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

[Redfish]

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.

its a fantasy ingrained in the liberal mind. That the government can make life fair.

 

[Brain357]

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.

a free market place raises wages. Who in the US economy is not treated "fairly" ?

CEO's colluding to hold down wages is not at all free market:
Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

 

[Brain357]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

 

[Redfish]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

many companies have profit sharing plans. Walmart for one.

your real problem is that you are jealous of people who are smarter than you or have more money than you have. I get it, the liberal mantra------------"punish success and reward failure".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Is that because of the CEO or the nature of the business?

 

[Thinker101]

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.

I'm surprised that you feel CEOs are the problem. I agree they make a lot of money, maybe even too much money. But for the government to step in and regulate their pay just goes against the grain in so many ways. Perhaps you should redirect your concerns toward illegal immigrants that tend to suppress wages.

 

[Redfish]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

maybe not any physical work. but those jobs are 24/7/365 and very high stress. A pussy like you could never make it as a CEO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

And who made that one up?

I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.

 

[Markle]

whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

Nonsense! They make hundreds of people a LOT of money. I don't know what the word "rich" means to you. Where does the income from "jocks and Hollywood types" end? Agents? TV rights? Stadiums? Vendors? Groundskeepers? Souvenirs?

 

[Brain357]

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.

I'm surprised that you feel CEOs are the problem. I agree they make a lot of money, maybe even too much money. But for the government to step in and regulate their pay just goes against the grain in so many ways. Perhaps you should redirect your concerns toward illegal immigrants that tend to suppress wages.

You think the very poorly paid immigrants are the main ones suppressing wages? Sorry to find the problem, you need to follow the money, and very little goes their way.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

so you want the government to specify how much a company can pay its executives? Does that apply to athletes and entertainers as well? How about members of congress? Should their outside incomes be limited? or taken from them?

you have no idea what you are asking for.

No, I said that corporations which expect the US government to supplement less than living wages with earned income credits, food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid, should not be allowed to pay huge salaries to their employees, until NONE OF THEIR FULL TIME WORKERS ARE RECEIVING WELFARE.

The last time I looked people in bigtime sports franchises or movie production were making well above minimum wages. Any company whose employees are not receiving welfare, is free to pay whatever they choose.

 

[Redfish]

whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

Nonsense! They make hundreds of people a LOT of money. I don't know what the word "rich" means to you. Where does the income from "jocks and Hollywood types" end? Agents? TV rights? Stadiums? Vendors? Groundskeepers? Souvenirs?

sorry, I should have said "themselves and their cronies". vendor and groundskeeper pay does not go up when athlete pay goes up. They would make the same amounts if player pay was cut in half.

 

[Redfish]

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.

so you want the government to specify how much a company can pay its executives? Does that apply to athletes and entertainers as well? How about members of congress? Should their outside incomes be limited? or taken from them?

you have no idea what you are asking for.

No, I said that corporations which expect the US government to supplement less than living wages with earned income credits, food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid, should not be allowed to pay huge salaries to their employees, until NONE OF THEIR FULL TIME WORKERS ARE RECEIVING WELFARE.

The last time I looked people in bigtime sports franchises or movie production were making well above minimum wages. Any company whose employees are not receiving welfare, is free to pay whatever they choose.

which full time employees of major corporations are receiving welfare? Please do some checking before answering so you don't make a fool of yourself.

 

[Brain357]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

And who made that one up?

I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.

You really just love an economy where people don't do well if they work hard. I really think you would make a good communist. Most of what you say really isn't American. Why do you think we became such a strong nation? It's the middle class. Lots of countries have had really rich and really poor. That stagnates growth. But creating a strong middle class is what made us better.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

Let's not be misleading here...you people don't give a shit about the employees who actually play a role in the growth, development and profitability of the company...right? These types of employees in key positions are generally well compensated.
You're really "looking out for" Juan who pushes the broom and takes out the trash...who basically stole an American kids job...right?
You want Juan to be able to provide for his familia of eight on what should be a child's job salary...right?
Do you believe Juan, with his brainless broom pushing duty is influencing the trajectory of the company?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

so you want the government to specify how much a company can pay its executives? Does that apply to athletes and entertainers as well? How about members of congress? Should their outside incomes be limited? or taken from them?

you have no idea what you are asking for.

I am asking for equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

Then, the poor don't need to care how much the rich make.

 

[Brain357]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

maybe not any physical work. but those jobs are 24/7/365 and very high stress. A pussy like you could never make it as a CEO.

Yes their job is kind of like playing monopoly. You make lots of decisions, but don't do any actual work. I like monopoly.

 

[Thinker101]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

And who made that one up?

I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.

You really just love an economy where people don't do well if they work hard. I really think you would make a good communist. Most of what you say really isn't American. Why do you think we became such a strong nation? It's the middle class. Lots of countries have had really rich and really poor. That stagnates growth. But creating a strong middle class is what made us better.

No, but I do love an at-will employment state which allows me to quit at any time and move on to a better paying job.

 

[Brain357]

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

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

And who made that one up?

I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.

You really just love an economy where people don't do well if they work hard. I really think you would make a good communist. Most of what you say really isn't American. Why do you think we became such a strong nation? It's the middle class. Lots of countries have had really rich and really poor. That stagnates growth. But creating a strong middle class is what made us better.

No, but I do love an at-will employment state which allows me to quit at any time and move on to a better paying job.

That is how it should be. Shame sometimes CEOs collude to hold down market wages:
Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case