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.
Did someone explain how cutting the salaries of CEOs would increase the salaries of anyone else?
I showed an example of it working for Walmart a few pages back. They could increase each US associate's hourly wage by 1 penny. That would be of course if they only gave the increase to the US associates, which probably wouldn't be fair. So it would probably be closer to 4-5 cents a day (assuming an 8 hour shift).
I showed an example of it working for Walmart a few pages back. They could increase each US associate's hourly wage by 1 penny. That would be of course if they only gave the increase to the US associates, which probably wouldn't be fair. So it would probably be closer to 4-5 cents a day (assuming an 8 hour shift).
Even if the amount was significant it still doesn't mean a company would do it. That is what I don't understand. What would be the point of capping the salaries of certain individuals? Who exactly is going to benefit from that?
I love this argument. I wish it was that easy to study and train at home. Because first off not everyone has the resources to do just that. Also companies want experience to go with the skills. Anyone can learn Microsoft Office Suite software but if you have a course that proves how good you are with it, they will listen. If you use youtube or read it in a book, it doesn't work as good.
When did I ever say it was easy? Nothing worth doing is easy.
Here is a link to hundreds of hours of recorded lectures by professors from some of the top universities in the world. Learning online is more powerful than poking around on youtube. Now stop complaining and get started.
Ill have to find the study for you, but its already been proven that what you pay your CEO correlates in no way to the performance of the business.
"proven" is a strong word to use, but I agree with you that pay is not always correlated to performance. There are several interesting articles and studies on the subject if you google "ceo pay correlated to business performance".
The thing is, a typical top CEO may sign a 2 or 3-year contract that includes golden parachute in case he gets pushed out for some reason other than performance.
Now suppose the company hits a downturn 8 months into his contract, or 15 months into his contract, such that suddenly they are doing a lot worse, maybe not making a profit, but his contract still stipulates that he gets paid.
So, now we have a CEO who's being paid too much versus how his/her company is doing. Is it his fault? Maybe the decisions he made will take two years to make a difference. Maybe it's nothing to do with him. Maybe the government raised taxes on his products and services.
Or, maybe he's an idiot who has made things worse. It's different in every company.
Who decides? Who passes judgement? I don't think we should have a blanket law that stifles pay like that. Ultimately, the investors will have to pay the bills, so they have to scrutinize these kinds of expenses more carefully and do their due diligence. The market will eventually correct itself and the companies that overcompensate executives will fail while the companies that are better run will succeed.
In fact we already saw a dramatic example of that during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. There were exorbitant pay scales at startups which proceeded to go belly-up in or around 2001. Billions of dollars were thrown away by investors. As a result, investors became much more cautious, and the technology job market reflects that caution today -- much harder for either a technology person or a C-level person today to waltz in and get a huge package. Even stock options are less attractive.
Late to this dance, and it's probably been said but...12x?? Come on. Even an uber Liberal like myself knows that that is ridiculous. So this whole premise is loaded with fail out the gate. When you have 400:1 to 600:1 disparities in compensation, are reform efforts really to begin at 12:1?? Of course not. So... is therefore the premise that some sort of reform should take place also invalid? I suppose that is what we are supposed to believe. Hey, who am I, if a majority of people think it makes sense for one or a few people to make more than the combined workforce of a vast multi-national corporate entity, rock on...
Theres definitely a difference between a CEO and a football player. A CEO is a member of a hierarchy of people working for each other. The people at the bottom and middle and top still work for the CEO. The people at the bottom have recently been making less and less net of inflation than those at the top. This is a disparity.
Football players are a source of revenue for a management group. They are the talent. People in the management group dont work for the Football player. Moreover you are paying a football player a LOT, but for a short amount of time. If you took a 200k salary manager and paid them a lifetime's wages in a five year window then he would appear to be overpaid in comparison to other people.
Ah, so a CEO has no talent and doesn't contribute to the companys success.
Ok, so lets forget the players....most professional coaches make more than CEO's. I guess we need to cap coaches salaries to 12x that of the guy selling peanuts and beer? Ditto for guys like Nick Saban....oh, better cap his endorsement income too. After all, he isn't the talent, he's just the guy that runs the whole show LIKE A CEO.
It really sounds like you have zero appreciation for education and them book learnin types but if a guy can run real fast with a football or sing well then heck let's give them tens of millions of dollars.
When did I ever say it was easy? Nothing worth doing is easy.
