People act like he's great for only taking $1 as a salary, when getting stocks gets him MORE money and costs LESS in taxes.

          Warren Buffet has even spoken out on it being a sham that only the ultra-wealthy can exploit. (He does it too, of course)
          • clclark33, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Percentage of income doesn't matter, but the percentage they pay of the total tax revenues does. They pay vastly more than 80% of the population.
            And they don't pay "less" in taxes, they pay a LOWER tax rate. Check with the government statistics on revenue... the tax revenues actually went UP after the most recent "tax cuts for the wealthy."
        • nickert0n, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Uh Uncle Sam? Do you know where your individual income tax revenue goes? Do you even have a clue? If you did you would know that it does not go to the government, its goes to the IRS. An illegal and unconstituonal organization in which was put in place by members of congress on a x-mas morning when no one was there EVEN though the 16th ammendment was never ratified.

          You pay income tax to pay of the interest of the Federal Reserve, an organization that LOANS money to the govenment with interest. That interest is paid by you, illegally. FOR I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A U.S. LAW that states anindividual (not a corporation) must pay income tax.

          There isnt one. Its illegal, and you dont have to pay it. Look into it. Watch Zeitgeist, and America: Freedom to Facism.
          • clclark33, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Yeah, try it. You'll go to jail. I'm as much against the IRS and a Federal Income Tax as anyone, but you're a fool if you think you can avoid paying taxes and stay out of jail... just as Wesley Snipes. Court decisions routinely back up your position as untenable. Enjoy the ignorance or work to repeal the 16th Amendment, which does in fact provide for the Federal Income Tax as stated: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

            If you want real change and a true fair way to tax people look up the Fair Tax at www.fairtax.org
          • nickert0n, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The 16th Ammendment has never been ratified, explain that in court and you wont goto Jail, if you point out its a sham then there *****, there are tons of cases I mean litterally dozens of documented cases that the accused is winning. Stress the fact in which "show me the law in which it states I have to pay income tax" and they cant, the jury sees that case closed.

            The problem is Wesley Snipes thinks he has to pay it therefore does not have a valid argument, he thinks he breaking the law therefore he is.

            the IRS are thugs your right they have the authority to throw you in jail, after a trial, however win the trial with the FACT that it is infact an illegal operation and ask for the LAW that its infact LAW and they cant show you. Watch those movies I dare you you dont have to pay income tax there are neough taxes from every sector to pay all expenses required by your system in the U.S. . The 16th ammendment has never been radified therefore its not legal, therefore trully your argument is"The IRS will make you pay like a bully in the playground"

            Stand up to the Bully or be Bullied for the rest of your life its your choice.
    • specialK16, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Obvious troll is obvious.
      • 15thPD, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Ceiling cat is watching you masturbate.
  • DeathWish808, on 05/05/2008, -6/+119At least I made more money than one of them! :-D
    • NoCt1, on 05/05/2008, -0/+25Not including Stocks.
      • lrdntwnd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Steve didn't earn anything extra in fiscal year 2007.
        • anatraj, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6How do you know, have you seen his income tax returns? I'm sure he had plenty of investment income.
          • ronmexico, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Yeah but this article was about his salary at Apple.
        • skunkman62, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2god i love it when fanboys refer steve jobs as steve. like jobs is their buddy. anyway your boy steve made $14.6 million in 07 according to forbes. http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/hdw/?p=2133
    • CSharpSauce, on 05/05/2008, -1/+16I'm guessing you're talking about Steve Jobs :) .... and you're only referring to his annual compensation :)
      • wellyuk, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Yes :) I guess he is :) Well done :)
        • mhender, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2:) Steve Jobs makes lots of money :)
    • MrSketch, on 05/05/2008, -3/+8FTA: "Steve Job's total compensation for Apple's 2007 fiscal year was his $1 salary. No bonus, no stock or option awards, no other compensation."
    • veloscaper, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Apple was being investigated by the SEC for improperly back dating stock option grants. Thats why Jobs appears to have no options given in 2007. It's an anomaly year, which I'm sure he will be compensated for in coming years.
    • iloveliberals, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6$1 means Steve Jobs paid 7 cents to social security and medicare. Thanks a lot, Steve!
      • veloscaper, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I'm sure it cost social security and medicare more than 7 cents to process his information.
        • Faucht, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I'm sure Steve Jobs has thought this through enough for the three of us.
  • heythisismyname, on 05/05/2008, -15/+37How could they not include earnings from stock options?

