Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 And wow, you own a business therefore you know everything right? You can speak on behalf of CEO's and major corporations. WOW, a Board told the CEO he needs to be paid more. I am SHOCKED. How about they ask the employees if he should be paid more? Who is spreading this rumor that I own my own company?? I'm not the one speaking about all CEO's here, you are lumping them all in the evil category. I think that every employee would vote with a resounding YES if asked should our CEO be paid more. Do you know why the board asked him to pay himself more? Oh, and this is a yes or no question too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Who is spreading this rumor that I own my own company?? I'm not the one speaking about all CEO's here, you are lumping them all in the evil category. I think that every employee would vote with a resounding YES if asked should our CEO be paid more. Do you know why the board asked him to pay himself more? Oh, and this is a yes or no question too. He can lump all CEO's together...but far be it for us to do the same thing with unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) Are you kidding? That just compounds the analytical error - rather than 100, it compares only the highest 50 of one set to the average of the other. (Apologies if you were satirizing the logic abilities of the left and it went over my head.) ok I can see how the Time article confused you by jumping from average to top fifty. CEO Salaries: What is the Average Salary of a CEO? By Shanon Lyon, special to PayScale.com In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says. Dan Moynihan, principal of Compensation Resources, and expert in CEO salaries, theorizes that the shorter tenures of CEOs today than in years past could be one factor inflating the average salary of a CEO and widening the salary gap. "I think there's a capitalistic model that says 'get as much as you can while it lasts because you don't know how long it'll last,'" he says. "I don't think CEOs are doing more or less than they were 20 years ago and I don't think line workers are either. Should [the salary gap] be rectified? Yes. Will it be? Probably not." Because CEO salaries are chart toppers in most companies, they tend to attract the most media attention. Less widely reported is the significant salary gap between employees and lower-level executive salaries. It varies by industry, but in most companies, the salary gap becomes pronounced at the vice president level, says Todd Milbourn, finance professor at the Olin Business School at Washington University. "This is when you start moving into a new pay echelon, but there's still a pretty significant gap between, say, a senior vice president and a CEO," he says. My link another linkyet another Edited April 7, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I find it funny how people are ok with the average middle-class worker actually losing money even with their bread crumb 2% raise because of the COL is going up. The same people are also content that CEO's are making on average 30% more at the same as their workers are struggling. Makes sense to me. And once again the issue comes down to personal accountability. Some people look at their life and ask "What can I do to make it better?" Others look at their life and ask "Who can I blame because I'm unable to make my life better." You see, here's the thing: whose fault is it if a person works at a place where they only get a "bread crumb 2% raise" and are unhappy about it? Is it somehow the fault of the person handing out the raise, or is it the fault of the person who does nothing to improve their chances for a better income? Odd as this may sound, but sometimes 2% is all a person deserves. Sometimes they don't even deserve that. But I'm sure that's all lost on you because CEOs are making all the bank, driving the fast cars and scoring with the hot chicks...and that just ain't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 And once again the issue comes down to personal accountability. Some people look at their life and ask "What can I do to make it better?" Others look at their life and ask "Who can I blame because I'm unable to make my life better." You see, here's the thing: whose fault is it if a person works at a place where they only get a "bread crumb 2% raise" and are unhappy about it? Is it somehow the fault of the person handing out the raise, or is it the fault of the person who does nothing to improve their chances for a better income? Odd as this may sound, but sometimes 2% is all a person deserves. Sometimes they don't even deserve that. But I'm sure that's all lost on you because CEOs are making all the bank, driving the fast cars and scoring with the hot chicks...and that just ain't fair. I read somewhere that the top 25% of men have about 75% of the sex (and about 95% of the sex with desirable women). The government needs to put a stop to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I read somewhere that the top 25% of men have about 75% of the sex (and about 95% of the sex with desirable women). The government needs to put a stop to this. As soon as the Republicans get the Senate and White House back, I'm sure they'll try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) ok I can see how the Time article confused you by jumping from average to top fifty. Easy to be confused when you are talking about two different things. Or didn't you understand that they were different? I found the excerpt quite telling: CEO Salaries: What is the Average Salary of a CEO? By Shanon Lyon, special to PayScale.com In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says. It made me curious - the idea that in 2000 CEO salaries averaged $2.2 million is preposterous, considering the huge number of companies whose total revenues are only a million or two. So I found the original Murphy and Zabojnik paper and sure enough, they were not talking about average CEO compensation but rather the 800 largest US companies (public or privately held). Their data set morphed into 'average CEO' through the reporting of media commentators such as you referenced. It appears this analytical affliction is fairly common in certain circles. Edited April 7, 2011 by finknottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Easy to be confused when you are talking about two different things. Or didn't you understand that they were different? I found the excerpt quite telling: It made me curious - the idea that in 2000 CEO salaries averaged $2.2 million is preposterous, considering the huge number of companies whose total revenues are only a million or two. So I found the original Murphy and Zabojnik paper and sure enough, they were not talking about average CEO compensation but rather the 800 largest US companies (public or privately held). Their data set morphed into 'average CEO' through the reporting of media commentators such as you referenced. It appears this analytical affliction is fairly common in certain circles. Study shows U.S. bank CEO pay dwarfs rest of world (Reuters) - You wouldn't know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world's largest bank. Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That's less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase Co. "The U.S. executive pay levels have always dwarfed pay for companies elsewhere in the world," said Sarah Anderson, a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, which is critical of Wall Street, and co-author of the recent study "America's Bailout Barons." "They have claimed it is impossible to recruit people without paying such compensation. Yet, if you look at the pay levels in Europe and in a lot of Asian countries, somehow they manage to find people who can run major global firms while making a fraction of what they make in the U.S.," she said. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Dave in Norfolk reads this and thinks government is producing more prosperity than all those sectors combined. Ha ha, you are so ignorant. How many people can be farmers? You understand--what am I saying???--ok, you are an idiot, but maybe others can understand that machines are doing so much work that there isn;t enough for everyone to do. All those industries have bought big machinery that do the work of many men/women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) I am work... I was just informed that I am ordered to still come into work (normal rotation) if there is a gov't shutdown after 1700 hours today. Shutdown WTF! I wanna stay home too and not work midnights! Why don't they just tell the "essential people" to stay home? And to boot, it is raining up a storm... Bring on the flooding while also bringing commerce to its knees... If they want to make a statement, let's do it right... None of this sending the paper pushers home only business. What a crock of crap... Some people get all the luck! I gotta still produce... Edited April 8, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Takers, literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 (edited) Although the title is thematically correct, the "proof" is misleadiing because US has become a service based economy. Regardless of policy we simply couldnt maintain our employment levels in manufacturing against resource rich and/or cheap labor competitors. Edited May 7, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Although the title is thematically correct, the "proof" is misleadiing because US has become a service based economy. Regardless of policy we simply couldnt maintain our employment levels in manufacturing against resource rich and/or cheap labor competitors. coupled with the voracious appetite for every cheaper goods by the typical American consumer. se Mart, Wal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 I read somewhere that the top 25% of men have about 75% of the sex (and about 95% of the sex with desirable men women). The government needs to put a stop to this. If they're powerful republican CEOs it should look like that Rob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts