Except if you pay attention, you will see that the executive team increased their compensation at the expense of the typical person on the workforce. This guy is hauling in $145 million but at the same time he ended the pension program for regular workers.
One point of progressive taxation is to make it more expensive for companies to pay one guy grossly more than the next guy.
I'm glad we have become a civilized society and keep barbarians like you at bay. If it weren't for the law and the police I have no doubt you would be physically robbing people daily, and probably think you were justified doing so.
Progressive taxation doesn't work.
Except for the economic boom of the 50s and 60s that created the American middle class with 90% top tax rates.
senseamp said:Shareholder money
karmypolitics said:Yeah, the issue really is that shareholders really don't have the information to successfully police this shit. The CEO holds all of the info.
A founder/owner of a company wouldn't have a problem with this, since he would hold intimate info.
What the Occupy people and you fail to understand is that no one is entitled to determine the pay of anyone in a private company except those in charge of that private company.
If that private company receives public money there is a valid claim that the public money should be paid back in full before anyone in that company gets a raise, but that's not what the Occupy movement (or idiots like yourself) is limited to; it's an attack on anyone who makes much more money than you do... as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs.
We're not the same country we were in the 50s and 60s.
Right, so that means we aren't allowed to criticize the third-world-level wealth inequality that has grown and even been endorsed by society since Reaganomics infected the brains of Americans?
Get used to it. The era of the top 0.1% fucking over everybody else is coming to an end.
That is simply shameful. But the usual suspects are always here defending just this sort of screwing of the middle class to make insanely more money for the top 1%.The company discontinued its pension program for ordinary employees in 1997 but not for top executives. If Hammergren quit tomorrow, according to company filings, he would receive a pension valued at $125 million.
Criticize it all you want... but the only way you're going to do anything about it is by boycotting the products of the companies whose CEOs are, in your opinion, paid too much.
Looking for and advocating some sort of legal method to "fix" this "inequality" is where the wheels come off the bandwagon.
No we aren't, we have less progressive taxation and the middle class is vanishing.
And you claim the two are not only true but also a cause-effect dynamic? That's a bit as specious as claiming that a tree falling in the woods in Montana caused a specific sound to be heard in Florida.
And you claim that progressive taxation doesn't work. How about you live up to your burden of proof first before expecting it of others? Progressive taxation funded building of infrastructure and educating the middle class that made this country the economic powerhouse it is today. Since supply-siders took over, the middle class has been in decline.
Shareholder money.
To the 1%er apologists here, only executives are hard working people who deserve to be fantastically rewarded for their wonderful efforts. Everyone else is just a cog in the machinery who should just shut up and be happy they have a job at all.
Two statements that are nothing more than your subjective opinion.... except now our spending is primarily on three things: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
(1)We don't properly spend what we collect in taxes, (2) but that doesn't mean we need to tax some people more and others less.
To the 1%er apologists here, only executives are hard working people who deserve to be fantastically rewarded for their wonderful efforts. Everyone else is just a cog in the machinery who should just shut up and be happy they have a job at all.
Hammergren enjoys his success and pay on the backs of people like my father who works for McKesson. The company takes advantage of my dad's insane work ethic (farm boy who had to run the family farm all on his own at age 12 because his father was an alcoholic) by throwing so many projects at him he has to put in 70 hours per week to complete them. At age 58, he can't just get a different job since not many companies need his mainframe computer skills anymore and few would hire someone so close to retirement, although it hasn't stopped him from looking.
As a reward for working 70 hours a week for the last 4 months and averaging 50 hours per week for all of 2011, he received a $1,000 bonus and 4 hours of PTO. It was a slap in the face. In essence, he worked all that overtime for $0.86/hour.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hammergren sends internal emails to the entire company telling them all about vacations he and his family take.
Despite my father's warnings about making him work so hard and not training a backup nothing was done to ease his work load. A month ago dad began to have terrible headaches and found a blood vessel had burst in his head causing a subdural hematoma. Thankfully after 2 brain surgeries the blood was drained and the vessel repaired and he is recovering well.
Mr. Hammergren and McKesson are free to set pay and benefits how they choose. I have little issue with executives earning high salaries and bonuses. Every company requires strong leadership to survive and grow. However, it is rapidly and obviously apparent that Mr. Hammergren and other corporate CEOs have little regard for the people below them that work so hard to ensure their visions and ambitions for the company become reality.
The stock price when he began his stint was ~$27 and is now ~$78.
That is a ~180% increase over the ~10 years he has been CEO.
Two statements that are nothing more than your subjective opinion.
To the 1%er whiners here, only ordinary workers are hard working people who deserve to be fantastically rewarded for their wonderful efforts. Every CEO is overpaid and should be paid what we want them to be paid, not what their company's board of directors agrees to. We're entitled to determine their pay, not because we're shareholders or members of the boards of these companies, but because we don't like the fact that they make more money than we do.
No more than anything you've said.