CEO pay is 380 times average worker's

[whitehall]

Hollywood super-stars probably make a thousand times more than the guys who sweep the floors. Why not try the equal pay idea in Hollywood and let us know how you make out.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hollywood super-stars probably make a thousand times more than the guys who sweep the floors. Why not try the equal pay idea in Hollywood and let us know how you make out.

I posted earlier why they dont make a big deal about this. I think it is because they look at Scarlet Johannsen or Justin Bieber and think I could never do what they do. But since they have no idea what CEOs do, they think "I could do that job as easily as he does it" so it seems unfair. As usual ignorance is to blame.

 

[Redfish]

It's less about "defending the rich" and more about getting people's heads in the right place when trying to solve issues. Simply griping about CEO pay without taking in all of the non-malicious reasons pay is rising is both a waste of time AND harmful.

I want people to consider things in a less general, blanket way. Instead of saying "ALL CEOS MAKE TOO MUCH" or "ALL CEOS DO THIS OR THAT", how about we critique specific companies and specific examples of CEOs making way more than they deserve? Why choose the blanket method and also condemn all of the quality, well run, fair organizations in the process? Isn't that sort of counter productive?

Generalizing is for college kids. Let's move beyond that.

most CEO compensation is based on whether the company grows, makes its projections, and whether its stock increases in value and pays dividends to shareholders.

I agree that some CEOs are overpaid, especially the ones who run failed companies like Solyndra and GM. But, face reality, the CEO compensation package is established by the board of directors----people who have a personal financial interest in the success of the company.

But, what would those of you who bitch about CEO pay propose to do about it? Do you want the govt to legislate how much a person can make? What, specifically, do you want done?

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

total horseshit, you ignorance is showing once again, shallow. You have no idea how corporations operate, none at all.

corporate finance is more about making your projectins (whether profit or loss) than about profit dollars----------wall street looks favorably on companies that accurately predict what they are going to do in the next quarter, year, etc.

But, once again, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

 

[Sallow]

The problem is we have execs making huge amounts of money while paying workers so little they are collecting welfare. So the government and spending continues to grow. Too much spending is a problem.

Not once in my life have I heard someone complain about the fact that Peyton Manning makes $43 million/year. He only works for 6 months! Doesn't he make 400 times+ more than the average stadium employee?

Does Peyton really work 400 times harder than the hot dog guy who busts his ass up and down the stairs for minimum wage pay?

Why does this argument only apply to CEOs, who on average work 12 months out of the year, and do a heck of a lot more than throw a stupid football around for entertainment purposes!!?


.

They kinda do.

They go on trips to wine and dine clients (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They sometimes hit the strip clubs (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They have meetings.
They sometimes go on television.
And if we are really lucky, some of them are frog marched to Prison! (Cya Bernie!)

 

[Jarhead]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

 

[Redfish]

Hollywood super-stars probably make a thousand times more than the guys who sweep the floors. Why not try the equal pay idea in Hollywood and let us know how you make out.

I posted earlier why they dont make a big deal about this. I think it is because they look at Scarlet Johannsen or Justin Bieber and think I could never do what they do. But since they have no idea what CEOs do, they think "I could do that job as easily as he does it" so it seems unfair. As usual ignorance is to blame.

No, the reason the left does not attack the hollywood wealthy is because most of hollywood is liberal. But if someone in hollywood reveals that they are conservative, watch out because the left will go to full attack mode, Charleton Heston comes to mind.

 

[Sallow]

most CEO compensation is based on whether the company grows, makes its projections, and whether its stock increases in value and pays dividends to shareholders.

I agree that some CEOs are overpaid, especially the ones who run failed companies like Solyndra and GM. But, face reality, the CEO compensation package is established by the board of directors----people who have a personal financial interest in the success of the company.

But, what would those of you who bitch about CEO pay propose to do about it? Do you want the govt to legislate how much a person can make? What, specifically, do you want done?

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

total horseshit, you ignorance is showing once again, shallow. You have no idea how corporations operate, none at all.

corporate finance is more about making your projectins (whether profit or loss) than about profit dollars----------wall street looks favorably on companies that accurately predict what they are going to do in the next quarter, year, etc.

But, once again, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

When you are calling someone "ignorant"..please use spell check?

Otherwise..you look "ignorant".

Unless of course, "projectins" is a word.

Who knows? Maybe in Alabama it is..

 

[KevinWestern]

They kinda do.

They go on trips to wine and dine clients (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They sometimes hit the strip clubs (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They have meetings.
They sometimes go on television.
And if we are really lucky, some of them are frog marched to Prison! (Cya Bernie!)

Thought we were talking about private companies?

