CEO pay is 380 times average worker's

[Sallow]

CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

So does the CEO work 380 times harder?

Or is the CEO 380 times more useful?

Most nations pay gap is 20/50-1. Not 380-1. It's absolute ignorance.

The job of the CEO today is to prevent pay raises. They get about 25% while the corporations get about 75%. It pays good to be a Cash Driven idiot.

Sadly, "Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low "

Read more: Profits At High, Wages At Low - Business Insider


Why are workers trash when Corporations can't thrive without them?

Most CEOs add little or no value to a company.

Many are really there to look nice, wine and dine clients and show up to meetings.

And when I say "show up", generally you hope they are not completely blotto.

 

[Sallow]

How About a Maximum Wage? : Taxation: F.D.R. wanted to cap incomes of the wealthy--an idea whose time may have come again.

 

[Nosmo King]

The CEO is 380 times more likely to create a job than you are too.

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

 

[Sallow]

The CEO is 380 times more likely to create a job than you are too.

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

Some of them do..

According to the paper, Reeves handed over his valuable profit-sharing points to the franchise's special-effects and costume-design team. Whoa, dude!

"He felt that they were the ones who made the movie and that they should participate," an unnamed movie executive tells the Journal.

And it's not the first time that Reeves has shared his movie spoils. On The Devil's Advocate, Reeves shaved his salary by a few million dollars so that producers could afford Al Pacino, and he did the same thing on The Replacements to be able to work with Gene Hackman, according to the Journal.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=102572

I seriously did want to like "47 Ronin".

 

[Jarhead]

The CEO is 380 times more likely to create a job than you are too.

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

And a CEO who is offered 380 times the salary of the existing average employee ALSO had no say in the salaries of those employees before he or she accepted the position.

Nice try though.

 

[Jarhead]

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

Some of them do..

According to the paper, Reeves handed over his valuable profit-sharing points to the franchise's special-effects and costume-design team. Whoa, dude!

"He felt that they were the ones who made the movie and that they should participate," an unnamed movie executive tells the Journal.

And it's not the first time that Reeves has shared his movie spoils. On The Devil's Advocate, Reeves shaved his salary by a few million dollars so that producers could afford Al Pacino, and he did the same thing on The Replacements to be able to work with Gene Hackman, according to the Journal.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=102572

I seriously did want to like "47 Ronin".

And such generosity is so unusual in the entertainment industry, it made news.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

Some of them do..

According to the paper, Reeves handed over his valuable profit-sharing points to the franchise's special-effects and costume-design team. Whoa, dude!

"He felt that they were the ones who made the movie and that they should participate," an unnamed movie executive tells the Journal.

And it's not the first time that Reeves has shared his movie spoils. On The Devil's Advocate, Reeves shaved his salary by a few million dollars so that producers could afford Al Pacino, and he did the same thing on The Replacements to be able to work with Gene Hackman, according to the Journal.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=102572

I seriously did want to like "47 Ronin".

 

[Nosmo King]

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

And a CEO who is offered 380 times the salary of the existing average employee ALSO had no say in the salaries of those employees before he or she accepted the position.

Nice try though.

How many CEOs then spread the wealth to those who produce his exorbitant salary? While middle class incomes have stagnated, the salaries in the executive suite have skyrocketed? What's the benefit of that? Does it make for a stronger consumer base? Does it make our economy stronger?

Why are Conservatives so quick to buttress wage disparity? Could someone explain the larger, long term benefits of paying one employee 380 times the average wage in a business?

 

[Jarhead]

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

And a CEO who is offered 380 times the salary of the existing average employee ALSO had no say in the salaries of those employees before he or she accepted the position.

Nice try though.

How many CEOs then spread the wealth to those who produce his exorbitant salary? While middle class incomes have stagnated, the salaries in the executive suite have skyrocketed? What's the benefit of that? Does it make for a stronger consumer base? Does it make our economy stronger?

Why are Conservatives so quick to buttress wage disparity? Could someone explain the larger, long term benefits of paying one employee 380 times the average wage in a business?

And how many actors then spread the wealth to those that assist in the success of the movie?

You ALSO are quick to buttress wage Disparity when it pertains to the entertainment industry. You immediately defended the high income of actors saying....paraphrased...."it is not their decision what others get paid..."

But as Sallow showed you....they most certainly could. They simply opt not to.

Look in the mirror my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Assuming I'm one of the slaves working under this CEO in this scenario, making anywhere between 10 and 15 bucks an hour, lets do some simple math.

At 10 bucks, times 380, that's 3800 bucks an hour.

At 15 bucks, times 380, that's 5700 bucks an hour. That's insane. BUT-- he's the CEO. He's the reason I'm working there. But now I have the nerve to complain about a pay gap? He may as well not care about how good I do my job and fire me for being the ingrate that I am.

