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.
I not going to comment too much yet,I want to hear other opinions first.I came across these articles,I don't agree with people that rip into a CEO for being paid alot just because of how much they make compared to a "average Joe,more this thread is to discuss CEO's flourishing while their industry is slowing,seeing hard times or poor performance including other employees,stock holders and customers.
Super rich people have been around for ages, and its not a new phenomena since Bush came to office. Much of the superwealth seen this days is due to globalization and the internet making it much easier to expand markets and grow. Wasn't quiet so easy to grow back in the 1960's.
I do have a problem with CEOs getting golden parachutes...they run their companies into the ground and then leave gracefully with a nice multi-billion compensation package while their employees are left back in the ditch. Why are they the only jobs in America to get so rewarded for such poor performance?
I also have a problem with CEOs getting bonuses for making numbers that are due to outsourcing all of their plants to China or India, or due to massive across the board layoffs. Looks good with the financial number bottom lines though.
So nothing illegal I guess about CEOs making all that money, I just don't see how it helps the companies, economies, or society very much. There are actually pretty few cases where you can point to the CEO as actually being a huge difference maker in the performance of a company. The majority are just adequate managers that are skilled at kissing butt and are well connected.
It is kind of like with professional sports. Nothing stopping professional athletes from getting millions more and more every year, each new guy wanting a few million more than the last guy. But then the average fan can no longer afford to see any games and now new stadiums have to be built every 5 years and paid for by local communities. The new stadium in Dallas will feature "seat licenses" which will cost tens of thousands of dollars just to have the privilege to own season tickets. Then you will have to actually pay for those season tickets, which are going to be double current prices. Season ticket holders for a family of four could pay for a house for the money they will be spending. Is that good for sports, to shut out the average Joe entirely from taking his family out to the ballgame, like my Dad used to take us when we were kids? Is there ever a point when "enough is enough" ?
I do have a problem with CEOs getting golden parachutes...they run their companies into the ground and then leave gracefully with a nice multi-billion compensation package while their employees are left back in the ditch. Why are they the only jobs in America to get so rewarded for such poor performance?
I also have a problem with CEOs getting bonuses for making numbers that are due to outsourcing all of their plants to China or India, or due to massive across the board layoffs. Looks good with the financial number bottom lines though.
So nothing illegal I guess about CEOs making all that money, I just don't see how it helps the companies, economies, or society very much. There are actually pretty few cases where you can point to the CEO as actually being a huge difference maker in the performance of a company. The majority are just adequate managers that are skilled at kissing butt and are well connected.
It is kind of like with professional sports. Nothing stopping professional athletes from getting millions more and more every year, each new guy wanting a few million more than the last guy. But then the average fan can no longer afford to see any games and now new stadiums have to be built every 5 years and paid for by local communities. The new stadium in Dallas will feature "seat licenses" which will cost tens of thousands of dollars just to have the privilege to own season tickets. Then you will have to actually pay for those season tickets, which are going to be double current prices. Season ticket holders for a family of four could pay for a house for the money they will be spending. Is that good for sports, to shut out the average Joe entirely from taking his family out to the ballgame, like my Dad used to take us when we were kids? Is there ever a point when "enough is enough" ?
Yeah, I don't really agree with it all. But CEO's are hardle the only people that have skyrocketed in their fortunes. The big payoffs even when they screw up their company is really messed up though.
Athletes 50 years ago made moderate amounts of money, and only the popular superstars made a lot. I looked it up and the inflation adjusted salary for 1958 to Ted Williams (his highest salary of his career) was $776,000. Today, that is chump change. Signing bonuses are usually at least quadruple that for anyone of star status.
Hollywood salaries have gone up like crazy too, especially endorsements. Celebrities pull in multimillion dollar paychecks for a few photos and a couple of sentences in a commercial. Tiger Woods is on track for earning $100million in 2007 for ENDORSEMENTS.
Oprah Winfrey earned $260 million. Simon Cowell earned $45 million.
So personally, I don't like it and it seems wrong overall. But there is no way CEO's should be singled out and all the worlds ills blamed on them. There is quiet a diverse set of people that are making megamillions these days.