 

[Erand7899]

Okay. So what are your solutions for overcompensation and wealth disparity?

Why do you think there is overcompensation? Why do you think it is a problem needing a solution?

Because 49m Americans have a hard time being able to afford food each week and those of you who defend the rich want to cut those poor people's food stamps without increasing wages. What do you think will happen when you cut poor people's food stamps and they still don't make enough in wages? Is yet another dead-end, part-time, minimum-wage job the solution to low wages?

So, you believe that if you cut CEO pay, then those 49 million Americans will all be able to afford food each week? What a hoot!

How about all the workers building executive jets and yachts? Will they all be able to afford food each week?

Why don't you just keep your idiotic ideas to yourself, and let the markets work as they do so well. You don't even have a clue as to how many rice bowls you are wanting to break.

 

[Jarhead]

It's less about "defending the rich" and more about getting people's heads in the right place when trying to solve issues. Simply griping about CEO pay without taking in all of the non-malicious reasons pay is rising is both a waste of time AND harmful.

I want people to consider things in a less general, blanket way. Instead of saying "ALL CEOS MAKE TOO MUCH" or "ALL CEOS DO THIS OR THAT", how about we critique specific companies and specific examples of CEOs making way more than they deserve? Why choose the blanket method and also condemn all of the quality, well run, fair organizations in the process? Isn't that sort of counter productive?

Generalizing is for college kids. Let's move beyond that.

most CEO compensation is based on whether the company grows, makes its projections, and whether its stock increases in value and pays dividends to shareholders.

I agree that some CEOs are overpaid, especially the ones who run failed companies like Solyndra and GM. But, face reality, the CEO compensation package is established by the board of directors----people who have a personal financial interest in the success of the company.

But, what would those of you who bitch about CEO pay propose to do about it? Do you want the govt to legislate how much a person can make? What, specifically, do you want done?

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

Huh?

Where did you come up with this ridiculous theory?

First off, decreasing headcount does not show profit. It shows a decrease in headcount and thus a decrease in productivity.

Sallow...how can you debate a topic that you know so little about?

 

[Redfish]

The problem is we have execs making huge amounts of money while paying workers so little they are collecting welfare. So the government and spending continues to grow. Too much spending is a problem.

Not once in my life have I heard someone complain about the fact that Peyton Manning makes $43 million/year. He only works for 6 months! Doesn't he make 400 times+ more than the average stadium employee?

Does Peyton really work 400 times harder than the hot dog guy who busts his ass up and down the stairs for minimum wage pay?

Why does this argument only apply to CEOs, who on average work 12 months out of the year, and do a heck of a lot more than throw a stupid football around for entertainment purposes!!?


.

They kinda do.

They go on trips to wine and dine clients (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They sometimes hit the strip clubs (on the US taxpayer's dime).
They have meetings.
They sometimes go on television.
And if we are really lucky, some of them are frog marched to Prison! (Cya Bernie!)

deductible business expenses are not "on the taxpayer dime". Strip clubs are not legitimate business expenses.

So, shallow, you don't like the tax code that allows corps to deduct business expenses ?? Who the fuck do you think wrote the tax code???? which party has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years ? answer that and the same answer applies to who wrote the tax code.

 

[Redfish]

most CEO compensation is based on whether the company grows, makes its projections, and whether its stock increases in value and pays dividends to shareholders.

I agree that some CEOs are overpaid, especially the ones who run failed companies like Solyndra and GM. But, face reality, the CEO compensation package is established by the board of directors----people who have a personal financial interest in the success of the company.

But, what would those of you who bitch about CEO pay propose to do about it? Do you want the govt to legislate how much a person can make? What, specifically, do you want done?

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

Huh?

Where did you come up with this ridiculous theory?

First off, decreasing headcount does not show profit. It shows a decrease in headcount and thus a decrease in productivity.

Sallow...how can you debate a topic that you know so little about?

he is a liberal, its what they do.

 

[Jarhead]

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

total horseshit, you ignorance is showing once again, shallow. You have no idea how corporations operate, none at all.

corporate finance is more about making your projectins (whether profit or loss) than about profit dollars----------wall street looks favorably on companies that accurately predict what they are going to do in the next quarter, year, etc.

But, once again, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

When you are calling someone "ignorant"..please use spell check?

Otherwise..you look "ignorant".

Unless of course, "projectins" is a word.

Who knows? Maybe in Alabama it is..

you are comparing typos to a ridiculous statement of "firing people shows profits"?

Wow. You truly are desperate.

 

[KNB]

Okay. So what are your solutions for overcompensation and wealth disparity?

When the average CEO salary is exponentially higher than the average workers, generalizing is normal. It is a generalization to say that average CEO pay is nearly 400 times that of the average employee.

