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.
For certain there are some statistical outliers. Their pay, however, is between them and their Board. As a shareholder of several large companies, I always read the Proxy statement and vote against anyone I think is getting paid too much.
There is the answer right there. If a company if putting too much of its resources into one area then the value of the stock goes down. And the company goes broke.
And CEOs of companies that aren't doing well have already taken pay cuts. Bet the "workers" haven't.
People are free to negoitiate whatever salary they want. And companies are free to compensate said people any way they see fit. I don't see any reason why anyone else should be concerned about it.
i.e. I think what Manny Rameiz is asking for is crazy. But, he doesn't and the people that pay him don't. So what makes it my business? Maybe he thinks I make too much. He doesn't get to decide my salary. Why should I get to decide his?
What people make is a matter between the the employer and employee. Not between them and what we think is fair.
Those that believe that the Government should, in any circumstance, place caps on what ANYONE can earn don't realize what they propose is simply Un-American.
Frankly, private companies have the right to decide, without government interference, compensation for their employees - from the lowest on the ole Totem pole to the top of the Ivory tower.
Why should a corporation not pay CEO's, and workers the highest wages it can afford?
See, think of a corporation this way: your own small company (a donut shop, for example). There is a person in the shop who is an outstanding baker, supervisor, and best of all, he or she makes a huge difference in the sale of donuts. Without this person, the sales of donuts are a loss to you. Would you pay that person a high salary to prevent the person from moving to another donut shop that competes with yours, or would you let tis person go?
In a socialist nation, the government controls most of the private sector's business, from banks, to donut shops. For a good example, look at the Venezuela of today, where Chavez controls the banking industry, news media, etc.
A company or corporation has shareholders, and these are the ones who decide if they want to invest on a CEO that can increase earnings (their shares). If a CEO doesn't cut it, then he is replaced with one who does. If the shareholders agree to pay the CEO too much money, the company's revenues drop. It's not the government's business to tell a private company how much the shareholders should pay their CEO's.
The influence of one person, whoever he/she may be is greatly exaggerated in the US. America invented the concept of "star" and later the "superstar". With the exception of very few, it is much overrated. In Japan for example (and not only there), you will find that they value much more the team effect. It is not economy, but a cultural issue. Here in the states, most corporations are looking for stars instead of good workers (not for the CEO position only, but in every department). The "winner takes all" concept is at work all the time and there is little wonder that companies are so frequently disappointed when their supposedly star does not perform as expected. Sometimes the new employees performed very well in their former jobs, but the environment was different.
Government: in-spite of what some believe, we cannot legislate everything. As for myself, I will not invest my pennies in any company that grants millions as bonuses. I wasn't vigilant so far, but that has changed.
Heres a better idea: Tell "W" to get back the about $800 billion he gave directly to Iraq when this country will never be a friend or democracy, get the money back that we gave to the banks and instead of the salary cap money going to smaller market teams if they go over,let it go directly to that states funds. We bailed out the banks now guess what they're going to do? They'll be more strict with lending which means less money going into banks.What they should have done was give the money directly to every family in the U.S. which based on my numbers (not exact) would be over $200k per family. Most would have paid bills,mortgages,bought food, clothing,cars and guess what...all industries would have had money coming in.The next step now is to rebuild relations with the world (previously messed up by "W") so we can once again open up trade.
Bush is not the President anymore, So Obama will have to tackle this issue. But if you want to have Bush pull the money given to Iraq, then he should also pull over $50-billion given to Africa to fight AIDS, billions given to Israel, Egypt and the Middle East, and to a whole bunch of other nations around the world. Don't you realize that Obama continues helping the same nations Bush helped? Didn't you hear that Obama is sending nearly 18,000 soldier to Afghanistan? Has Obama stopped aid to Iraq already? Don't you know that Obama has agreed (passed) providing monetary aid for international organizations tied to Planned Parenthood and abortions. It's the same with every president we elect (all kinds of foreign aid).
Still, Obama and Congress are giving over $1-trillion in pork, and more is to come in the near future. It makes more sense to give "smaller pork" in the form of under $400-million ($1-million to each American), instead of huge pork or over $1-trillion.
Four million bucks are a lot less than one trillion bucks.
The influence of one person, whoever he/she may be is greatly exaggerated in the US. America invented the concept of "star" and later the "superstar". With the exception of very few, it is much overrated. In Japan for example (and not only there), you will find that they value much more the team effect. It is not economy, but a cultural issue. Here in the states, most corporations are looking for stars instead of good workers (not for the CEO position only, but in every department). The "winner takes all" concept is at work all the time and there is little wonder that companies are so frequently disappointed when their supposedly star does not perform as expected. Sometimes the new employees performed very well in their former jobs, but the environment was different.
Still, it's up to the corporation to hire the right person, as much as it is up to your employer to hire you as the right person. The more money you can make for your employer, the higher your wages will be since he or she doesn't want to lose you to another competing company. The government should not dictate how much an employee in the private sector should earn. That's up to the company itself.
Great answer and like I said before if we gave the money straight to the people most would pay bills but many would just splurge.Some people will never learn and that we unfortunately have to accept.
Accept? Ok, I accept it but, I don't think I should be responsible to pay for it.
See, that is where the line should be drawn. At what point do those who caused this accept what they have done.
I have news for those who want to blame Bush, it goes way beyond the last 8 years. I don't blame Bush nor do I expect Obama to fix it in the next 4 years.
It is a bigger issue than most people seem to be able to wrap their heads around.
I say stop worrying about what other people are doing and worry about yourself. If people would do and had done this, maybe our economy would not be where it is.
It is hard for me to sympathize with someone who was living so far beyond what they could ever afford and now blame someone else for their situation. Wow! Really? How did it happen?
Sure the banks were greedy, but no one forced you to mortgage your family to the hilt or get so far in debt that you never had a chance. Greed goes both ways. Who was really greedy the bank or you?
The compensation is ridiculous cause:
1) Nobody is worth $278M or $100m or even $50. Nobody.
2) It creates social distortion and has implications more severe then evident at first glance.
3) Creating a society of extremely rich vs poor is a danger to democracy. There is no democratic society in the world with that mix. A strong middle class is the foundation of democracy.
The better approach would have not been to have the government give money, but to allow these poorly run corporations to go bankrupt.
By filing bankruptcy, they could have reorganized, started afresh.
These big corporations could have decided themselves to cut the very high wages, but a government bailout only prolongs the inevitable but at very high taxpayer expense.
The banks that loaned out money irresponsibly should have been allowed to collapse. There are plenty of smaller banks and credit unions that were still providing fixed rate loans and loan applications that required social security numbers and proof of income.
The government is only making a bad situation much worse. Throwing trillions of dollars in new debt at a debt problem is a disaster in the making.
Bush is not the President anymore, So Obama will have to tackle this issue. But if you want to have Bush pull the money given to Iraq, then he should also pull over $50-billion given to Africa to fight AIDS, billions given to Israel, Egypt and the Middle East, and to a whole bunch of other nations around the world. Don't you realize that Obama continues helping the same nations Bush helped? Didn't you hear that Obama is sending nearly 18,000 soldier to Afghanistan? Has Obama stopped aid to Iraq already? Don't you know that Obama has agreed (passed) providing monetary aid for international organizations tied to Planned Parenthood and abortions. It's the same with every president we elect (all kinds of foreign aid).
Still, Obama and Congress are giving over $1-trillion in pork, and more is to come in the near future. It makes more sense to give "smaller pork" in the form of under $400-million ($1-million to each American), instead of huge pork or over $1-trillion.
Four million bucks are a lot less than one trillion bucks.
Um.. He is sending 18,000 troops to Afghanistan BECAUSE THEY ARE THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH THE TALIBAN AND ALQUEDA HAILED THAT BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!!!!
THAT is the ONLY country we should have been in in the first place!! AND .. had we concentrated instead of being sidetracked by Iraq.. we probably would have finished the job there by now and we wouldnt' even be having this conversation
Still, it's up to the corporation to hire the right person, as much as it is up to your employer to hire you as the right person. The more money you can make for your employer, the higher your wages will be since he or she doesn't want to lose you to another competing company. The government should not dictate how much an employee in the private sector should earn. That's up to the company itself.
Then you things are not going to change because companies will continue to pay slave wages to there employees. Some one is needed to hold these companies accoutable.
If the company is making money and not borrowing from tax payers, I don't see a problem.
Even if that company is making money by laying off employees and shipping jobs overseas?
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.