    Interesting but inaccurate.
    • wezman2, on 05/05/2008, -1/+20Um... did you read the article? They did include them.
    • Ryan166, on 05/05/2008, -5/+22Ya really. Steve Jobs is the highest paid CEO of any fortune 500 company, and this website tries to paint him as a humble do-gooder.
    • EntangledPhysx, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Steve Jobs makes more then 1 dollar a year. Doesn't he get his salary from stocks? Not from Apple directly via paycheck? They didn't mention that on the slide show.
    • trevorbadly, on 05/05/2008, -7/+2Jobs wouldn't be working at Apple if he only made $1/year. This is totally a misrepresentation by some stupid Mac fanboy. (Let the burying begin)
  • oderdigg, on 05/05/2008, -9/+107Buried as inaccurate. Steve Jobs' salary was 1$ but not his total compensation. He does receive stock and that pushes him in the millions / year.
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/05/2008, -7/+47Shhhh! Why don't you tell them that Jobs isn't Santa Claus and that he didn't invent the MP3 and Harry Potter while you're at it?

      You have to ease people slowly into these things.
    • twertyto, on 05/05/2008, -2/+8Can anyone point to evidence in either direction?
      • Firehed, on 05/05/2008, -2/+8Jobs is a multi-billionaire, and it's well known that despite receiving a $1 salary, he gets millions worth of perks and compensation in many forms.
        • Loornadune, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5That's not what the article is about though, it's about their SALARY. If it was about their total assets, it would be more 'accurate'
        • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2It's also very clear that he's not working for the money. Neither are most of Apple's top executives; they could all retire rich right now if they wanted to.

          -jcr
      • oderdigg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+31http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs



        FTA, "His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000–2002[30]. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy."
        • Dumbledorito, on 05/05/2008, -0/+11"Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy."

          Which the average joe can't participate in nearly as well, and must therefore have a higher percentage of his income go to tax.

          In short, "it's good to be king."
          • twertyto, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1The average joe isn't taxed 15% by the federal government thought.
          • Kajman, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6yeah, if you're making $60K a year (a good starting salary /w a 4 year degree) you'll be paying 25% income instead.
    • ConanTL, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Anybody know what kind of salary he gets from Pixar?

      • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1He gets stock grants as a Disney board member.

        -jcr
    • pakakapa, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1that's still millions less than tons of stock + millions of cash
    • ferory, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Correct. http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/02/to ...
  • agentVivid, on 05/05/2008, -19/+12***** steve jobs and his $1 salary. prick.
    • timlopez, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5in a way, I agree - how much in taxes did he pay?
      • CSharpSauce, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4you still pay taxes on stock
      • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -0/+115% for capital gains. A certain candidate wants to raise the hell out of, making investing less appealing.
        • dracflamloc, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Or from another perspective... making salary relevant to these big-wig CEOs. $1 salary is just a publicity stunt, and a way to avoid income tax (Which is usually about 40% for big money) by only paying 15% on capital *gains*.
          • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Yes. Called an incentive. By investing in the US market, you get to keep more of your money in the long run. If people were turned off from making investments, the market as a whole would be on a bad track, as it mostly runs on investments.
      • clclark33, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Way more than you, and likely way more than 95% of Americans. Can't we get over this wealth envy crap? They pay way more taxes than you and provide the money in the budget for the country. Tax revenues actually went up after the last "tax cut for the wealthy" because they earned more money overall, and while paid less in percentage of income tax, actually ended up forking over more money to Uncle Sam than before the tax cuts. Educate yourself.
        • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I think they should keep pissing them off until they all move to Dubai. Oops. Who's going to pay for our welfare & social programs now?
  • slimBoost, on 05/05/2008, -4/+48they all look alike... weird
    • AngryFox, on 05/05/2008, -7/+3Old white guys... yeah... it was eerie. Not surprising... but still disturbing.
      • abhiroop, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6only one non-caucasian, its amazing!
        • timusca, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2can't we just say WHITE?!

          Caucasian doesn't even mean "white"... it means anglo-saxon.
    • ligyron, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1They look alike how? They're all wearing nice clothes? Well, they are hugely successful and wealthy, so that's not all that shocking
    • wellyuk, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3With the exception of two of them (Jobs and Ellison), they all look like the kind of people who were picked on as kids.
    • gn02256676, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0ya I'd smile like that too if I am making too much money
    • BitKid, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1All of these pictures just make these people look incredibly creepy. Sun Microsystem's CEO is the only guy that looks cool tho, with his groovy ponytail.
  • timlopez, on 05/05/2008, -2/+21This isn't what CEO's really make. They have tons of stock in their company, and probably receive more and more shares on a daily basis.
    • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Maybe the language is off, but it does say total compensation. I think they are taking such things into account.

      Mike Zafirovski
      $1.3 million salary in 2007
      $3.3 million in stock awards
      $3.1 million in option awards
      $1.3 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation.
      Changes in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings ($698,714) along with $378,559 in "other compensation" brought his 2007 compensation total to $10.1 million.

      I see similar things for the other CEOs.

    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1They took into account stock options and awards. If you notice none of their actual salaries are greater than $2 million. The bulk of the money they all make is in options and awards.
  • vajra918, on 05/05/2008, -8/+16Yes, let's completely ignore stock/options...
    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Except they didn't....read it next time.
  • uptwolait, on 05/05/2008, -4/+32I shoulda studied harder in school. Or slept with the right people.
    • erlkonig64, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9The latter is probably more effective
    • faithfreedom, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2you means "slept with the right person" ?
  • sexybobo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+20Man the att CEO even looks like an evil old man.
  • Rotzooi, on 05/05/2008, -7/+6Inaccurate, buried.
    • grimward, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5yes, I agree, VERY inaccurate, that smirking bitch Jobs earns way more than one dollar.
  • philibu, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7I like that most of them are smiling.
  • Nougat, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3All those kinds of high salaries do is communicate to those guys (all of them are men) that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want.
    • ulmedas, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1They do to some degree, as most of them are CEO and either president or chairman. Hence, they can do pretty much anything they want (within the law, though, that is up for interpretation). They answer to share holders, and generally only once a year. You got to really screw the pooch, as it were, to get resigned as a chairman/ceo.
      • pcerritos, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I think Nougat meant more like hunting the most dangerous game, a la Hostel II
    • Lasereth, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Did you say Cate Blanchett. Mmm...
  • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/05/2008, -9/+1I wouldn't mind it if one of them was my father... I could deal with that.

    It would be like "PhattyPhattMatt, I am your FAATHER"- Love Poppa Steve
    • Shiggie, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5what the ***** are you talking about?
  • koft, on 05/05/2008, -8/+2Another article where you have to click a button 1000 times to get all the content. ***** buried.
    • HonoredMule, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Kids have it so rough these days.
  • FK0123, on 05/05/2008, -7/+7Horribly inaccurate. These should say total salary (which usually isn't even half of what you earn), not total compensation.
    • sexybobo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4No read the article this is total compensation
      Eric Schmidt has a $1 salary but he is listed at $480,561 because "Schmidt also received a $1,898 bonus and $478,662 in "other compensation" (the bulk of it for personal security)"
    • shark72, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The article in question is about total compensation (salary, plus stock and various other things), not total salary. If the article just covered salaries, then yeah -- you'd be correct.

