American CEOs get 354 times salary of workers. In most countries ratio around 80 to 1 (still too hi)

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.

CEOs Get Paid Too Much According to Pretty Much Everyone in the World - HBR

 

[Porker]

On the other hand...this didn't use to be "most countries". Obama has evened the playing field for the takeover by the new world order.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.

CEOs Get Paid Too Much According to Pretty Much Everyone in the World - HBR

sorry...as long as the stockholders put up with it it is their problem....not the governments. If someone doesn't like what the CEOS makes....start their own company and pay them what you think is best...or become one yourself.......

 

[Brain357]

I'm a super-capitalist but even i think some govt intervention may be in order here. Ratio should be maybe 10 to 1.

CEOs Get Paid Too Much According to Pretty Much Everyone in the World - HBR

In the 60s it was more like 24x the average worker. Our inequality is out of control. This inequality is why our economy grows so slow now.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

Personally, I believe fines are in order for any company that has more than say 15% of their employees who qualify for welfare. That leaves room for companies who hire part time help, teenagers, etc etc while still dictating that the majority of their employees will not be on welfare due to their wages.

All would be based on a SINGLE employee, no dependents, IOW if you have 8 kids it isn't Wal Mart's problem to make sure you are earning enough to support 8 kid, and they wouldn't be penalized for not doing so. They are only required to pay you enough to support YOURSELF.

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.

That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.

 

[whitehall]

If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.

 

[Brain357]

If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.

It's the overpaid ceos that are overpaying Hollywood. Need to start with the top.

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

i don't see how that would increase wages for the average worker.

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

i don't see how that would increase wages for the average worker.

I never said it would.......it would be fair.......that is the point for you guys...right....being fair.....?

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.

That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.

We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....

It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....

The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......

And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....

How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....

 

[depotoo]

And sports figures.

If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.

 

[depotoo]

Just as the Dems want-
The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.

That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.

We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....

It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....

The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......

And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....

How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....

 

[2aguy]

And sports figures.

If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.

Ah....you beat me to it....don't forget the lefties in Hollywood....let's set the pay scale for the biggest libs in hollywood at 4,000 dollars for each months work...so if they work on a movie for 6 months...they get 24,000....before taxes......

Let's see how they like that......

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.

That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.

We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....

It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....

The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......

And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....

How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....

Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.

 

[Brain357]

And sports figures.

If you want to take on income equality here's the deal. Start with Hollywood and show the world how it works out. Make sure the actors get paid 10-1 and then tackle the record industry and news anchors.

Again the very rich team owners are deciding to pay players.

 

[2aguy]

I don't believe there should be a government mandated ratio, but I do believe that no CEO should be earning even 20X what the lowest paid employee in the company is making if that employee qualifies for welfare based on their salary.

Pure capitalism is as stupid and dangerous as pure socialism.

I don't think I would mandate a ratio. I would have tax incentives for better worker pay.

I wouldn't have incentives....I would go to a flat tax.....after you get rid of withholding from pay checks....that is the real secret to taxes.....they take it before you get it....make a flat tax with a 40-45,000 tax free level, everyone gets that break so it is fair, and everyone pays the same rate but the rich will obviously pay more....

And again....who cares what the CEOs are paid.....if the stock holders don't mind paying it, and they think the guy/gal is worth it....more power to them...and if the CEO sucks...they suffer....

If you don't like that....start your own company and pay the CEO what you want....or become a CEO yourself......problem solved.........with no government meddling.....

you should care if a CEO is making $20M a year while we the taxpayer are subsidizing his employee's paycheck. Certaily you should care.

That is no different than saying if left to the shareholders they would say "screw the environment" and start dumping their garbage into a lake, much cheaper than paying for proper disposal and so in their best interest; but we the taxpayer through the government won't allow them to just do whatever is in their best interest.

We aren't subsidizing their paycheck because of their employer not paying them enough....we are subsidizing them because they have, for some reason, not been able to secure enough money for themsleves...so now must turn to government charity....

It is not the employers job to take care of every aspect of an employee's life.....they have a job that needs to be done, they offer a wage, and someone can take the job or not.....

The relationship you imply when you say we are subsidizing the employees paycheck is that the employer is their master/owner, and is responsible for every aspect of their slaves life, from their food, clothing and shelter to their healthcare......

And no, it isn't the same as if they are dumping garbage into a lake, the lake effects everyone because everyone else property is affected by the pollution in the lake, the government has a role in settling disputes about infractions between private parties...that is why we have courts, and police....

How much they are paid.....not our job to make up for it.....

Yes they help the rich employer make money while the tax payer subsidizes their pay.

No...they help themselves make money by doing a job that needs doing...if they want more money they get a job that pays more for that job.......the tax payer has no part in that relationship......if they need government charity....they need to get better/ more valuable skills.....