Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Papageorgio]

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

You'll have to explain why you feel it failed.

Because we needed more socialism to bailout lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

The banking system failed, capitalism worked (and works) just fine.

Great Depressions only happen under laissez-fair capitalism, not socialism.

Sorry but you are wrong. Socialism is a failure where ever it has been. Socialism depends on no greed, man is inherently greedy. Socialism always has the elite.

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

 

[Brain357]

The actors are not deciding any of the pay.

Why then do they have agents?

Not real familiar with the industry, but my understanding is the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay.

 

[danielpalos]

Because we needed more socialism to bailout lazy, laissez-fair capitalism.

The banking system failed, capitalism worked (and works) just fine.

Great Depressions only happen under laissez-fair capitalism, not socialism.

Sorry but you are wrong. Socialism is a failure where ever it has been. Socialism depends on no greed, man is inherently greedy. Socialism always has the elite.

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

 

[Brain357]

They are not socialist countries, please read up on what socialism is, Socialism is the prohibition of an elite, Scandinavian countries have an elite class. The disqualifies them from being true socialists.

You are 100 percent correct. Moreover, Scandinavian countries do have serious economic classes. Given their massive taxes, they readily admit that whatever class they are born into it is virtually impossible for them to move up.

That is counter to everything I have ever seen:
An elasticity of 0.47 found in the United States offers much less likelihood of moving up than an elasticity of 0.18 or less, as characterizes Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

 

[Markle]

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

 

[Markle]

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

 

[Brain357]

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

I don't see how that compares our mobility to Scandinavia...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

Brain (and others) are convinced that CEO pay is responsible for others not making better money in a company. Therefore if a CEO is making 10 million a year, that's why the floor sweeper is only making $12.00 an hour.

They believe that if we could somehow reduce CEO pay drastically, that floor sweeper would be making $18.00 per hour instead. All other blue collar workers would receive much better money as well.

It really doesn't work that way, but they think it does.

 

[Markle]

The actors are not deciding any of the pay.

Why then do they have agents?

Not real familiar with the industry, but my understanding is the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay.

You just said that the actors do not decide any of the pay. Here you say, "the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay." Which is true. But how can you have it both ways? Oh, that's right, you're a Progressive!

 

[danielpalos]

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

 

[danielpalos]

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

Some reports claim compensation is only nominally tied to performance, but no actual tie to performance.

 

[Brain357]

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

 

[Brain357]

The actors are not deciding any of the pay.

Why then do they have agents?

Not real familiar with the industry, but my understanding is the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay.

You just said that the actors do not decide any of the pay. Here you say, "the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay." Which is true. But how can you have it both ways? Oh, that's right, you're a Progressive!

Everyone can negotiate their pay. But it is dependent on getting their boss to agree. Same for an actor. For a CEO they just decide their own pay. Strange you can't see the difference. Actors even get help negotiating from an agent. If they decided their own pay, why would they bother with an agent?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

 

[francoHFW]

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

Brain (and others) are convinced that CEO pay is responsible for others not making better money in a company. Therefore if a CEO is making 10 million a year, that's why the floor sweeper is only making $12.00 an hour.

They believe that if we could somehow reduce CEO pay drastically, that floor sweeper would be making $18.00 per hour instead. All other blue collar workers would receive much better money as well.

It really doesn't work that way, but they think it does.

In 1955, CEOs made 23 times the workers' pay, 1980, 40x. Then as always with the rich under Reaganism, it skyrocketed, now 300x. The only way to limit it is to raise taxes at higher amounts. Do it. They've lost touch with workers and we could use the money for investment in Americans like the good old days. It's just part of this Reaganist mess, dupes.

 

[Brain357]

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

 

[Brain357]

Yep, that's very true. They make the money they do because not many are able to perform the way they can.

A few years ago I purchased a new big screen. I'm not much of a television watcher, but I became one. I started to watch the show Big Bang Theory, and got interested in the cast. So I looked them up on the internet.

Turns out these are very wealthy people. They each get one million dollars per episode plus cuts when their shows get rerun and various other perks. It's a half-hour show. Take out the commercials, it's about 20 minutes. There are about eight or nine major players in the show, so how long could each one act, 2 to 5 minutes?????

I'm sure some of them put a lot of time into their career, took some risks, obviously have talents, but compared to a CEO that went through college, worked his or her way up the ladder, making business relationships, making political relationships, moving from town to town, yet they make a fraction of the money some in the entertainment field do, yet nobody on the left ever comments yet alone complains about the money actors make.

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

Brain (and others) are convinced that CEO pay is responsible for others not making better money in a company. Therefore if a CEO is making 10 million a year, that's why the floor sweeper is only making $12.00 an hour.

They believe that if we could somehow reduce CEO pay drastically, that floor sweeper would be making $18.00 per hour instead. All other blue collar workers would receive much better money as well.

It really doesn't work that way, but they think it does.

What about when ceo's collude to hold down wages?
Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

 

[danielpalos]

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

Brain (and others) are convinced that CEO pay is responsible for others not making better money in a company. Therefore if a CEO is making 10 million a year, that's why the floor sweeper is only making $12.00 an hour.

They believe that if we could somehow reduce CEO pay drastically, that floor sweeper would be making $18.00 per hour instead. All other blue collar workers would receive much better money as well.

It really doesn't work that way, but they think it does.

What about when ceo's collude to hold down wages?
Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

I guess they must be socialist; let's ask, Boss or Ding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.