Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.
The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.
Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.
it is about unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.
First, you say you don't disagree with Dr. Williams and then you rant about the "rich" free riding on privileges and immunities. What privileges and immunities? Further, his essay clearly show that the majority of people move up and down through different income brackets and the key components of a successful life.
Not sure either about equal protection of the law. Abide by the law and that is not an issue for anyone.
It is about first world work ethics; equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes, is a first world, civic solution.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?
WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?
Our situation is worse than I thought.
there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Nothing we do, or any government does, will ever change that. Its a fact of life, we do not all get equal results, however, in this country we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.
it is about unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.
First, you say you don't disagree with Dr. Williams and then you rant about the "rich" free riding on privileges and immunities. What privileges and immunities? Further, his essay clearly show that the majority of people move up and down through different income brackets and the key components of a successful life.
Not sure either about equal protection of the law. Abide by the law and that is not an issue for anyone.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.
The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.
Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.
same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.
I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.
Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.
The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.
Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.
same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.
I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.
Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.
But that isn't true:
A new report from MSCI has found that better paid CEOs tend to run worse performing companies, while their underpaid peers achieve significantly better results.
The authors, who studied 429 large U.S. companies over a 10-year period, summarized their findings this way: "Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, 'no.'"
The report found that average shareholder returns over the decade were 39% higher when a company's CEO was in the bottom 20% of earners compared to a CEO in the top 20% of earners.
Top-paid CEOs aren't very good at their jobs
It is about improving the efficiency of our economy by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.It is about first world work ethics; equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes, is a first world, civic solution.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?
WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?
Our situation is worse than I thought.
there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Nothing we do, or any government does, will ever change that. Its a fact of life, we do not all get equal results, however, in this country we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.
We agree that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. But, sadly, that is not the case and never has been. OJ Simpson was not treated the same way that a ghetto murderer would have been treated.
not sure what unemployment compensation has to do with this, but UE payments are equal regardless of what you made while working.
the legal concept of employment at will.it is about unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.
First, you say you don't disagree with Dr. Williams and then you rant about the "rich" free riding on privileges and immunities. What privileges and immunities? Further, his essay clearly show that the majority of people move up and down through different income brackets and the key components of a successful life.
Not sure either about equal protection of the law. Abide by the law and that is not an issue for anyone.
are you trying to make a case for unions? WTF are you talking about here?
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.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
the legal concept of employment at will.it is about unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.
First, you say you don't disagree with Dr. Williams and then you rant about the "rich" free riding on privileges and immunities. What privileges and immunities? Further, his essay clearly show that the majority of people move up and down through different income brackets and the key components of a successful life.
Not sure either about equal protection of the law. Abide by the law and that is not an issue for anyone.
are you trying to make a case for unions? WTF are you talking about here?
same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.
I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.
Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.
some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.
The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.
Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.
same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.
I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.
Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.
But that isn't true:
A new report from MSCI has found that better paid CEOs tend to run worse performing companies, while their underpaid peers achieve significantly better results.
The authors, who studied 429 large U.S. companies over a 10-year period, summarized their findings this way: "Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, 'no.'"
The report found that average shareholder returns over the decade were 39% higher when a company's CEO was in the bottom 20% of earners compared to a CEO in the top 20% of earners.
Top-paid CEOs aren't very good at their jobs
if true, which I doubt, then blame the BOD for giving the guy/gal a bad contract and not insisting on results.
Do you want the government stepping on when a CEO fails to produce? Exactly what do you think should change?
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.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
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.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
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.
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.
same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.
I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.
Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.
The Board is made up of other CEO's and executives who know that their decisions regarding executive pay will eventually boost their own salaries so of course they vote for these raises. Executive pay has risen by more in than 300% during the same 35 year period that low end worker pay has stagnated.
CEO pay is driven less by performance, and more by contracts approved by Directors who are CEO's of their own corporations. This is what has driven up executive pay - not performance, not economic factors - the "Old Boys' Network" is taking care of their own.
Carly Fiorino was fired by HP but was still paid millions via her "golden parachute". These aren't payments driven by performance or results.
No corporation should be allowed to pay out rumeration in any form which runs into 8 figures, if that company's employees are receiving earned income credits, food stamps or Medicaid. Companies need to be paying their workers a living wage - especially companies like McDonalds which is paying more than $20 million to their CEO.
For those who say that McDonald's stores can't afford higher wages, then McDonald's corporate needs to drop their franchise and advertising fees, since corporate is awash in cash and is one of the most profitable corporations in the US.
What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.
I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.
Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.
For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.
I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.
Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.
And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.
Well stagnant wages slows an economy. I'd much rather workers were treated fairly so our economy could be stronger.
