How does CEO pay go Through the Roof without price increases in products?

[KevinWestern]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

Closed Caption, do you take into consideration that since the 1970's, countless companies have merged (to form supercompanies), and have expanded globally resulting in LESS CEOS, resulting in MORE PAY per CEO?

If there are four food companies in 1970 with four CEOs and $100 (total in the market's pot) to pay the CEOs, than each CEO gets $25. However in 2013, when those companies merge, the single CEO now makes $100.

It's not so much about how much the CEO makes as it is how little the employees make. Wages for workers have stagnated over the past 30 years while CEO and upper management pay has mushroomed.

I'm not arguing that workers shouldn't make more, however let me put it this way.

Take a food company with 100 employees in the 1970s. The plant worker checks packages to make sure there are no rips. The CEO oversees the company.

Lets say the company merges and by 2013 has 600 employees and 6 regions, which the CEO oversees. The plant worker still checks packages to make sure there are no rips.

As you can see, the CEO's job has become vastly more complex, while the worker's job has remained relatively the same. Despite the mergers, he's still doing the same thing.

Under that scenario, I can see why the CEO's pay should go up, but why the workers?

 

[Sallow]

Closed Caption, do you take into consideration that since the 1970's, countless companies have merged (to form supercompanies), and have expanded globally resulting in LESS CEOS, resulting in MORE PAY per CEO?

If there are four food companies in 1970 with four CEOs and $100 (total in the market's pot) to pay the CEOs, than each CEO gets $25. However in 2013, when those companies merge, the single CEO now makes $100.

It's not so much about how much the CEO makes as it is how little the employees make. Wages for workers have stagnated over the past 30 years while CEO and upper management pay has mushroomed.

I'm not arguing that workers shouldn't make more, however let me put it this way.

Take a food company with 100 employees in the 1970s. The plant worker checks packages to make sure there are no rips. The CEO oversees the company.

Lets say the company merges and by 2013 has 600 employees and 6 regions, which the CEO oversees. The plant worker still checks packages to make sure there are no rips.

As you can see, the CEO's job has become vastly more complex, while the worker's job has remained relatively the same. Despite the mergers, he's still doing the same thing.

Under that scenario, I can see why the CEO's pay should go up, but why the workers?

Complex in what way exactly?

CEO's do little more than attend meetings and smooze.

Oh and dictate policy they have no hand in implementing and take no hit when it fails.

But they sure around for bonuses and the credit when it succeeds.

 

[kwc57]

Lets spin it the other way. Obama ended bushes tax cut for everyone, also obamacare tax will effect everyone. So tell in your world why is it okay for goverment to take more from workers and they have to do without. The goverment takes our money and a ceo believe or not, earns it. If he didn't the stock holders wouldn't approve his salary.

The Bush tax cuts were not ended for everyone. Just the top one percent.

Wait, wait, wait......I remeber the people's party lamenting about how the Bush tax cuts ONLY benefited the rich and hurt the little guy. Why was it when they were about to expire, the people's party fought like hell to keep them when supposedly they only benefited the 1%. Were they perhaps lying partisan hacks?

 

[kwc57]

It's not so much about how much the CEO makes as it is how little the employees make. Wages for workers have stagnated over the past 30 years while CEO and upper management pay has mushroomed.

I'm not arguing that workers shouldn't make more, however let me put it this way.

Take a food company with 100 employees in the 1970s. The plant worker checks packages to make sure there are no rips. The CEO oversees the company.

Lets say the company merges and by 2013 has 600 employees and 6 regions, which the CEO oversees. The plant worker still checks packages to make sure there are no rips.

As you can see, the CEO's job has become vastly more complex, while the worker's job has remained relatively the same. Despite the mergers, he's still doing the same thing.

Under that scenario, I can see why the CEO's pay should go up, but why the workers?

Complex in what way exactly?

CEO's do little more than attend meetings and smooze.

Oh and dictate policy they have no hand in implementing and take no hit when it fails.

But they sure around for bonuses and the credit when it succeeds.

clueless

 

[Rshermr]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

Closed Caption, do you take into consideration that since the 1970's, countless companies have merged (to form supercompanies), and have expanded globally resulting in LESS CEOS, resulting in MORE PAY per CEO?

If there are four food companies in 1970 with four CEOs and $100 (total in the market's pot) to pay the CEOs, than each CEO gets $25. However in 2013, when those companies merge, the single CEO now makes $100.

Uh, that would make a little sense, except: CEO PAY IS ONLY AS HIGH AS IT IS IN THE US. IN NO OTHER NATION IS IT ANY WHERE CLOSE.

 

[Rshermr]

Closed Caption, do you take into consideration that since the 1970's, countless companies have merged (to form supercompanies), and have expanded globally resulting in LESS CEOS, resulting in MORE PAY per CEO?

If there are four food companies in 1970 with four CEOs and $100 (total in the market's pot) to pay the CEOs, than each CEO gets $25. However in 2013, when those companies merge, the single CEO now makes $100.

It's not so much about how much the CEO makes as it is how little the employees make. Wages for workers have stagnated over the past 30 years while CEO and upper management pay has mushroomed.

I'm not arguing that workers shouldn't make more, however let me put it this way.

Take a food company with 100 employees in the 1970s. The plant worker checks packages to make sure there are no rips. The CEO oversees the company.

Lets say the company merges and by 2013 has 600 employees and 6 regions, which the CEO oversees. The plant worker still checks packages to make sure there are no rips.

As you can see, the CEO's job has become vastly more complex, while the worker's job has remained relatively the same. Despite the mergers, he's still doing the same thing.

Under that scenario, I can see why the CEO's pay should go up, but why the workers?

There you go. You just showed your problem. You have absolutely no idea what the ceo OR the plant manager does. Makes it really hard for you to say something that makes sense. Which is obvious.

But on the good side, your post was humorous.

 

[Rshermr]

Lets spin it the other way. Obama ended bushes tax cut for everyone, also obamacare tax will effect everyone. So tell in your world why is it okay for goverment to take more from workers and they have to do without. The goverment takes our money and a ceo believe or not, earns it. If he didn't the stock holders wouldn't approve his salary.

The Bush tax cuts were not ended for everyone. Just the top one percent.

Wait, wait, wait......I remeber the people's party lamenting about how the Bush tax cuts ONLY benefited the rich and hurt the little guy. Why was it when they were about to expire, the people's party fought like hell to keep them when supposedly they only benefited the 1%. Were they perhaps lying partisan hacks?

You remember incorrectly. Or said another way, you are lying. It was never that the middle class got nothing, me boy. It was that the primary beneficiaries were the wealthy, while the middle class got little.

But, my poor ignorant con, after a few years of the policy, it seemed only fair that the middle class got something out of the deal while the wealthy stopped raising the deficit for no reason.

The other issue was a simple one, though probably too complex for you to understand. As the cbo has stated, and as the crs has stated, both based on their studies, taxes on the wealthy do not hurt the economy. For obvious reasons. But they do decrease the deficit, also for obvious reasons.

But then, you have to have a brain to actually understand.

 

[KevinWestern]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

Closed Caption, do you take into consideration that since the 1970's, countless companies have merged (to form supercompanies), and have expanded globally resulting in LESS CEOS, resulting in MORE PAY per CEO?

If there are four food companies in 1970 with four CEOs and $100 (total in the market's pot) to pay the CEOs, than each CEO gets $25. However in 2013, when those companies merge, the single CEO now makes $100.

Uh, that would make a little sense, except: CEO PAY IS ONLY AS HIGH AS IT IS IN THE US. IN NO OTHER NATION IS IT ANY WHERE CLOSE.

Hmm, you need to put on your critical thinking hat, lol.

Let's compare the United States with France. Which country do you think is home to more of the top 500 largest companies in the world?

If the US has 50 companies that make over $10 billion in revenue every year, and France has only 1, obviously CEO pay for US companies (on average) will be MUCH higher.

Again, critical thinking!

 

[itfitzme]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

The wingnut memes are a) that increases in pay or taxes increase prices while simultaneously saying b) that companies go out of business if it doesn't make a profit.

They are applied under different situations and never put together to see why they can't both exists simultaneously.

It is rule based thinking where the rule is employed depending of the conclusion. Hard working CEO's deserve it, therefor when considering CEO pay, rule b) applies. Lazy good for nothing minimum wage workers don't deserve it so rule a) applies.

When put together, the aggregation of the wing nut rules make for an economic model that is complete nonsense. Worse yet, when put together and implemented as actual economic policy, the wing nut model causes the economy to tank.

 

[KevinWestern]

There you go. You just showed your problem. You have absolutely no idea what the ceo OR the plant manager does. Makes it really hard for you to say something that makes sense. Which is obvious.

But on the good side, your post was humorous.

I explicitly said that the factory worker's job in both 1970 and 2013 was to check packages for rips, and said the CEOs job was to oversee a smaller company in 1970 and a vastly larger and more complex one in 2013.