You sir, have no clue what it takes to work for a CEO. They pay real well, and employ hundreds of thousands of people. Okay, so back to reality:

If you're going to slap new regulations on these CEO's make it harder for them to profit AND hike taxes on them, no wonder there is a pay gap. Liberal policies are creating it, not the capitalist ones you seem to loathe with a passion. The more you tax, the less they earn, and thus the less their workers earn.

That's one hell of a way to have your idea backfire on you.

 

[Jarhead]

The problem with all of you is that you opt to compare the top salary with the bottom salary.

If a company is large enough for the CEO to get paid 3 million a year, then there are many tiers of employees....

You have:

Low level/entry level
Team lead
Supervisor
Manager
Director
Managing Director

When a low level proves worthy, he or she becomes a team lead with an increase in salary. Then a supervisor, then a manager, then a director and then a managing director.

And that is one business model....often found in a service industry.

And I have news for you....a CEO may be making 3 million......but ONLY if the managing director is doing well.....and that person is ALSO making a nice salary.....and so on and so on.

 

[Seawytch]

It's amazing that "conservatives" don't see anything wrong with this picture:

 

[TemplarKormac]

The CEO is 380 times more likely to create a job than you are too.

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

Nor do rich liberals in Washington with twisted senses of "income equality."

How can anyone making millions of dollars complain about income inequality? They are the very rich people that they are complaining about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Sallow]

I wonder if liberals are angry with actors or singers. Their pay is probably 500 times what the lowly people who work on the set make.

Actors don't decide what the crew salary is.

And a CEO who is offered 380 times the salary of the existing average employee ALSO had no say in the salaries of those employees before he or she accepted the position.

Nice try though.

Wait, what?

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And once a CEO is in place, yeah, that is some of the decisions they make.

Salary ranges.

They also decide on hires and lay offs.

 

[Sallow]

The problem with all of you is that you opt to compare the top salary with the bottom salary.

If a company is large enough for the CEO to get paid 3 million a year, then there are many tiers of employees....

You have:

Low level/entry level
Team lead
Supervisor
Manager
Director
Managing Director

When a low level proves worthy, he or she becomes a team lead with an increase in salary. Then a supervisor, then a manager, then a director and then a managing director.

And that is one business model....often found in a service industry.

And I have news for you....a CEO may be making 3 million......but ONLY if the managing director is doing well.....and that person is ALSO making a nice salary.....and so on and so on.

Generally?

That's not the case.

Most employees are subject to the capricious whims of their supervisors. That's why it sometimes helps to have some sort of quantifiable record of your accomplishments when going through the review process. And that's if your company has reviews.

But overall, if that WERE the case? That productivity would equal greater remuneration? You'd see a more equitable division of profit.

And 380/1 CEO/Worker compensation spread just doesn't bear that out.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

 

[Sallow]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

That's just silly.

Capitalism is a liberal construct after all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

That's just silly.

Capitalism is a liberal construct after all.

Now THAT'S silly.

No, it isn't. Liberals don't much LIKe capitalism, in point of fact. And we all know it. We surely see significant evidence of that fact day after day and post after post.

But more importantly, you and your like-minded liberal pals seem mightily offended that a CEO might make a few hundred times what the rank and file company workers make.

If 380 times is too much, it would SEEM to follow that you folks imagine YOU can tell us what multiple (if any) is appropriate. May a CEO make only a hundred times what the low level worker makes?

No? Too much?

Fifty times? Still too much?

Ok. How about 10 times?

I am gonna guess that there exists (out there in the ether) some formula that will advise the rest of us how the masterminds come to the conclusion about how much is fair, appropriate and justifiable. I'd like to examine that formula and get some explanation on how it is determined. What are the bases supporting that formula?

 

[The Rabbi]

The graph clearly shows exactly what I have said the graphs shows.
Nobody else on these boards has ever question my interpretation of these graphs and that includes the most intelligent conservative posters on this board, which of course excludes you.
When you post your that my graphs don't support what I post, you are clearly showing exactly how limited your intelligence is to every poster who reads that crap. Good job! Now run along sonny.

OK, let's look at it and go through it.

Note the graph shows "labor income as a share of total income." IT says nothing about absolute income. Labor income could be rising in absolute terms and this graph would not show it. We might be back to income under Clinton and you wouldn't know it from this graph.
In fact total national income is up over 66% from what it was under Clinton.
United States - GNI

There is likely more income generated by interest/dividends than there used to be. With an older population that is likely. Also with record numbers on SSI/Disabilty that will skew numbers.

So the chart shows nothing like what you think it shows.
Once again you have demonstrated you cannot read and understand a chart. You are a noob.

Ha! Laborer's rarely have dividend/interest income, most live check-to-check.
76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck
76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck - Jun. 24, 2013
Secondly, the BLS numbers would include wages only.
Nice try and goodbye.

Your deflection is noted.
You cannot read a chart. Now everyone here understands that. Go kill yourself.