      You're not the only one to point this out. I'm guessing that many people just commented without reading the article.
  • kjax82, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Robert Beauchamp = John Lithgow (sp)
    • Stryder81, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1LMAO, He has the tilt just like him also.
  • dannytehmanny, on 05/05/2008, -12/+57steve jobs is overpaid
  • Scottievm, on 05/05/2008, -0/+21Could Jonathan Schwartz of Sun Microsystems look any more like a stereotypical nerd?
    • KyjL, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1With the last name of Schwartz even.
    • AJQuick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2No.. he is at his maximum level or nerdiness.
  • WoWii, on 05/05/2008, -1/+48What does Kevin Rose make?
    • NinjaBoy, on 05/05/2008, -3/+30Free beer and *****
      • oderdigg, on 05/05/2008, -1/+10wait wait... free ***** AND free beer or just free beer and *****...
        • bracketdash, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Free beer, he has to earn the *****.

          ...but the free beer helps with that, too.
    • aenima987, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5i thought jay adelson is CEO, and Kevin runs certain parts of it
    • darkism, on 05/05/2008, -1/+47Not much considering how many of you people run AdBlock.
  • theL3G4CY, on 05/05/2008, -1/+20the chairman of redhat made more than ballmer? What the flim flam??
  • alpha19, on 05/05/2008, -4/+35They're all men... heh.
  • rsek, on 05/05/2008, -3/+18the more they earn, the more the company sucks
  • j0hnk377y, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1BMC's CEO is a tool.
    • jazzboyrules, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1May be not, but he surely looks like one.
  • mackattack22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7Greg Brown IS Motorola!
    • darkfate, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Yes! I saw that. I guess someone dropped the ball on proofreading!
  • Iztikeit, on 05/05/2008, -5/+3And they all probably pay less taxes than we do. I'm also surprised by the salary of the redhat CEO.
    • clclark33, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7Not possible. These guys that everyone despises for their wealth pay the lionshare of all Federal Income Taxes and yet they are still reviled as not paying their "fair share."
    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7I guarantee you every one of those individuals pays enough taxes in one year to cover whatever measly taxes you pay annually for the next 50 years.
    • wellyuk, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3There's that word again.. "probably".

      Probably my ass.
    • iloveliberals, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1I paid about 215,000 times more in Social Security/Medicare than Steve Jobs. He paid about 7 cents, and I paid (because I'm self employed) about $15,000.
      • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2If you seriously believe that on his 2007 income tax return Steve Jobs reported an gross income of $1 you're a ***** idiot.
  • robinthehood, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14too.many.old.white.men.establishment.crushing.me.
  • yevkasem, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4all but two of them make more than the ceo of exxon.
    • artisresistance, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2As it should be.
    • Black6x, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I'm sure the Exxon CEO gets some type of comp/discount on gas, which probably adds up at today's costs.
  • mewplustwo, on 05/05/2008, -18/+4Steve Jobs why don't you take that $1 a year and buy some toilet paper --- stop acting like your iShyt don't stink cause you reek of prickness.

    Or you could use that $1 to buy an iTunes song and be able to only listen to it on one device (and you still have a penny left!)
  • jwk4heels, on 05/05/2008, -8/+7That is disgusting.
    • KingRat6, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Disgusting? Why? You might say that they deserve less or "don't need that much."

