Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of CEOs are part of the 1% but they aren't the problem or the solution to it. Can you show me that lower CEO comp would translate into more comp for other workers? I'm betting you really can't. CEO comp is voted on and ultimately controlled by the owners of said company so are you throwing a cast net at your 1%? How many of the 1% are CEOs? What are you going to do about the rest of the 1%, which I'd guess to be a lot more people and more money? Germany while a better example than Finland is still considerably smaller and not close to the same scale in GDP or population.
Can you show me a study why we should pay American CEOs this much? Because their salaries have sky rocketed in recent years, yet I don't believe their performance has.
You have nothing to support your "scale theory". I'm going with OECD on this one.
Can you show me a study why we should pay American CEOs this much? Because their salaries have sky rocketed in recent years, yet I don't believe their performance has.
You have nothing to support your "scale theory". I'm going with OECD on this one.
What they should be paid isn't for you or I to decided and I really couldn't care less about their performance however I'm not arbitrarily going to tell an employer what it can and can't pay it's employes
Quote:
The top 100 US CEOs made roughly 3 billion in 2013 so if we took every dollar from them and gave it to every american you'd get less than 10.00 well I'm sure that's the shift you were looking for
This should address your scale issue. If you are having trouble visualizing the scale if we only had 1mm people to spread CEO comp to they'd get 3000 each
What they should be paid isn't for you or I to decided and I really couldn't care less about their performance however I'm not arbitrarily going to tell an employer what it can and can't pay it's employes
This should address your scale issue. If you are having trouble visualizing the scale if we only had 1mm people to spread CEO comp to they'd get 3000 each
Umm nice offtopic This topic's idea is to discuss about their compensation from stock holder's point of view. And I'm a stock holder argumenting that we shouldn't pay them as much we do now. Please explain me how it's not my decision? Have you ever been in an annual meeting?
Every American owns shares? What?? Why not compare their salaries to an average american or to their own employees salaries?
Umm nice offtopic This topic's idea is to discuss about their compensation from stock holder's point of view. And I'm a stock holder argumenting that we shouldn't pay them as much we do now. Please explain me how it's not my decision? Have you ever been in an annual meeting?
Every American owns shares? What?? Why not compare their salaries to an average american or to their own employees salaries?
I have been to multiple share holder meeting and not ever american owns shares and has voting rights, therefore they do not have a say in compensation. Most who invest in the market do so through etfs or mutual funds and have no voting rights. If you own shares in a particular company you have a say in that one company but not all CEOs as a whole.
I have been to multiple share holder meeting and not ever american owns shares and has voting rights, therefore they do not have a say in compensation. Most who invest in the market do so through etfs or mutual funds and have no voting rights. If you own shares in a particular company you have a say in that one company but not all CEOs as a whole.
Good for you, I didn't get your point. But there's no reason to talk about this anymore when we are not even on the same page here.
If given a change, I will vote for lowering the CEO's salary because I think it's good for the company and good for the economy
When an average American just keeps getting poorer and poorer, there's no reason why a CEO should make 1000 times more than his employees when the reality is that he is propably not better than his counterpart back in the 00's or 90's.
Good for you, I didn't get your point. But there's no reason to talk about this anymore when we are not even on the same page here.
If given a change, I will vote for lowering the CEO's salary because I think it's good for the company and good for the economy
When an average American just keeps getting poorer and poorer, there's no reason why a CEO should make 1000 times more than his employees when the reality is that he is propably not better than his counterpart back in the 00's or 90's.
I agree. The corporate apologists always come out in full force anytime there is any criticism of executive pay. It's not just the CEOs who have seen their pay increase dramatically, all of the top executives earn more. People take care of those they work closely with, so those on top earn exorbitant amounts, while the pay of average workers is seen as an expense to be kept as low as possible. Every company has a limited amount of payroll dollars, in many companies the top pay themselves as much as they possibly can, while the mass of nameless, faceless employees beneath them are regarded as expenses to be cut whenever possible.
Most Americans have no control over executive pay, but at the very least we can talk about it, and bring this issue to the forefront. It hurts our economy to have almost all of the wealth concentrated at the top. If enough people come together, and constantly call out the worst offenders to the point where people know the best companies to shop at, it will put pressure on companies to start considering how they pay average Americans.
In example Finland has much lower inequality than America and also has much greater social movability. It seems that these two are connected
from your link:
"The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society. Education is the key: a lack of investment in education by the poor is the main factor behind inequality hurting growth."
so your link doesn't demonstrate that the problem is the 1% and everyone else, it says the problem is the gap between the lower middle & poor and the rest of society. I don't think distributing the CEO's salary to the thousands of employees is going to make a big difference. clearly, the problem doesn't really lie in CEO pay. but its a convenient scapegoat for bitter jealous people to complain about.
it isn't even education , as loads of grads with useless degrees will tell you.
it is simply finding a career that involves doing what others can not do for themselves or choose not to.
the more folks that can do something the lower the pay and the more competition for those jobs. our septic tank cleaner never graduated high school but makes more than many engineers.
I've never seen any open shareholders meeting to vote on this. Have any of you? If so, what stocks?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This topic's idea is to discuss about their compensation from stock holder's point of view. And I'm a stock holder argumenting that we shouldn't pay them as much we do now. Please explain me how it's not my decision? Have you ever been in an annual meeting?