Here is a link to hundreds of hours of recorded lectures by professors from some of the top universities in the world. Learning online is more powerful than poking around on youtube. Now stop complaining and get started.
But how does these courses help translate to the workplace? These are singular courses and do not have a certificate like my original point you glossed over. You say I am complaining, I honestly think I am just questioning the logic of people that think that those in minimum wage jobs are not trying to better themselves but honestly cannot...
Late to this dance, and it's probably been said but...12x?? Come on. Even an uber Liberal like myself knows that that is ridiculous. So this whole premise is loaded with fail out the gate. When you have 400:1 to 600:1 disparities in compensation, are reform efforts really to begin at 12:1?? Of course not. So... is therefore the premise that some sort of reform should take place also invalid? I suppose that is what we are supposed to believe. Hey, who am I, if a majority of people think it makes sense for one or a few people to make more than the combined workforce of a vast multi-national corporate entity, rock on...
H
That's some incredible hyperbole.
GE's CEO makes 1/5th of a penny per share in a typical year.
That's 20million give or take.
They employ over 100k people with a payroll that is over a 1000x higher than Mr. Immelts salary, not even remotely close.
Best of all, it's a private company. We the owners of said company (stockholders) can decide what we want to pay someone to essentially act as the owner of the company via proxy.
The same way that we the public can decide to make Johnny Depp tens of millions by watching his movies, make Celine Dion more money a year than GE's CEO by paying to attend her Vegas shows and make Jay Z more money than any CEO in the US this year by buying his Beats headphones etc.
I love this argument. I wish it was that easy to study and train at home
DING!! DING!! DING!! We have the winning argument!
"It ain't easy, so I ain't doin' it! Now give me more money!"
I went from being homeless to making over the median income in less than a decade's worth of time, with effectively zero college education, and _without_ a single bit of the eleventy million assistance programs out there.
It's entirely doable. No, it wasn't at all easy. In fact, it was quite difficult at times. But I didn't want to be one of these people spending most of their free time whining about how much the world sucks and is stacked against them. Reminds me of the gal I work with that constantly complains about being broke, over worked, and under paid, while parading in the newest designer purse or jeans she bought that week.
I showed an example of it working for Walmart a few pages back. They could increase each US associate's hourly wage by 1 penny. That would be of course if they only gave the increase to the US associates, which probably wouldn't be fair. So it would probably be closer to 4-5 cents a day (assuming an 8 hour shift).
Your example is crap. Mainly because you forget the MANY members of the executive staff that also make obscene amounts of money. Also, because not all employees need government aid. I was strictly speaking of those that need gov aid.
Assuming you were correct, and that there are 1,200,000 Walmart employees collecting aid right now, If those employees were paid 2X minimum wage, ie approx $35k/year,(which is still less than the average American household income by roughly 10k), those employees would (individually) pay $4,804 (Tax Bracket Calculator - TaxACT)
$4,804*1,200,000 = 5.765 Billion
So not only would we not be paying the 2.7 billion in aid, but we would be collecting another 5.765 billion in the employee income tax (not including what the states would collect). Think about what would happen when we apply this to other large companies like McDonalds. We could solve the wage gap and the national deficit!
BTW, there are several directors that also seem to have time to CEO's or owners of other companies. So, it's not like being a Walmart Director is all that time consuming either.
The other reason your example is crappy is that there are PLENTY of companies that can pay their lowest paid worker a livable wage that does not require government aid. Why can't Walmart or McDonalds? Next, as tax payers go, the lowest paid people not collecting government aid, and being in a place to pay into the tax system, and have more purchasing power would be better for the country as a whole.
It is obscene to think that MULTIPLE people in an executive staff, that set the wages for the lowest paid worker, should be paid on a daily basis more than the average American HOUSEHOLD makes in a YEAR. Factor in the entire compensation packages, and that is robbery.
Not that I wouldn't like a CEO salary, but there is no reason to justify paying someone that much. Let alone multiple people. Capping 'wages' and 'benefits' at say the US President level (400k/year) would definitely help with the wage problem.
And the point isn't about punishing the ambitious CEO, it about fairness to the workers. I've seen CEO's drive companies into the ground. You know what really helps a company, happy workers. Been to retail, and the store associate was nasty you don't think about how good the CEO is. You think about the person interacting with customers.
I have a tough time believing that a high paid CEO has more impact of corporate profits that a fleet full of happy employees that don't have to worry about their existence.
EMPLOYEES MAKE THE BUSINESS. STOP PRAISING THE COACH AND NOT THE TEAM.
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.