KNB – your statistic takes into account ALL companies, which includes some very large (Fortune 500) organizations. Do CEOs make 400 times that of the average employee in organizations less than 50 employees? I highly doubt it. But when you’re talking about a company with 900,000 employees, I don’t think $15 million is all that unfair given the size and complexity of the task at hand and the talent you must attract to run the show effectively!

When a corporation has 900k employees, running the company is not done by one person alone. There are teams of analysts, specialists, think tanks and outside advisors giving their input on what is most profitable.

Again, Peyton Manning – who does nothing more than throw footballs to guys wearing helmets for like 5 months a year – makes about $43 million annually! That’s 3x the median CEO pay.

I don’t hear anyone complaining about him making 400 times more than the guys selling hot dogs – do you?

It might have been Chris Rock who said, "Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his paychecks is wealthy." Or something like that. It is a valid point. It is the difference between the 1% and the .001%.

There is too much money involved in sports (especially college sports) and I don't watch football for precisely those reasons. With the amount of money involved in professional sports, I think it's an injustice for them to dangle a couple of million dollars in front of a kid's charity or urban youth center. Like all other rich people, they can afford to spend a lot more to help raise the standard of living for everyone. The right-wing argument to this is that it's "socialism". No, it isn't. It's simply one wealthy person deciding that having $45 billion is way more than enough and they can get by on only $5 billion. That's $40b that one person can spend on raising the standard of living for everyone. Instead, along with half of the world's wealth, it is hoarded by greedy rich pricks who only want "more".

Those of you who defend the rich are misguided by your love of greed. What you have to understand is that you are also poor compared to them, and they don't care about you. If you think you're doing well with a house, car, maybe a boat, a couple hundred thousand in equity and whatnot, then you're still as poor as a homeless Vietnam vet compared to the controlling interests of world governments. They wallow in opulence without any regard for you or your environment.

Is greed, crony capitalism, etc a problem in the world? You bet it is. Are we going to solve that problem by complaining about CEO pay in a blanket general way? No. We must approach each company as its own case, and each CEO as an individual. There’s nothing wrong with effectively running a 900,000 employee company, working hard and taking home $15 million after returning value to the shareholders.

CEOs don't work hard. At least not the ones we're talking about. The 900k employees work hard and they still need government assistance to get by. Why? Because $15m of the company's money went to one person who plays golf with Senators.

It is wrong however to collude with government to get special deals on regulations, have a personal ear of the President, etc. How about we attack those behaviors first?

How about we attack all of it at once? This will change the entire system, from the energy industry to the medical industry.

"Who is defending the rich?" Those of you who insist that unions are evil, or if you insist that workers need to "tighten up their belts" during a recession that was caused by the rich while they take your money for a bailout, or if you insist that there is a valid point to the drug war, or if you insist that voter ID cards will stop a crime that isn't happening, or if you still think that there were WMD in Iraq. These are ways in which you defend the rich because as you are buying into the establishment's lies, they are laughing their asses off at you and making your world worse. Make no mistake about it. You are cheap labor to the .001% just like everyone else.

Who are you talking to exactly? I don’t defend crony capitalism and I don’t defend an industrial military complex starting wars because it’s good for business. I didn’t support the bailouts, and I’m very vocal against our nation’s drug laws (lol).

Can you please explain what this is supposed to mean to me?

I think I wrote that in response to someone else, but I explained who I was talking to. Those who defend the rich are the ones who buy into the lies of the system, fed to them by the rich through the "lamestream liberal media". If that isn't you then good for you and please continue to help expose others to the lies of the system.

 

[Jarhead]

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

Huh?

Where did you come up with this ridiculous theory?

First off, decreasing headcount does not show profit. It shows a decrease in headcount and thus a decrease in productivity.

Sallow...how can you debate a topic that you know so little about?

he is a liberal, its what they do.

and if decreasing headcount does NOT decrease productivity, then the decrease in headcount was warranted and by no means a sleazy way to show profits.

I mean...that statement has to be one of the most outrageously ridiculous statements I have seen on this board.

 

[Redfish]

Well not really.

Most CEO compensation is based on what the CEO thinks he can get away with.

Sometimes that involves "showing profit".

Which is easy enough.

Just fire a bunch of people.

total horseshit, you ignorance is showing once again, shallow. You have no idea how corporations operate, none at all.

corporate finance is more about making your projectins (whether profit or loss) than about profit dollars----------wall street looks favorably on companies that accurately predict what they are going to do in the next quarter, year, etc.

But, once again, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

When you are calling someone "ignorant"..please use spell check?

Otherwise..you look "ignorant".

Unless of course, "projectins" is a word.

Who knows? Maybe in Alabama it is..

well holy shit, swallow found a typo------BFD

you really are a moron, shallow/swallow/sallow/fellow.

 

[Jarhead]

Okay. So what are your solutions for overcompensation and wealth disparity?

When the average CEO salary is exponentially higher than the average workers, generalizing is normal. It is a generalization to say that average CEO pay is nearly 400 times that of the average employee.

KNB – your statistic takes into account ALL companies, which includes some very large (Fortune 500) organizations. Do CEOs make 400 times that of the average employee in organizations less than 50 employees? I highly doubt it. But when you’re talking about a company with 900,000 employees, I don’t think $15 million is all that unfair given the size and complexity of the task at hand and the talent you must attract to run the show effectively!

When a corporation has 900k employees, running the company is not done by one person alone. There are teams of analysts, specialists, think tanks and outside advisors giving their input on what is most profitable.


It might have been Chris Rock who said, "Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his paychecks is wealthy." Or something like that. It is a valid point. It is the difference between the 1% and the .001%.

There is too much money involved in sports (especially college sports) and I don't watch football for precisely those reasons. With the amount of money involved in professional sports, I think it's an injustice for them to dangle a couple of million dollars in front of a kid's charity or urban youth center. Like all other rich people, they can afford to spend a lot more to help raise the standard of living for everyone. The right-wing argument to this is that it's "socialism". No, it isn't. It's simply one wealthy person deciding that having $45 billion is way more than enough and they can get by on only $5 billion. That's $40b that one person can spend on raising the standard of living for everyone. Instead, along with half of the world's wealth, it is hoarded by greedy rich pricks who only want "more".


CEOs don't work hard. At least not the ones we're talking about. The 900k employees work hard and they still need government assistance to get by. Why? Because $15m of the company's money went to one person who plays golf with Senators.


How about we attack all of it at once? This will change the entire system, from the energy industry to the medical industry.

"Who is defending the rich?" Those of you who insist that unions are evil, or if you insist that workers need to "tighten up their belts" during a recession that was caused by the rich while they take your money for a bailout, or if you insist that there is a valid point to the drug war, or if you insist that voter ID cards will stop a crime that isn't happening, or if you still think that there were WMD in Iraq. These are ways in which you defend the rich because as you are buying into the establishment's lies, they are laughing their asses off at you and making your world worse. Make no mistake about it. You are cheap labor to the .001% just like everyone else.

Who are you talking to exactly? I don’t defend crony capitalism and I don’t defend an industrial military complex starting wars because it’s good for business. I didn’t support the bailouts, and I’m very vocal against our nation’s drug laws (lol).

Can you please explain what this is supposed to mean to me?

I think I wrote that in response to someone else, but I explained who I was talking to. Those who defend the rich are the ones who buy into the lies of the system, fed to them by the rich through the "lamestream liberal media". If that isn't you then good for you and please continue to help expose others to the lies of the system.

In bold.

Really?

How do you define working hard?

Getting up at 7 AM to be at work at 9 AM and leaving at 5PM after 2 breaks and a lunch?

That is not working hard. That is working.

 

[Jarhead]

Question for those with the liberal position in this debate....

Who worked/works harder...

The switchboard operator of the 1970's who had to answer and transfer every call that came in and take messages for all calls for people that were out....

or...

after the owner bough the 100K phone system, the receptionist of today who only has to answer overflow calls seeing as all employees have a direct line with voicemail?

 

[Bgallo28]

They do the heavy work.

 

[auditor0007]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

Here is really the only thing you need to know. How it happened doesn't really matter but it happened and it is not good for America. If you look at the chart, you will see that since the late 60's, the upper 10% of income earners have seen their income increase substantially. At the bottom, those with incomes in the lower 50% have seen hardly any growth at all. So the question is did this happen because those with larger incomes worked harder than those with lower incomes, or did it happen in great part because those at the top were able to find a way to keep wages low for those in the lower 50% in order to help create more wealth for themselves?

Now, if you truly believe that it's because those at the top have worked harder, then there really is nothing to discuss because we just believe two completely different things. I'm not saying those at the top haven't worked hard, but believing the reason those at the bottom have not benefited in any way from the nearly doubling of productivity among US workers in that time frame is because they were just too lazy and didn't work hard enough is a real fantasy, but is fact, most of these people are actually having to work much harder and much longer hours today just to get close to what the same people were earning 40 years ago. Remember that 40 years ago, many more wives stayed home and the husband was the sole money earner, yet households did almost as well back then as they do today with both husband and wife working.

However it has happened, we have allowed those at the very top to see their income increase dramatically, which has allowed their real wealth to just explode. The numbers in this chart only look at income. If we look at wealth, it really becomes scary what has happened.