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.
If you're not happy with your pay, do something about it. If you are stuck in a dead end job, do something about it. If you are a victim of the system, do something about it.
I make a good living because I did something about it. I barely passed high school. Lost my full ride to college in the first semester due to binge drinking, I've been addicted to everything imaginable including coke and meth, and yet through all of this, I found the will to better myself. I haven't made less than six figures in the past 18 years and I've even had several months that would equal what most average victims of oppression make in 2-3 years. I did this by educating myself, working smart and setting goals. You can achieve anything you put your mind to. Stop being a victim and start being a victor...
You barely passed highschool but you got a full ride to college?
The Average CEOs Makes 257 Times The Average Worker.
The average CEO has 257 more things to worry about than the average worker.
For anyone who thinks being a CEO is a dream job, here's a suggestion: Start your own business. Then you, too, can be a CEO.
There's a big difference between the CEO that starts his/her own company and the individual that takes over McDonalds. You have far more invested when the company is yours versus someone that is a hired gun to increase shareholder value.
"Propelled by a soaring stock market, the median pay package for a CEO rose above eight figures for the first time last year. The head of a typical large public company earned a record $10.5 million, an increase of 8.8 percent from $9.6 million in 2012, according to an Associated Press/Equilar pay study.
I just want to point out that the S&P was up 30% in 2013. Considering CEO's are paid mostly in stock(usually) why would it be a surprise? What people forget is that these massive CEO compensations are usually the result of massive stock appreciation. Even the quotes in the OP were based on CBS's CEO, which was up almost 70%. If that doesn't deserve a massive compensation, I don't know what does.
"Propelled by a soaring stock market, the median pay package for a CEO rose above eight figures for the first time last year. The head of a typical large public company earned a record $10.5 million, an increase of 8.8 percent from $9.6 million in 2012, according to an Associated Press/Equilar pay study.
Last year was the fourth straight that CEO compensation rose following a decline during the Great Recession. The median CEO pay package climbed more than 50 percent over that stretch. A chief executive now makes about 257 times the average worker's salary,-----
The industry with the biggest pay bump was banking. The median pay of a Wall Street CEO rose by 22 percent last year, on top of a 22 percent increase the year.
Please note this is the MEDIAN income not the average. The average is probably one hundred times more than the median which is the point where half of the CEO's make less and half make more. If five CEOs made one dollar each, one made five dollars and five more made one million each, the median is five dollars---but that misrepresents the average that is being sucked out of the economy. And please don't doubt that money is sucked out. It is not generally being invested in the economy, it is simply accumulating wealth at the economy's expense.
This is the economic reason favoring high estate taxes which we no longer have. High estate taxes either encourages liquidation into the economy, or utilizes that money to pay down private federal debt.
Don't worry, we have already tipped the boat over and there will be no righting of it until after the nation's collapse. Then as England number II, an almost superpower, we will begin to restructure and prosper for another half century before the final break-up of the United States into half a dozen little kingdoms.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-28-2014 at 05:12 AM..
Reason: Don't announce you are retiring from a thread, if that's what you want, just do it.
I just want to point out that the S&P was up 30% in 2013. Considering CEO's are paid mostly in stock(usually) why would it be a surprise? What people forget is that these massive CEO compensations are usually the result of massive stock appreciation. Even the quotes in the OP were based on CBS's CEO, which was up almost 70%. If that doesn't deserve a massive compensation, I don't know what does.
My perspective comes from been there, done that experiences, albeit decades ago. And as I said in my OP, I think the market does a pretty decent job of setting fair worth.
I don't have a problem with a founder cashing in when a company goes public. And I don't have a problem with most CEO compensation from wages and performance bonuses. I sometimes have a problem with the amount and/or form of stock options that a company gives the CEO. Moreover, not all stock market advances that benefit a company's stock price are driven by economic or company performance. To the extent that executives cash in on windfall situations, I do have a problem with that, because I'm a firm believer in pay for performance, not pay for luck.
I also know that unholy alliances are sometimes forged between the Board of Directors and the CEO -- a you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back set-up, which certainly is not in the best interest of shareholders.
The reason for the ever increasing gap between the highest compensated and lowest compensated is because of the reductions in the highest marginal tax rates.
The reported compensation is before taxes, so this comment is nonsense.
If anything, lower tax rates would tend to reduce compensation since the employee gets to keep more of what they earn, and therefore would be willing to accept any given job at a lower gross salary.
The reason for the ever increasing gap between the highest compensated and lowest compensated is because of the reductions in the highest marginal tax rates.
In the 50's, the highest marginal rate was upwards of 90%. Kennedy reduced that to 70% effective 1964 IIRC.
The real change came when Reagan reduced the highest rate to 50%. The 80's was when we began to see the huge increases in CEO compensation and higher multiples of highest compensation versus lowest compensation.
I find it amusing that Reagan is held up as such a champion of free market capitalism for reducing rates to 50% and those same hero worshipers are now whining that the highest rate might move from 36% to 39% and OMG the world is going to end!
The only person to blame for low compensation is the individual. Negotiate your salary.
So easy to blame others for what you are unable or unwilling to do. Everything is negotiable, everything.
I have worked for many CEO's not withstanding middle management , regional and district managers finding most (not
all) possessing limited people ,communication and technical (computer, spreadsheet, teaching,planning buget) skills.
As for the pay well that's negotiable and when the outcome (payout) comes into play blame the board, employer or
corporate benefit formula aka perks! Many Ceo's I found to be drunken, morally corrupt full of baloney idiots who rely
generally rely on a competent office managers (secretaries often) who have 5 times the brain power of the fool running
the show at $15.00 an hour ( a savings of 1.2 million dollars)! (such a deal). Hmmmm what could be missing from the
equation?...................me.
Last edited by Inattentive; 05-28-2014 at 10:19 AM..
What angers me about CEO pay rates is from a stockholder's perspective. The leave NOTHING for the stockholders at all. Look at that idiot for Oracle and his extravagant living off the shareholders and look at share price for the past couple years. He is sucking everything he can out of the company and leaving nothing for the investors. They have to the be most selfish lots out there and I am sure they are so proud of their greed with their silly egos. Warren Buffett takes a $100K a year salary, but he holds one heck of a lot of stock, so he is an OWNER with vested interest. Being a CEO shouldn't give you the same rights as OWNING. They are just hired employees. I prefer heads of companies own or have more vested interest, so they are looking out for the actual owners, which are the shareholders.
What angers me about CEO pay rates is from a stockholder's perspective. The leave NOTHING for the stockholders at all. Look at that idiot for Oracle and his extravagant living off the shareholders and look at share price for the past couple years. He is sucking everything he can out of the company and leaving nothing for the investors. They have to the be most selfish lots out there and I am sure they are so proud of their greed with their silly egos. Warren Buffett takes a $100K a year salary, but he holds one heck of a lot of stock, so he is an OWNER with vested interest. Being a CEO shouldn't give you the same rights as OWNING. They are just hired employees. I prefer heads of companies own or have more vested interest, so they are looking out for the actual owners, which are the shareholders.
If enough of the stockholders felt that way, they would control the board and by virtue of that, control the CEO pay.
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.