Yea...I don't blame the worlds ills on them. Lots of crazy stuff going on in society. A person can go on a killing spree or run away from their wedding or something and then write a book and get rich. Go figure.
I do think most CEOs are WAY overpaid though, and I just don't see how cutting the regular employees' health benefits and pensions and retirement benefits more and more every year and still giving these guys their Billions is a smart move for companies.
Companies used to take care of their employees, and employees appreciated that. Go the extra mile. Be proud of their place of work.
Now everybody realizes they are disposable. The converse to this is that they will also jump at the earliest opportyunity to make $5k more than they are making today. And companies have to train somebody new. There are still a few companies out there that realize that their regular employees are worth investing in, but not too many.
Super rich people have been around for ages, and its not a new phenomena since Bush came to office. Much of the superwealth seen this days is due to globalization and the internet making it much easier to expand markets and grow. Wasn't quiet so easy to grow back in the 1960's.
From what I've read there was actually plenty of growth during the third quarter of the century, but it was more evenly distributed during that period and income inequality actually decreased much of the time. In more recent times, income growth near the lower levels has been very slow, barely keeping up with inflation, while the "super rich" have skyrocketed, creating levels of inequality mostly unseen in America since the Gilded Age.
I don't agree with class warfare but class warfare is when someone says the person is evil,greedy and just unfairly lucky just because they are successful.
But what about when a industry is hit hard,the employees wages go down and or customers prices go way up while the CEO and top management still report record earnings?Is this proper or is this gouging?
I believe in capitalism,I believe in free markets but should this mean that any corp can do whatever they want with no oversight?
Would it be fair to say that any entity whether a corp.,government or union has the potential to be corrupt and that oversight or regulation is sometimes needed?
Is capitalism and the idea of no government involvement or oversight recommended even when a industry or corp is hurting a economy overall or threatening national interests to include military defense?
Looking at many of the problems in South America corruption is rampant in government and to where there is not much of a middle class,there are very wealthy and very poor.Leftist revolutions rise because of this because the poor back people like Chavez to bring "justice".The result is though that these people give up freedom to these leaders and these leaders use the plight of classism to prop themselves up.If America was to loose more and more middle class I fear this could happen also.
People are just commenting on the whether these salaries actually make sense and if they are good in the long run for the businesses, employees and the country... or not.
(never mind - I saw lionking comment...).
But this is an interesting discussion....will capitalism and the free market eventually lead to a 2 class society, as we like to look down upon in other societies.
As we move continue to all our production offshore and the executives get richer and all the regular employees lose their helath care and retirement benefits or lose their jobs...how is it all going to turn out??
Last edited by bily4; 12-01-2007 at 09:45 AM..
Reason: edit - add sentence
IMO, there should NEVER be any government "oversight" as to how much someone can earn.
A private business makes that determination
The owners of that business make that determination
Stockholders are the owners of corporations
This is who should determine the compensation issues
Not the Government.
I generally agree with you,I'm not one to say put a cap on wages.Let me give you another example though and see what you think about this.
For years insurance companies collect house premiums.Florida has a bad season in 05.Insurance doubles if not triples beyond what it was,to the point not just a few but many people can no longer afford the house and many can't afford to buy one either.While the insurance industry suffered as bad year and had to pay out,they then raised rates unbelievably to where ones mortgage is 60% insurance or refuses to write at all.In the meantime insurance CEO earnings are boasted as record profits.
When this insurance hike happens,it eventually effects the economy overall,businesses leave the state = less jobs,less houses sell = less money involved in anything to do with housing,people spend less on goods because they are trying to pay the insurance.
A typical 3-2 that had a rate for insurance in 03 for say $2000 per year now in 07 is $6000 or more per year.If a industry has a bad year,is it right that prices are gouged to the point of effecting the economy while the CEO is not hit with a loss like everyone else is?
What Im saying is fair is fair,when everything is good everybody should profit,when things are bad everybody should suffer from the bottom to the top.This is not capping wages,this is about the top saving their ass at the expense of everyone else.
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.
