New finding CEO pay raises 28% this year alone.

[J-Money]

I'd like to see a presidential candidate run on a platform of "The world isn't fair". Would likely have to be Republican.

I'm sure he would garner all kinds of votes.

 

[rchiu]

I'd like to see a presidential candidate run on a platform of "The world isn't fair". Would likely have to be Republican.

I'm sure he would garner all kinds of votes.

Yeah right, when is the last time you see politicians tell it like it is.

American love to hear politicians telling them what they want to hear. That's why you see guy like Obama with his hope and change gets elected. That's why you see these liberals with their PC ideas running around trying to make everyone feels all warm and fuzzy inside.

And that's why America is losing competitiveness and our place in the world. All these adventurous, hardworking and self-sufficient spirit is replaced by entitlement, complacency and blame everyone but ourselves attitude.

 

[davmat787]

I'd like to see a presidential candidate run on a platform of "The world isn't fair". Would likely have to be Republican.

I'm sure he would garner all kinds of votes.

I've long maintained that the exact type of President we need to start us on a road to fix this mess would not be electable, regardless of party. The screams of him/her being a nutjob or whatever combined with how the media would paint the candidate would sink the candidacy.

 

[HomerJS]

My salary went up 33% this year. I am not a CEO. Am I still evil?

My salary has gone up over 300% since I graduated from college almost 10 years ago. I guess I am just an asshole for continuing to make more and more money every year when there are still some out there making less and less. Maybe I should redistribute some of my salary to those that are making less and less to make things more "fair."

It's kind of tough to answer your question based just on these numbers. I might feel one way if you invented some great new thing a lot of people wanted and it made you sucessful. However you may be in organized crime. I might feel different about that.

It is a complete canard the left hates rich people. In general people who become uber-rich from nothing are admired by the left. A few examples

Steve Jobs
Oprah Winfrey
Bill Gates
Mark Cuban

If you caused the bankrupting of your company and it took a government bailout to save, would you keep that high paying position with a big bonus or would you be fired? What should happen?

Herein lies part of the beef.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jesus how difficult is it for you communist to understand that in this country, people don't get paid because it's "fair", but because how much value/profit/business/revenue they can bring for the stockholders or owners. You answered your own question, companies make money, CEO gets paid.

If you are a worker but don't bring any value to the company, like patent, special knowledge/skills, why should companies keep paying you more? But if you are valuable employee, you get paid increase the same.

Sorry to break it to you guys, this world is not fair, it's far from the utopia communists and socialist have been selling to people. You don't get nice salary and fancy life style for being the bottom 20%. You are not entitled to a job if you don't keep update your skill and go for a career in industries that are growing.

Sorry man, if you are too dumb or naive to understand how things work, guess you will just have to join those OWS losers to blame everything and everyone except yourself.

Sorry man but when the people come to burn it down you'll find out how things really work.

 

[J-Money]

I've long maintained that the exact type of President we need to start us on a road to fix this mess would not be electable, regardless of party. The screams of him/her being a nutjob or whatever combined with how the media would paint the candidate would sink the candidacy.

This is very true, and sad.

 

[davmat787]

This is very true, and sad.

And if that is indeed true, then is the problem really the system? Or is the problem us who allow the system to be gamed for whatever short term reason of supposed benefit? Capitalism/free market isn't the problem IMO, it is us as this kind of freedom and opportunity requires tremendous responsibility, stewardship, sacrifice and determination.

We aren't driving the good ship USA correctly.

edit: admittedly I am not the best at metaphors but I think you will get the point I am attempting to make.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

“This is the ratio of pay for CEOs vs. the average worker for the following countries:
Japan 11:1, Germany 12:1, France 15:1, Italy 20:1, Canada 20:1, South Africa 21:1, Britain 22:1, Mexico 47:1, Venezuela 50:1 and the United States 475:1. Class warfare? You decide.”

Copied this from my local paper, I do not know the author, nor where they got these stats.

 

[child of wonder]

I have little qualms with companies paying CEOs large amounts of money but only so long as they perform. Currently, it seems CEOs can waltz into a company, run it into the ground, and then get paid millions to walk away.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So if shareholders (or board that represents shareholders), who should determine CEO pay? You? General public? Government? And you believe those people/entities making decision would be better?

How about tying CEO pay directly to long-term profitability? Make good decisions for the long-term, get a reward in the long-term. Drive the country into bankruptcy and you merely get your $1 million/year base pay.

You people are all the same, you believe somehow there is a utopia where everything works. But when you put theory into practice, having some big smart brother trying right everything, you get China/Russia with even more f-up system.

I don't believe in utopia, but I think that there are economic systems that are much better than what we have. What we have right now definitely isn't working. How about some sort of a Mixed Economy that combined the best elements of capitalism and socialism? For example, socialized medicine has been proven to be far superior and more efficient than our current system, so we could adopt that. The government could regulate businesses properly to reduce externalities and unaccountability. Then it could also regulate international trade and immigration to ensure that it's beneficial for the American people. How about that for starters?

 

[her209]

Jesus how difficult is it for you communist to understand that in this country, people don't get paid because it's "fair", but because how much value/profit/business/revenue they can bring for the stockholders or owners. You answered your own question, companies make money, CEO gets paid.

If you are a worker but don't bring any value to the company, like patent, special knowledge/skills, why should companies keep paying you more? But if you are valuable employee, you get paid increase the same.

Weird. When it comes to unions at these same corporations, then its OK for the public/outsiders to dictate what they can make?

Sorry to break it to you guys, this world is not fair, it's far from the utopia communists and socialist have been selling to people. You don't get nice salary and fancy life style for being the bottom 20%. You are not entitled to a job if you don't keep update your skill and go for a career in industries that are growing.

The same could be said of taxes. Taxes aren't fair. Sorry to break it to the rich.

 

[Ausm]

Unfortunately, the entire point of a Business is not really to employ people or give higher wages to workers. more or less, its basically just to make investors money....jobs and wages are kind of a side effect.

LOLWut what about the job creators???? You must not listen to the Rhetoric coming from the Congress I want the to see the people in the front office come down and do my job and turn out the same profit margins the owner of my Company enjoys

 

[fskimospy]

First be aware that most exec compensation is from stock options. ISO type stock options.

ISO stock must be granted to the exec (and others) at FMV and held for at least 2 years.

If you were granted stock options in 2008 or 2009 how cheap do you think that stock would have been back then?

How much profit would you likely show if you held it until this year to sell?

Don't you think it's quite likely the increase is nothing more than the stock market going back up?

The gain/income on those ISO's is reported as exec competition even though it didn't cost the company any $'s.

Here's a chart: http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html

Statistics like this are a pretty crappy way to judge anything. Particularly for something as potentially complicate as this.

Fern

That doesn't really matter to the larger point, that of CEO compensation increasing at a vastly higher rate than either normal workers' pay or profits of the company. It's been doing that for 40 years now through both boom and bust. I mean does anyone actually believe that these people are generating economic output equal to their wages?

 

[dmcowen674]

10-16-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-rally-dc-easier-access-jobs-180417484.html

Thousands rally in DC for easier access to jobs


housands of people led by the Rev. Al Sharpton rallied Saturday near the Washington Monument, where speakers called for easier job access and decried the gulf between rich and poor

"If you can't get the jobs bill done in the suites, then we will get the jobs bill done in the streets," Sharpton said to cheers and applause.
He told the crowd that King would have supported their cause "because he stood for those who were cast down and cast back." King's eldest son, Martin Luther King III, was also among the speakers.


"Over 45 years ago, my father talked about a redistribution of wealth. In fact, that is probably why he was killed," King said. "Because he said if America is going to survive responsibly, then it must have a redistribution of wealth."

 

[soulcougher73]

Maybe you shouldn't use anecdotal evidence in an unrelated job position to argue against nationwide trends.

LOL :thumbsup:

 

[CPA]

It matters because that money could instead be distributed to the actual workers who engage in the physical and mental labor needed to actually create the wealth. The issue is, is the CEO compensation coming at the expense of the actual workers?

At the extreme, CEOs could receive 99% of a company's payroll while the workers only received 1% (slave wages). Do you see how it could become an issue?

Let's suppose that as a result of a gigantic, almost infinite increase the amount of available labor that every business could engage in a 99%-1% model and that the wealthy class that owns all the capital implicitly conspired to keep it that way, resulting in a society where 1% of the populace was rich and 99% of the populace were essentially slaves. Do you see how that might be an issue?

Guys like you and Biff are what are called "useful idiots", along with the TEA Party and Republican base.

There's NO DIRECT correlation to a CEO NOT getting a raise to the money getting redistributed to the other employees (remember, a CEO is an employee, just like every other worker).

Let me ask another question - Does everyone else get equal raises in both terms of percentage and timing? Of course not. Many get raises outside of normal merit increases and many others get higher regular merit increases. And guess what - IT HAPPENS EVEN WHEN A COMPANY LOSES MONEY FOR THAT YEAR!

There is no difference, except the media attention that CEO pay gets.

 

[CPA]

“This is the ratio of pay for CEOs vs. the average worker for the following countries:
Japan 11:1, Germany 12:1, France 15:1, Italy 20:1, Canada 20:1, South Africa 21:1, Britain 22:1, Mexico 47:1, Venezuela 50:1 and the United States 475:1. Class warfare? You decide.”

Copied this from my local paper, I do not know the author, nor where they got these stats.

Okay? So what?

You guys act like a CEO pay determines your life or the life of others. There is nothing stopping you from creating your own business and becoming the CEO. Ohhhhh, but we don't want to do that, we want to blame our salary and position in life on others. It's easier that way.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay? So what?

You guys act like a CEO pay determines your life or the life of others. There is nothing stopping you from creating your own business and becoming the CEO. Ohhhhh, but we don't want to do that, we want to blame our salary and position in life on others. It's easier that way.

You're right, everyone in America should just become a CEO, then the problem would solve itself!

In a nutshell, this is the problem:

What you see there is that when America became more productive, everyone got a share of that increased wealth.

That has stopped. That is a problem.

 

[Ausm]

There's NO DIRECT correlation to a CEO NOT getting a raise to the money getting redistributed to the other employees (remember, a CEO is an employee, just like every other worker).

Let me ask another question - Does everyone else get equal raises in both terms of percentage and timing? Of course not. Many get raises outside of normal merit increases and many others get higher regular merit increases. And guess what - IT HAPPENS EVEN WHEN A COMPANY LOSES MONEY FOR THAT YEAR!

There is no difference, except the media attention that CEO pay gets.

I need to work for this Company

 

[CPA]

I need to work for this Company

I have received a raise and a bonus every year for the 12 years I've worked for my company and more than one year we "lost money". Losing money is in itself a misnomer because there are plenty of ways for a company to "lose money" even though cash flow is positive.

 

[CPA]

You're right, everyone in America should just become a CEO, then the problem would solve itself!

In a nutshell, this is the problem:

What you see there is that when America became more productive, everyone got a share of that increased wealth.

That has stopped. That is a problem.

But, why is that? It's not because of CEO pay.

How about it's because we've become a global economy and whereas years ago an idea or company was formed it was incubated and grew at home, thereby affecting exponentially more Americans, now these same ideas are incubated, funded and grown around the world, benefiting other country's citizens.

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have 10% unemployment, but it's NOT a result of CEO pay. It's more a result of the globalization of American companies and ideas. How to fix it, well, that's the quandry.

 

[fskimospy]

But, why is that? It's not because of CEO pay.

How about it's because we've become a global economy and whereas years ago an idea or company was formed it was incubated and grew at home, thereby affecting exponentially more Americans, now these same ideas are incubated, funded and grown around the world, benefiting other country's citizens.

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have 10% unemployment, but it's NOT a result of CEO pay. It's more a result of the globalization of American companies and ideas. How to fix it, well, that's the quandry.

CEO pay is a symptom of this, and it behaves in exactly the inverse of those charts. As productivity has increased, CEO pay has skyrocketed at a rate that far outpaces productivity. While the average person stagnates despite becoming enormously more productive, the CEO's become enormously more rich.

If this were simply a measure of globalization there would be a similar effect in other developed countries. There's nothing even remotely close.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have 10% unemployment, but it's NOT a result of CEO pay.

Perhaps, but I think we need to acknowledge that the incredible pay levels for American CEO's are part & parcel of the problem.

It's not like they're 20X smarter or work 20X harder than their predecessors of 30 years ago, or that they far superior to their international competitors.

If American workers need to compete against their international counterparts, American CEO's should, too.

 

[child of wonder]

But, why is that? It's not because of CEO pay.

How about it's because we've become a global economy and whereas years ago an idea or company was formed it was incubated and grew at home, thereby affecting exponentially more Americans, now these same ideas are incubated, funded and grown around the world, benefiting other country's citizens.

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have 10% unemployment, but it's NOT a result of CEO pay. It's more a result of the globalization of American companies and ideas. How to fix it, well, that's the quandry.

How could CEO pay (or, more general, executive pay) not be part of the problem?

Think about this -- how much of our manufacturing, phone support, etc. have we shipped overseas? How many hundreds of billions of dollars (if not trillions) are American corporations saving due to these moves?

Yet despite all these savings, the cost of goods continue to increase and the average American sees their pay barely move an inch in the last 30 years.

SOMEONE is going to the bank with all that saved money and it's not the average American.

 

[halik]

You're right, everyone in America should just become a CEO, then the problem would solve itself!

In a nutshell, this is the problem:

What you see there is that when America became more productive, everyone got a share of that increased wealth.

That has stopped. That is a problem.

Is this from the Economist?