Median CEO pay crosses $10 million

[Care4all]

The Rich, including the rich CEO's, are the so-called 'job creators' aren't they, supposedly?

Ever been employed by someone homeless?

is the CEO averaging $10 million in salary a year PAYING for employees working for the corp or is his salary ALL HIS, paying for no new hires or workers?

what does a ceo's $10 million salary have to do with the corporation's workers or hiring?

not a thing to do with it! other than not having the budget to hire more or give better increases....

so what was your comment about Taz? I thought this thread was about the average CEO being paid $10 million a year?

 

[Care4all]

ceos given stock options take no risk....the company issues stock options to the ceo at a 15% discount and 3-6 months down the road if the stock has risen, the ceo has the OPTION to buy and sell the stock....if the stock is lower than the price it was when the option is given to him, then he doesn't exercise it and doesn't pay for it....but if it is higher in value, he has the option to buy it at the earlier discounted price and then sell it at the higher stock value....and pay only the 15% capital gains rate for most of his compensation vs the 39% tax rate....if he were paid the amount in a weekly salary

 

[Brain357]

when did this all start and how did it start is my first question.....? I realize the board of directors negotiate salaries and exit packages and board members are mostly CEO'S of other corporations, so it is truly a "good ole boys (and girls) network" that has boosted each others salaries....BUT hasn't it always been the board of directors choosing the salary and bonuses and exit contracts with CEO's? So WHAT in the world made this raising of CEO salaries in the exorbitant amount that they have risen in the past few decades? and vs the rest of the global world's CEO's too?

Was it stock options? I don't know? What caused this spiraling upwards on CEO pay....?(and stagnation with employee pay)? Was it covetousness between CEO'S/Board members that made them rise and rise and rise and rise much much faster than the market called for....?

There is X percentage that is allotted in each corporation's budget for compensation, if the CEO gets more of this percentage than he has in the past, then the math shows that employees have to get less to compensate for such....there's no way around that....

but at the moment, I don't see how any of this can be fixed and it certainly can not be fixed by the government....

Maybe the stock holders of these corporations, (the owners) could speak up and insist their CEO not be paid so much? Maybe the good ole board of directors /CEO club could be curbed somehow, but how?

"There is X percentage that is allotted in each corporation's budget for compensation, if the CEO gets more of this percentage than he has in the past, then the math shows that employees have to get less to compensate for such....there's no way around that...."

That's not true. Savings due to automation, process improvement, and supply chain management drive increased compensation for management. The reason overall worker pay is lower is because the skills needed are diminishing.

Having the same bolt installed in the same panel all day long is unsustainable at a cost of $70 per hour, hence Detroit today.

Auto Worker Salaries

The problem with Detroit was with the decisions the execs made. They were making cars that consumers didn't want. That opened the door for the competition.

 

[Listening]

CEO pay continues to increase while we have a stagnant economy and wages for the average worker.
Median CEO pay crosses $10 million in latest survey | Las Vegas Review-Journal

This happens to be a topic that really annoys me.

What pisses me off is the way these guys have their own little world that sets compensation and is not really subject to shareholder scrutiny.

I would not pass laws against high salaries. I would allow shareholders to ban together to vote down salaries and bonuses.

Additionally, it really annoys me that they can set up golden parachutes for losers like Jill Barad

Perhaps the most lucrative exit package for an underperforming CEO is that of Mattel's Jill Barad. Ousted from the floundering toymaker last February, Barad got a $26.4 million payout and supplemental retirement worth $1 million. Mattel forgave a $4.2 million stock-related loan, the balance on a $3 million home loan it provided Barad and will cover her $3.3 million tax hit resulting from the forgiven loans. Mattel also covers Barad's health insurance, security services, outplacement help and financial counseling.

 

[Indeependent]

It's sad that conservatives believe that the guys who actually do the work at the corporations, the guys who build the cars, who dig the coal, who fly the planes, who serve you breakfast at MacDonalds, are overpaid,

and the guys who sit in the corner offices trying to figure out how many more of the real workers we can get rid of to squeeze another nickel of profit are the ones who are underpaid.

Are Beyonce and Jay Z overpaid or underpaid? and what should be done about it?

I haven't heard about them testifying before Congress to off-shore their production teams or bringing in foreign business visas to replaces their employees.
Have you?
Any other stupid comparisons?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Jesus Christ!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

CEO pay continues to increase while we have a stagnant economy and wages for the average worker.
Median CEO pay crosses $10 million in latest survey | Las Vegas Review-Journal

makes me want to work harder and smarter so I can become a CEO too.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Rich, including the rich CEO's, are the so-called 'job creators' aren't they, supposedly?

Ever been employed by someone homeless?

is the CEO averaging $10 million in salary a year PAYING for employees working for the corp or is his salary ALL HIS, paying for no new hires or workers?

what does a ceo's $10 million salary have to do with the corporation's workers or hiring?

not a thing to do with it! other than not having the budget to hire more or give better increases....

so what was your comment about Taz? I thought this thread was about the average CEO being paid $10 million a year?