That is what both of the people "do", lol.

Rshermr... I'm not following you.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

"WE" don't increase the pay of CEO's. CEO's negotiate their salaries, just like MDs and NPs do. Why do you stress about it? You don't have what it takes to be a CEO anyway? If you want to make more than minimum wage to sling hamburgers, negotiate!

It's a funny thing that unions came about to negotiate for the employees, so they could actually try to "negotiate", but cons hate unions with a passion. In fact, the vast majority of cons blame unions for the poor economy. So tell us why it is such a bad thing to have unions "negotiate" worker salaries.

Unions have become a hindrance to improving employee conditions and pay. UAW is the reason Detroit is bankrupt. Auto manufacturers started moving their plants to Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Georgia. Non union states!! And guess what, the employee pay and benefits were better than those NEGOTIATED by the unions. All the Union was doing was syphoning off money that could have went to the employee while allowing the company to maintain it's profit margin.

 

[Sunshine]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

"WE" don't increase the pay of CEO's. CEO's negotiate their salaries, just like MDs and NPs do. Why do you stress about it? You don't have what it takes to be a CEO anyway? If you want to make more than minimum wage to sling hamburgers, negotiate!

It's a funny thing that unions came about to negotiate for the employees, so they could actually try to "negotiate", but cons hate unions with a passion. In fact, the vast majority of cons blame unions for the poor economy. So tell us why it is such a bad thing to have unions "negotiate" worker salaries.

WTF? I was in the union at the VA. Everybody hates NPs, doctors, staff level nurses, PAs. You name it. I wouldn't work there without a contract or membership in the union. The AFGE never influenced my salary that I know of, my benefits, yes. Salary, no. That was on me.

 

[depotoo]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

"WE" don't increase the pay of CEO's. CEO's negotiate their salaries, just like MDs and NPs do. Why do you stress about it? You don't have what it takes to be a CEO anyway? If you want to make more than minimum wage to sling hamburgers, negotiate!

It's a funny thing that unions came about to negotiate for the employees, so they could actually try to "negotiate", but cons hate unions with a passion. In fact, the vast majority of cons blame unions for the poor economy. So tell us why it is such a bad thing to have unions "negotiate" worker salaries.

It is an insult to think one is not capable of negotiating for one's self. To throw one's self into the same pool as hundreds of others would prove one is not a go-getter, is a none-thinker and values one's self little. The collective in no way knows of one's abilities, one's strengths nor represents such. Only I do and one's employer. And what one is worth is not the same as that collective. That collective can do nothing but hold one down. IF you truly want to make it big in life, never allow yourself to belong to a collective. They stagnate.

The guy sitting on his ass makes the same as the guy busting his ass. There is no fairness in that.

 

[expat_panama]

...an insult to think one is not capable of negotiating for one's self. To throw one's self into the same pool as hundreds of others would prove one is not a go-getter...

Maybe not.

My econ 1a prof defined a pure market as one where no one buyer and no one seller can affect the going market price. When there's one big business buying labor from thousands of employees it's asymmetrical with the buyer able to change prices much more easily than any one worker.

The trouble with unions is that they can also wreck symmetry when there are thousands of small businesses stuck with the arbitrary dictates of powerful nationwide unions. On top of that, they're often run by loony left wingers while being free from the anti-monopoly laws that limit businesses' power

 

[depotoo]

...an insult to think one is not capable of negotiating for one's self. To throw one's self into the same pool as hundreds of others would prove one is not a go-getter...

Maybe not.

My econ 1a prof defined a pure market as one where no one buyer and no one seller can affect the going market price. When there's one big business buying labor from thousands of employees it's asymmetrical with the buyer able to change prices much more easily than any one worker.
The trouble with unions is that they can also wreck symmetry when there are thousands of small businesses stuck with the arbitrary dictates of powerful nationwide unions. On top of that, they're often run by loony left wingers while being free from the anti-monopoly laws that limit businesses' power

Remember that one worker should be allowed to change one's own destiny. If he excel's in his work he will be much easier to recognize when value is put on his work individually, rather than collectively. A business would much rather be filled with workers that excel, thus bringing about a want of their product or service, rather than being piecemealed with so-so work among the exceptional pulling down the overall quality. The buyer will recognize the difference in quality or exceptionalism and drive price higher through higher demand.

And that worker that is exceptional has the ability to negotiate and be rewarded or go elsewhere where he will be highly sought after.

 

[kwc57]

The Bush tax cuts were not ended for everyone. Just the top one percent.

Wait, wait, wait......I remeber the people's party lamenting about how the Bush tax cuts ONLY benefited the rich and hurt the little guy. Why was it when they were about to expire, the people's party fought like hell to keep them when supposedly they only benefited the 1%. Were they perhaps lying partisan hacks?

You remember incorrectly. Or said another way, you are lying. It was never that the middle class got nothing, me boy. It was that the primary beneficiaries were the wealthy, while the middle class got little.

But, my poor ignorant con, after a few years of the policy, it seemed only fair that the middle class got something out of the deal while the wealthy stopped raising the deficit for no reason.

The other issue was a simple one, though probably too complex for you to understand. As the cbo has stated, and as the crs has stated, both based on their studies, taxes on the wealthy do not hurt the economy. For obvious reasons. But they do decrease the deficit, also for obvious reasons.

But then, you have to have a brain to actually understand.

Unlike you, I wasn't in diapers back in 2003 or dependent on MSNBC for my opinions..

Democrats.com Archive: Tax Cut 2003

 

[depotoo]

Think about this. Could this have been the downfall to the American auto industry and manufacturing?

Once the unions were introduced, exceptionalism within individuals was no longer able to be recognized on a grand scale. Suddenly that owner no longer had the ability to pick those that showed exceptionalism among that labor pool to make certain the quality and innovativeness of his service or product was among the very best there was. That which in turn makes the buyer want only his offerings rather than the competitors. And if indeed his competitor exceeds his without that union hindering him, that owner union bound no longer has a way in which he can bring about that consistent quality or innovativeness the other guy has, by being able to individually recognize those that excel, and offer worth to his company to the degree the non-union company owner has. In other words, he has lost control over his own product in ways in which can keep him competitive.

 

[expat_panama]

...that worker that is exceptional has the ability to negotiate and be rewarded...

lol ---absolutely true but not in the way you mean it!!!

What's happened in one workplace after another is workers get together and they pay one of themselves who's a "worker that is exceptional" and "has the ability to negotiate" and they know they got good value for money when they see the union negotiated pay raises.

Market place. Ya can't beat it!

 

[rdean]

Lets spin it the other way. Obama ended bushes tax cut for everyone, also obamacare tax will effect everyone. So tell in your world why is it okay for goverment to take more from workers and they have to do without. The goverment takes our money and a ceo believe or not, earns it. If he didn't the stock holders wouldn't approve his salary.

Shareholders join Obama on CEO pay

Learn to use Google.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was having a discussion in another thread where the Repubs (usually) would say you cant pay more than what the current Minimum is because product prices would increase.

According to some estimates CEO pay has increased 800% since the 70's. Where is the $34 Big Mac?

How can we increase CEO pay so much and never see an huge increase? How can CEO's get paid so much and no one worries about product price increases?

Now, why does that all change when you talk about Employees pay? Suddenly if you give employees more money explosions, death and famine will ensue?

The wingnut memes are a) that increases in pay or taxes increase prices while simultaneously saying b) that companies go out of business if it doesn't make a profit.

They are applied under different situations and never put together to see why they can't both exists simultaneously.

It is rule based thinking where the rule is employed depending of the conclusion. Hard working CEO's deserve it, therefor when considering CEO pay, rule b) applies. Lazy good for nothing minimum wage workers don't deserve it so rule a) applies.

When put together, the aggregation of the wing nut rules make for an economic model that is complete nonsense. Worse yet, when put together and implemented as actual economic policy, the wing nut model causes the economy to tank.

I think Kevin and I and others on this thread have given you SEVERAL great arguments why CEO "pay" is neither disproportionate or capable of affecting cash flow and profits.

Let's review..

1) The VAST BULK of CEO "pay" increases come from stock equity reflecting their OWNERSHIP of the company. These large stock transfers neither STEAL from worker pay or have anything to do with raising prices on goods. It is an INTERNAL matter of equity.

2) The consolidation of corporations whilst our formerly glorious economy whithers and contracts has CONCENTRATED the CEO pool and EXPANDED CEO responsibility. The CEO of Caterpillar used to just be concerned about a couple plants near Peoria. TODAY -- THIS person runs 24 companies worldwide and about 10 times the cash flow and workforce.

3) The SALARY portion of CEO pay is not really remarkable compared to the short and lucrative careers of sports figures, authors, rock stars and other short-lived careers.

THAT'S why CEOs are not "stealing" from the public or the employees. They are just getting ownership equity transferred to them to reflect their commitment to the effort.