      But I'll guarantee I could make the argument that YOU get paid too much money and don't need as much. Try to look at the big picture for once it's pretty helpful.
      • jwk4heels, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5When a CEO makes thousands of times more than the people that work for him, that is disgusting. When a CEO gets such an obscene amount of money while his company pays people in the US minimum wage (not even a LIVING WAGE for Christ's sake), and when his company pays people in other countries cents per ***** WEEK, that, sir, IS DISGUSTING. When that CEO's company misuses that money by paying him an obscene amount that could be used to provide health care, cut down the company's carbon footprint, make things of a little higher quality, or pay the slave laborers in other countries at least a real wage that doesn't lock them into debt with the factory, THAT IS DISGUSTING. These CEO pricks must have no ***** soul. Look at the BIG ***** PICTURE. And may I add that the US is the only country with such a huge gap between average worker salaries and their CEO's salary.
      • ikkefc3, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2@jwk4heels: Then do not work for a company with a CEO.
    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4What's disgusting is communists like you who think everyone should earn based on what other people earn.
      • krusade, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4You nailed him, dude! ***** those commies who think CEOs shouldn't be paid obscene amounts of money for sitting on their asses.
        • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2You don't get to be a CEO by sitting on your ass. Their compensation is reward for a long career of hard work producing good results.
        • chaosium, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Sticking up for American workers = "hating America".
        • vault, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4So Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and Larry Ellison just sat on their ass the whole time? They had no unique skills and talents which made them billionaires...just fell into their lap huh?

          No, they didn't work in a factory for minimum wage. I'm willing to bet you and 99% of the people reading this never did either. But they were willing to take tremendous risks when they saw opportunity and had the ability to turn them into multibillion dollar companies...creating jobs, shareholder wealth, tax revenue, etc.

          If becoming a billionaire was just a matter of sitting on your ass all day, then there would be more of them. They all were and are entrepreneurs...it's not like they just took the direct route to some high paying do-nothing job.

          It's not as easy as many pretend it is.
      • BabyWookie, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3These capitalists are the true parasites. They do not contribute any thing tangible. All they do is exploit other people's ideas and hard labor, and herd money.
        • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3I trust you've moved out of America and into some communist country in an effort to improve your living situation then?
          • BabyWookie, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I wish that there were some Communist countries out there, but there are none and there have been none thus far. A fully centrally-planned economy ran by an authoritarian government, is NOT "Communism". Not even close.
          • dan222555, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Well you might as well do the best you can and move to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos....
        • ikkefc3, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Why not complain about the fact that Hans get's 25% more paid than John, but complaining about CEO's? Oh, no, they are responsible for their employes..., what you don't know Hans, neither John?? But how could you know the CEO? What, he is an important person (that is easily to bash)?
  • Monkeydew06, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7Surprising how little Microsoft's Steve Ballmer makes compared to the other top dogs.
    • alphgeek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, he must be really struggling as the 43rd richest person on Earth with his lousy $15 billion...
  • AlKo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Anyone else notice how even companies on the list that are doing really crappy still pay out to their CEOs? AT&T CEOs make more than Verizon? And ALL the Motorola execs?
  • etx313, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3They still cry themselves to sleep like little girls.

    Yeah, I'm jealous. So what! :)
  • ninjasaurus, on 05/05/2008, -1/+9From wiki:
    Whitacre's compensation for 2006 totaled $61 million[3], $17 million in 2005, and about $14 million in 2004.

    Following retirement, under his employment contract Whitacre is entitled to receive for life (except as otherwise noted):

    * Automobile benefits (estimated at $24,000 annually)
    * Access to AT&T's corporate aircraft, up to 10 hours of usage per month (estimated incremental monthly cost of $20,000)
    * Use of AT&T office facilities and support staff
    * Home security (estimated at $6,500 annually)
    * Payment of applicable taxes resulting from these benefits, except for use of the aircraft (estimated at $19,000 annually)

    In addition, Whiteacre has a three year consulting contract with AT&T, by which he will be paid about $1 million annually, and receive:

    * Club memberships (estimated at $25,000 annually) and
    * Payment of applicable taxes resulting from these benefits (estimated at $15,600 annually)

    -- wow are those things REALLY necessary? I think he can afford his own goodies now...
  • twertyto, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2I don't like stories that make outrageous claims (whether true or not) and provide no evidence to back up their facts. Can anyone shed light on Steve Jobs' $1 salary?
    • gtlogic, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5A lot of CEOs take in only $1 for a salary, but are usually compensated through stock instead.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
    • oderdigg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

      FTA, "His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000–2002[30]. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy."
    • sdipaola, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Steve Jobs 2007 = $14.6 million

      from http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/02/to ...
  • gtlogic, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Wow, I wouldn't have even guessed that Sun was actually worth 14 million.
    • alphgeek, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1What do Sun actually make these days? Lawsuits?
  • Princeamor, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Woa this is amazingly surprising! You would think that all the numbers would be the other way around! The most popular company CEO's have made the least!
    • gtlogic, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5In salary, yes. In total compensation, no. These low salary CEOs make the majority of their money through stock options. So as it turns out, the most popular companies also make the most money for their CEOs because their stocks actually go up, unlike motorola.
  • hadak, on 05/05/2008, -3/+9i can haz dollars plx?
  • twertyto, on 05/05/2008, -6/+21White, white, white, white, white, black, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, latino, white, white, white, white, white, white...etc.
    • oderdigg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+11At least recognize progress. There is ONE black guy there. 20 years ago it wouldn't have happened.
      • uziko, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1how is having someone based on their skin color progress, you racist pig, go to hell
      • ikkefc3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Depends on the country where you look.
    • plizard, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4obama? is that you?
    • Virgule, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3most original and unexpected comment ever. There is no emoticon to represent exactly how I feel right now... LOL
    • uziko, on 05/05/2008, -6/+1racist
    • karaokekidd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5I saw one middle eastern guy too, Edgar Masri. I don't even mind the Italians, french etc white guys there.

      I notice many stereotypical WASPS and Jews true enough.
  • bmson, on 05/05/2008, -3/+12Dame they are ugly.
  • mashlin, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7man the guy from 3rd rock from the sun is raking in the dough
  • kingmanic, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7It seems the compensation is inversely proportional to how much the CEO is economically and historically invested with the company. Steve Jobs = Apple = 1$ /year. Eric Schmidt = ~1/2 Google = 1/2 million/year. Steve Ballmer = ~1/2 of MS = 1 million / year. Sam Pamisano = random guy at IBM = 22 million. Likely because the Steves and Eric have enough shares in their companies that they don't care how much they actually make per year and are more concerned about how well the company does while those with bigger compensations because they lack those shares or emotional investment. Also subsequently the Steve's and Eric are far more driven then the others.

    PS. It's appropriate that the CEO of sun micro systems has a pony tail!
  • abednarz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6The numbers DO include stock awards, option awards and other deferred earnings accumulated during the fiscal year. What they DON'T include are stock gains -- money these guys made off stock they already own. That's not part of what the SEC requires companies to disclose in reporting executive compensation.
    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Once you own the stock it's yours and whatever money you make is your personal income--the company has nothing to do with it.
  • opencipher, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Yeah, but I could kick all of their asses. Maybe some a few at a time.....that is how I make myself feel better, plus I work for one of them :(
  • IdevInull, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10I don't think those amounts are a problem -- as long as their companies are doing well. But SUN is about to lay off over 2000 people -- and their CEO is making millions for failing the company?
    • alphgeek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1In CEO-land laying off staff is generally seen as a positive achievement.
  • homercles337, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4Hey look! Its a bunch of wealthy white d00ds. Yay for capitalism! Yay?
    • smeenz, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0John Thompson from Symantec isn't white.. although admittedly he is right down there in the scale of things, at *only* 4.8 mil...
    • protium, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Oprah pulls in 200 million a year, how do you like that, a black woman making more than you me and most diggers (probably combined, can't imagine apple users making serious cash, xcept for jobs). Capitalism isn't so bad.
  • Puppetx, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1How did sprint/nextel have 2 ceo/president last year?
    • plizard, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2one quit and they replaced him!
    • krische, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1And I like how Sprint is in the ***** and yet their CEO is number 2 on the list. Hmm, where's their money going?
      • lambo29, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1i noticed that too, how about they dump that into their cell towers, god sprint sucks.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.