Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 The triple-digit pay ratios originate in the mid-1990s, when CEOs first out-earned workers by a 100-to-1 ratio. Back in 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. After the early-2000s stock market drop reduced the value of executive options, CEO pay dropped to just 143 times that of an average worker in 2002, the EPI notes. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times the $41,861 pay of an average worker. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...s.aspx?GT1=8380 And of course, the CEOs are worth every penny... <cue the uber capitalist, to tell us that if people don't like it then the shareholders should do something about it in 5...4...3...>
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...s.aspx?GT1=8380 And of course, the CEOs are worth every penny... <cue the uber capitalist, to tell us that if people don't like it then the shareholders should do something about it in 5...4...3...> 719582[/snapback] I'll take the bait....If a company is profitable and growing, then why shouldn't a CEO be paid big dollars? This proves yet again that the best way to get ahead in America is to be your own boss.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 7, 2006 Author Posted July 7, 2006 I'll take the bait....If a company is profitable and growing, then why shouldn't a CEO be paid big dollars? This proves yet again that the best way to get ahead in America is to be your own boss. 719587[/snapback] The economic health of a nation rests in the middle class, not in how many gazillionaires there are. Why have CEO compensation levels gone through the roof but workers/middle class wages stayed roughly the same or in some cases declined? We are drifting into dangerous waters I fear...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 The economic health of a nation rests in the middle class, not in how many gazillionaires there are. Why have CEO compensation levels gone through the roof but workers/middle class wages stayed roughly the same or in some cases declined? We are drifting into dangerous waters I fear... 719599[/snapback] The problem with the middle class today is less that they're not getting paid enough. The problem witht he middle class is that they consume at levels higher than they can afford. That's why there's record debt. The middle class has lost touch with what has made it historically strong: education, thrift, hard work.
KD in CA Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Some of them are worth every penny. Some aren't worth crap. Just like that study. I find it hard to believe that the "average" CEO makes 262 times the average worker. I would like to know who on this board works for a comany where the CEO makes 262 times as much as they do. In my last 3 companies, the CEO made less than 2x the average. Maybe the Fortune 500 makes that level, but certainly not the 'typical' CEO for the tens of thousands of mostly small and midsized companies in the US. But either way, the comp of any one guy has virtually zero impact on the multi-billion dollar companies that they listed in the article. But let's ignore that too so we can cue the whining over this overblown 'issue' in -1...-2...-3...-4....
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Some of them are worth every penny. Some aren't worth crap. Just like that study. I find it hard to believe that the "average" CEO makes 262 times the average worker. I would like to know who on this board works for a comany where the CEO makes 262 times as much as they do. In my last 3 companies, the CEO made less than 2x the average. Maybe the Fortune 500 makes that level, but certainly not the 'typical' CEO for the tens of thousands of mostly small and midsized companies in the US. But either way, the comp of any one guy has virtually zero impact on the multi-billion dollar companies that they listed in the article. But let's ignore that too so we can cue the whining over this overblown 'issue' in -1...-2...-3...-4.... 719602[/snapback] Ding! Anyone who thinks that a CEO of, say, GE (a company with a gross economy as large as some small nations) shouldn't be earning 10,000,000+ a year is just nuts.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 7, 2006 Author Posted July 7, 2006 The problem with the middle class today is less that they're not getting paid enough. The problem witht he middle class is that they consume at levels higher than they can afford. That's why there's record debt. The middle class has lost touch with what has made it historically strong: education, thrift, hard work. 719600[/snapback] And yet the economy depends on that middle class consuming more than it can afford. What happens when they stop? Gotta love tunnel vision. Do they have laser surgery to correct that yet?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 And yet the economy depends on that middle class consuming more than it can afford. What happens when they stop? Gotta love tunnel vision. Do they have laser surgery to correct that yet? 719606[/snapback] It does? The economy depends on innovation and growth, not overconsumption.
KD in CA Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 The economic health of a nation rests in the middle class, not in how many gazillionaires there are. Why have CEO compensation levels gone through the roof but workers/middle class wages stayed roughly the same or in some cases declined? We are drifting into dangerous waters I fear... 719599[/snapback] You say that as if the entire middle class would be earning more money if ONE GUY was paid less. So if you take ten million dollars away from the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and distribute it among the company's 50,000 workers, each one of them would get an extra $200 (before taxes). Is that really going to impact anyone, much less the entire middle class? The middle class in this country live like kings compared to almost anywhere else in the world. Home ownership and college attendence rates are at all time highs. This 'woe is the middle class' attitude has been a staple of political b.s. for generations.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 You say that as if the entire middle class would be earning more money if ONE GUY was paid less. So if you take ten million dollars away from the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and distribute it among the company's 50,000 workers, each one of them would get an extra $200 (before taxes). Is that really going to impact anyone, much less the entire middle class? 719611[/snapback] Only if it's a tax cut passed by the Republicans...
RickW Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Ding! Anyone who thinks that a CEO of, say, GE (a company with a gross economy as large as some small nations) shouldn't be earning 10,000,000+ a year is just nuts. 719605[/snapback] I have to be honest - I don't really believe that anyone "earns" $10M per year. I would love to see the substantiated "return" on that investment (as prepared by an objective and qualified financial analyst). Not to be included as substantive evidence - ROI, RI, EVA, and all of the other bastardized accounting-based measures. The reason for the middle-class lies in social equity and capitalism cannot survive without some measure of that. The wider the wealth gap the greater the general unrest in the absence of a significant middle-class population. The fact that individual debt ratios are exceedingly high has less to do with the middle-class per se than with individual greed and selfishness permeating western culture. The only people not in debt are those that have no credit availability. Wealthy people understand the value of leverage and are far more apt to end up on the better end of it.
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 You say that as if the entire middle class would be earning more money if ONE GUY was paid less. So if you take ten million dollars away from the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and distribute it among the company's 50,000 workers, each one of them would get an extra $200 (before taxes). Is that really going to impact anyone, much less the entire middle class? The middle class in this country live like kings compared to almost anywhere else in the world. Home ownership and college attendence rates are at all time highs. This 'woe is the middle class' attitude has been a staple of political b.s. for generations. 719611[/snapback] Plus, put the wrong CEO in there let's see if the company will need to maintain a payroll of 50,000 workers. So now a crappy CEO is in place making less money, but 10,000 people are about to be out of work. I remember years ago when baseball salaries were starting to get crazy and a radio sports dude in Orlando was commenting on it and while all the callers were bitching about the salaries and the players, the host kept asking one question that no one could get around: "Look, if someone wanted to pay you $3M a year to do your job, would you take it?" !@#$in' A they would, and so would anyone else here. CEOs get crazy amounts of money because they can. Why people complain about this is beyond me. Don't like what you're earning? Begin the process of being a CEO. Can't be a CEO? Then STFU and get back to work.
KRC Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Begin the process of being a CEO. 719921[/snapback] ...but that would require work. Can't you just hand the position to me?
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 ...but that would require work. Can't you just hand the position to me? 719933[/snapback] Frankly, I've never met a CEO whose job I wanted for any amount of money. The only CEO of global significance I ever had the pleasure of being around was C. Michael Armstrong when he was in charge of Hughes Aircraft before he went on to ATT. Even if I had the education, experience and ability, I would never have the nutsack to do that job. Not for $10M. Not for $100M. Because it never, ever, ever stops from the moment you wake up and begin making overseas calls to the moment you're going to bed after making more overseas calls. Some people are made for it and if they're successful, they should make all the bank they can.
KRC Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 Frankly, I've never met a CEO whose job I wanted for any amount of money. The only CEO of global significance I ever had the pleasure of being around was C. Michael Armstrong when he was in charge of Hughes Aircraft before he went on to ATT. Even if I had the education, experience and ability, I would never have the nutsack to do that job. Not for $10M. Not for $100M. Because it never, ever, ever stops from the moment you wake up and begin making overseas calls to the moment you're going to bed after making more overseas calls. Some people are made for it and if they're successful, they should make all the bank they can. 719955[/snapback] People think that you just sit on your azz or play golf. They fail to realize that you are working 24/7 and if you do not produce to the level that the stockholders expect, you will be replaced immediately.
TheMadCap Posted July 8, 2006 Posted July 8, 2006 People think that you just sit on your azz or play golf. They fail to realize that you are working 24/7 and if you do not produce to the level that the stockholders expect, you will be replaced immediately. 719970[/snapback] Not only that, but CEOs are ultimately responsible for thier companies product and/or work, and can also get big jail time if employees mess up...
VABills Posted July 9, 2006 Posted July 9, 2006 And yet these uber-rich CEO's tend to turn around and either re-invest the money, thus putting more people to work, or buy things that put people to work. Heck some even buy football teams and put them in God forsaken hell holes like Orchard Park.
EC-Bills Posted July 9, 2006 Posted July 9, 2006 And yet these uber-rich CEO's tend to turn around and either re-invest the money, thus putting more people to work, or buy things that put people to work. Heck some even buy football teams and put them in God forsaken hell holes like Orchard Park. 720345[/snapback] Oh come on. Admit it. You made that one up
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Anyone who thinks that a CEO of, say, GE (a company with a gross economy as large as some small nations) shouldn't be earning 10,000,000+ a year is just nuts. You could easily make an argument that such a CEO is ridiculously underpaid. Let's say the CEO of GE earns $10 million a year. Say that he's the CEO for 30 years, and brings in a cool $300 million. Now compare this to Bill Gates, a founder/owner of Microsoft. Gates put in a good 30 years into Microsoft, resulting in roughly $60 billion of stock value for himself. That's 200 times more than the hypothetical CEO brought in over the same 30 year span; despite the fact the CEO may have worked just as hard as Gates, with just as much responsibility, doing largely the same tasks. Nor is Gates an isolated example: other entrepreneurs such as Jim Clark, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin have become billionaires through their entrepreneurial efforts. If established companies such as GE are to attract the same talent that start-ups attract, the compensation needs to be competitive. I'm not saying this unequal distribution of wealth is socially healthy. It isn't. But it may be economically necessary.
EC-Bills Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 ... Wait a minute. What are you doing on this side of the board?!? There's no Losman/Holcomb debate going on here
Recommended Posts