Time for a cap of 5,000% of the lowest paid employee law to go into effect. Any resources left over should be divided in a benefits package towards all the workers. Fucking getting tired of these rich, selfish pigs fucking over the workers.

 

[ScienceRocks]

CEO pay continues to increase while we have a stagnant economy and wages for the average worker.
Median CEO pay crosses $10 million in latest survey | Las Vegas Review-Journal

makes me want to work harder and smarter so I can become a CEO too.

How far away from it are you?

 

[Mac1958]

The Rich, including the rich CEO's, are the so-called 'job creators' aren't they, supposedly?

And yet most CEO's have it in their job descriptions, implicitly, to make their corporation run with as few jobs as possible,

at the lowest wages possible, all things considered.

I would love to see a schematic of the thought process that brought you to this statement.

Tell me, what should be done about this? How much control should the government have over a business so that this is not the case? What types of new regulations would satisfy you?

Precisely? I'm sure you've thought this through.

How do you fix this problem, that the reason for the existence of a company is to maximize shareholder value? You're great at complaining about it, I have no doubt you'll be able to bowl us over with The Answer.

Full disclosure: I'm not expecting a reasoned, rational response.

.

 

[Sallow]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

All very good ideas.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

So you're telling me that voting for McCain or Romney would have produced a different outcome?

Prove it.

It could not possibly have been any worse. Everything obama has done has made the economy and the country weaker. He is the worst president in history, bar none. Jimmy Carter has a big smile on his face.

Obama started with an economy that was running at -6% GDP and losing over half a million jobs per month.

1. Prove the economy is worse now than THAT.

2. Show us any president that has had to start from that poor an economic condition.

Or, you could shut the fuck up.

democrats caused that economy. we have proof on you tube.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It could not possibly have been any worse. Everything obama has done has made the economy and the country weaker. He is the worst president in history, bar none. Jimmy Carter has a big smile on his face.

Obama started with an economy that was running at -6% GDP and losing over half a million jobs per month.

1. Prove the economy is worse now than THAT.

2. Show us any president that has had to start from that poor an economic condition.

Or, you could shut the fuck up.

Don't forget 2 wars. What president ever had to start with 2 wars?

harry truman

 

[zeke]

The Rich, including the rich CEO's, are the so-called 'job creators' aren't they, supposedly?

And yet most CEO's have it in their job descriptions, implicitly, to make their corporation run with as few jobs as possible,

at the lowest wages possible, all things considered.

So?

That's how business is supposed to run.

Says the guy who allows an employee to keep their job because she is a friends wife.
That's how business is supposed to run, right skull?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

All very good ideas.

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere:

• A maximum salary based on percentage of lowest salary (7x, 15x, 25x, whatever)
• Higher top-end marginal tax rates
• End stock options as compensation

What else?

.

 

[The T]

nice try, but don't expect anything meaningful from our friends on the left--------------they want all CEOs jailed, their money confiscated, and their wealth "given" to the starving masses.

The left wing idiots do not realize that the system they beg for consists of a very small group who control all of the power and all of the money and everyone else is "equally" miserable. Travel to Russia if you want to see it for yourself.

I guess what I'd like to see is a lefty who demonstrates that they have thought through the various implications of the options. There are a few things that can be done, of course, but each carries its own potential pitfalls.

Maybe there is a good combination of actions that can be taken. I'd just like to see that the downside has been examined, and I don't see that very often here.

.

I agree. Do you think the lefties would want those same limits placed on entertainers and athletes? Why do none of them complain about the amount of money that society is giving to Beyonce for example?

They are into the "Cult Of Personality"...and it shows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consider, you'd need at least 100 of these Average CEO's to pay for the failed ObamaCare Website, the only website that can't tell you when someone bought your product. That's OUR money Obama wasted.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It don't work that way. I have NEVER gone to a job and tried to debate my wage. Its either told to me what the wage IS or its in the job ad etc before I apply...its already a done deal.

you are either unskilled or don't value your work very much. company recruiters will offer the lowest wage you will accept and are always willing to offer more if asked and is within pay range for the job.

 

[Brain357]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

All very good ideas.

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere:

• A maximum salary based on percentage of lowest salary (7x, 15x, 25x, whatever)
• Higher top-end marginal tax rates
• End stock options as compensation

What else?

.

I would wipe out the current corporate tax system and create a new one with incentives to hire more employees and give better wages and benefits. One of the incentives would be based on CEO pay. So if the CEO is paid 300X the lowest salary then no tax break. But if it is 40X then you would get the maximum tax break. I would also set a living wage salary where further beaks would start. So there would be lots of incentives to raise up wages. These breaks would be paid for by a larger pool of better paid tax payers and a decrease in welfare cost. The problem with CEO's making so much is that many workers are making so little that they are on welfare. Walmart employees are collecting tons of welfare while the CEO's are making millions and the company is hugely profitable. Tax payers should not be paying for labor of corporations.

 

[bedowin62]

what is a "living wage" pray tell leftard?
is it the same everywhere?