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.
No, you need to compare the apples to apples. The common worker in the US might make a bit more than those in Europe, Canada or Japan, but the CEOs in those counties pay their CEOs 20 - 40 times LESS than WE DO - and now the taxpayer continues to do so with bailouts, even though the CEOs showed that they are FAR WORSE than CEOs in Europe, Canada and Japan.
Well if the owners of the companies want to compensate their executives that kind of money why is that not their problem? The real problem is when the gubmint steps in and does not allow the market to freely function. It's like trying to make rain fall up.
Well if the owners of the companies want to compensate their executives that kind of money why is that not their problem?
I think as long as corporations hire lobbyists to try and bend the political system in their favor, that they should expect a certain level of regulation and subjugation to government mandates. And when they ask for bailouts, their autonomy in all financial matters should be subject to government veto. Otherwise, don't ask for public funds.
I was watching a documentary about an African woman who carried 50 lbs on her head up and down a hill all day for the equivalent of 25 cents. CEO's make too much? Have you ever thought that maybe you guys make too much? Probably not. Get your head out of the clouds.
...70 BILLION alone went to the BONUSES of CEOs who CAUSED the problem......
The highest paid bonus paid in 2007 was $68 million, which was only two day's profits for Goldman. To put that in perspective, a small company making $250K after tax profit per year, or $685 a day, would have to pay their CEO a bonus of $1370 on a comparative basis. If you owned that company, and could hire a CEO to return you $250K (after paying his salary), and all you had to do was give him $1370, you would think it was a bargain.
The bonus dollar amounts are large. Maybe too large. But not $70 BILLION, and not unreasonable on a percentage basis compared to many businesses.
I think as long as corporations hire lobbyists to try and bend the political system in their favor, that they should expect a certain level of regulation and subjugation to government mandates. And when they ask for bailouts, their autonomy in all financial matters should be subject to government veto. Otherwise, don't ask for public funds.
The hiring of a lobby firm to represent your company’s interest to our law makers does not give the federal government the right (or the ability) to run your business. Business, trade associations and even individuals for the most part would love to not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in DC but it would seem that our elected officials 1, love the power and 2, wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to do their job if it weren’t for someone telling them how (enter the lobbyist). Change our tax code and we can get rid of lobbyists, until them we are saddled with them. Bailouts, I'm against all of them. But I do agree that if a company gets one they should be prepared to be boarded. It's just too bad that getting advice from Washington is like asking a drunken dropout how to invest your retirement account.
The more gubmint gets into our business the more inefficient it gets. I’m all for (responsible) regulation but not strangulation.
The highest paid bonus paid in 2007 was $68 million, which was only two day's profits for Goldman. To put that in perspective, a small company making $250K after tax profit per year, or $685 a day, would have to pay their CEO a bonus of $1370 on a comparative basis. If you owned that company, and could hire a CEO to return you $250K (after paying his salary), and all you had to do was give him $1370, you would think it was a bargain.
The bonus dollar amounts are large. Maybe too large. But not $70 BILLION, and not unreasonable on a percentage basis compared to many businesses.
But in all honesty, most execs don't do anything providing value to the company worth a fraction of the outlandish bonueses they are given. In fact, many execs are detrimental to their company. Chrysler is paying $1 million bonuses to their execs as we speak while their company and employees are all circling the drain.
If the money was in reality based on performance, then that would be fine. And the argument could be made a few are worth it. Most, no way.
Well if the owners of the companies want to compensate their executives that kind of money why is that not their problem? The real problem is when the gubmint steps in and does not allow the market to freely function. It's like trying to make rain fall up.
Well... how about the big three and the finance companies paying out outlandish bonuses as their companies tank and then going to the government (us) to bail them out.
When the economy was good waaaaay back in the 70's the CEOs made 30-40% more than the average worker, now it's more like 400-500%.
This is why the bail out won't work.....it's simply giving our tax money to the extremely wealthy...70 BILLION alone went to the BONUSES of CEOs who CAUSED the problem.......never said these people were stupid! They're laughing and thumbing their noses at us all the way to to their Swiss bank account.
The bail out money COULD have come from eliminating "off-shore" tax havens. All TRILLION of it.....but do you think the wealthy would've ALLOWED that???
Revisionist history. The economy was great in the 70's? I remeber waiting in line for gasoline, rampant inflation, multiple recessions, and continuation of the nanny state.
The whole CEO compensation is populist in the grand scheme of things. Most are paid a fraction of a percent of the net income a company brings in. The rest is paid out to shareholders or reinvested in the company. When adding up all the money a company pays out to it's employees, CEO pay is a negligable.
That being said, the boards need to do a better job tying CEO pay to the performance of the company and stop giving guaranteed money to people who run businesses into the ground. That money belongs in the pockets of shareholders.
Well... how about the big three and the finance companies paying out outlandish bonuses as their companies tank and then going to the government (us) to bail them out.
Now it becomes our problem.
I agree! That's just one of the reasons I'm against gubmint bailouts. I don't care about their compensation when I'm not an owner, then it's their business. The problem is we are being forced to become owners of companies that we would never have on our own.
We all make too much money. We need to "give back" to the rest of the world.
We should all take an across the board 50% cut in pay. Then CEO's, doctors and lawyers should make say, 10% more than the average of labor. Athletes, and performers don't need all that money for the type of work they do. They should make an average of national labor costs as well.
We could completely turn this country around!
On the contrary........we should get a cost-of-drinking pay raise!
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.
