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

[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.

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.

What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?

 

[Markle]

You miss the equation. Government should be, not for profit. Thus, it is about cost, not cost plus profit.

Where and how does government make a profit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

 

[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.

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.

What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?

Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.

 

[Brain357]

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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well then for one, you obviously don't know what Communism is, and two, nothing is more American than telling a man you will work for him at an agreed rate of pay for agreed work. It's that simple.

 

[Markle]

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.

You just play here don't you? You just relish in making outrageous, foolish statements.

 

[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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You should be able to quit and still get unemployment compensation.

 

[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.

Well then for one, you obviously don't know what Communism is, and two, nothing is more American than telling a man you will work for him at an agreed rate of pay for agreed work. It's that simple.

I understand that one reason communism failed is because they tried to pay everyone the same regardless of how hard they worked. You want people to work hard and just be happy they have a job rather than share in the success. Very un-American.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

Just cherry picking? Nobody complains about merit based pay.

 

[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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

They are just voting for whoever is up for a vote regardless is stock is going up or down. Like you said they might accidently vote the janitor in.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?

Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.

More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here

 

[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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

They are just voting for whoever is up for a vote regardless is stock is going up or down. Like you said they might accidently vote the janitor in.

Individuals and people that are not major holders in the company might, but major stockholders are paying very close attention.

I'm not a major stockholder, but I do have a nice IRA account. The market is doing great and so is my IRA, but if it were not, I would be on the phone with my investment company asking WTF is going on?

My investment company handles thousands of clients like myself. Collectively, we are talking millions of dollars here. If there is something going on with an investment that is very suspicious or even crooked, my investment company is obligated by law to pull our money out of that investment.

Fund managers have a hell of a lot of say-so with companies because you don't want them pulling all that money out. In fact, I would never have to worry about such a scenario because my investment company would pull me out of a bad investment before I even realized I was in a bad investment.

 

[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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

Just cherry picking? Nobody complains about merit based pay.

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. CEOs do get paid based on past performance.

 

[Brain357]

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.

What is your definition of work? Based on what you've said is it safe to say work only involves physical labor?

Not at all. There are just different types of work. Just making the decisions and having everyone else do the physical work is much different. Kinda like playing monopoly. There is a reason why CEOs tend to work till they die and people doing the real work can't wait to retire.

More common delusion from Lefties....If you aren't pushing a broom or digging holes you're overpaid. No value in your education and or intelligence...haha
This is mostly shit you're inherently unable to wrap your head around being a Liberal and all.
Just as in life, quality decision making is paramount to success.
CEO's are paid to think, make key decisions, problem solve and command overall direction.
Simple shit here

I don't disagree CEOs should be paid well. But their increases are not explainable by economics. CEOs on the board vote for raises so that they themselves get raises by their board.

 

[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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

They are just voting for whoever is up for a vote regardless is stock is going up or down. Like you said they might accidently vote the janitor in.

Individuals and people that are not major holders in the company might, but major stockholders are paying very close attention.

I'm not a major stockholder, but I do have a nice IRA account. The market is doing great and so is my IRA, but if it were not, I would be on the phone with my investment company asking WTF is going on?

My investment company handles thousands of clients like myself. Collectively, we are talking millions of dollars here. If there is something going on with an investment that is very suspicious or even crooked, my investment company is obligated by law to pull our money out of that investment.

Fund managers have a hell of a lot of say-so with companies because you don't want them pulling all that money out. In fact, I would never have to worry about such a scenario because my investment company would pull me out of a bad investment before I even realized I was in a bad investment.

The stock market goes up and down and brings individual companies with it rather the CEO is doing great work or not. And I've already posted the highest paid CEOs performance is not so good.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

They are just voting for whoever is up for a vote regardless is stock is going up or down. Like you said they might accidently vote the janitor in.

Individuals and people that are not major holders in the company might, but major stockholders are paying very close attention.

I'm not a major stockholder, but I do have a nice IRA account. The market is doing great and so is my IRA, but if it were not, I would be on the phone with my investment company asking WTF is going on?

My investment company handles thousands of clients like myself. Collectively, we are talking millions of dollars here. If there is something going on with an investment that is very suspicious or even crooked, my investment company is obligated by law to pull our money out of that investment.

Fund managers have a hell of a lot of say-so with companies because you don't want them pulling all that money out. In fact, I would never have to worry about such a scenario because my investment company would pull me out of a bad investment before I even realized I was in a bad investment.

Or at least we hope they would pull monies out. Just as there are good/bad companies, good/bad CEO's, there are good/bad fund managers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well then for one, you obviously don't know what Communism is, and two, nothing is more American than telling a man you will work for him at an agreed rate of pay for agreed work. It's that simple.

I understand that one reason communism failed is because they tried to pay everyone the same regardless of how hard they worked. You want people to work hard and just be happy they have a job rather than share in the success. Very un-American.

Unless you have profit sharing as a benefit, no, you don't share in the success of the company. You agreed to do X work for X amount of money regardless how good or bad a company is doing. If you process 20 pieces of material on your drill press and the company is doing great, why should you get more money for processing those 20 pieces as before?

Now if you want to share in the companies good fortunes, then buy their stock. In fact, some companies will let you buy stock at a discount because you are an employee.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the stockholders do not vote on who's is running for the board positions. They vote on the people once they are selected. If a company didn't do that, then you could have the janitor running for a board position and unknowing stockholders just might vote for him.

Major stockholders (who are very valued by the company) are not about to keep their millions invested in a company that is wasting money on unworthy employees. If CEO's are not performing to the major stockholders expectation, and he's still getting more money, they will pull their millions out of the company and go somewhere else.

Just like stock holders are unknowingly voting in CEOs who have their own interests. Maybe you are getting it now.

The only interest an investor has is growth of money which comes from growth of a company they are invested in. They don't care about anything else.

So yes, if a CEO is responsible for great returns on their investments, why should they not vote for the board members that pay that CEO more money?

They are just voting for whoever is up for a vote regardless is stock is going up or down. Like you said they might accidently vote the janitor in.

Individuals and people that are not major holders in the company might, but major stockholders are paying very close attention.

I'm not a major stockholder, but I do have a nice IRA account. The market is doing great and so is my IRA, but if it were not, I would be on the phone with my investment company asking WTF is going on?

My investment company handles thousands of clients like myself. Collectively, we are talking millions of dollars here. If there is something going on with an investment that is very suspicious or even crooked, my investment company is obligated by law to pull our money out of that investment.

Fund managers have a hell of a lot of say-so with companies because you don't want them pulling all that money out. In fact, I would never have to worry about such a scenario because my investment company would pull me out of a bad investment before I even realized I was in a bad investment.

Or at least we hope they would pull monies out. Just as there are good/bad companies, good/bad CEO's, there are good/bad fund managers.

This is true, but I would assume major investment companies have the best managers their money can find. These are not blind trusts. You have a list of companies your investment company has you involved in.