CEO pay is 380 times average worker's

[The Rabbi]

It's amazing that "conservatives" don't see anything wrong with this picture:

WHy don't you describe what the picture shows. Then tell us what's wrong with it.
This ought to be a hoot. BEcause like most libs you can't read a chart and interpret it correctly if your life depended on it.

 

[Sallow]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

That's just silly.

Capitalism is a liberal construct after all.

Now THAT'S silly.

No, it isn't. Liberals don't much LIKe capitalism, in point of fact. And we all know it. We surely see significant evidence of that fact day after day and post after post.

But more importantly, you and your like-minded liberal pals seem mightily offended that a CEO might make a few hundred times what the rank and file company workers make.

If 380 times is too much, it would SEEM to follow that you folks imagine YOU can tell us what multiple (if any) is appropriate. May a CEO make only a hundred times what the low level worker makes?

No? Too much?

Fifty times? Still too much?

Ok. How about 10 times?

I am gonna guess that there exists (out there in the ether) some formula that will advise the rest of us how the masterminds come to the conclusion about how much is fair, appropriate and justifiable. I'd like to examine that formula and get some explanation on how it is determined. What are the bases supporting that formula?

Again..the notion that Capitalism isn't liberal is a silly notion.

It was STARTED by liberals. It started with the rise of merchants that felt their goods and profits did not belong to the King.

CEOs, themselves, could kibosh this whole issue.

But they refuse too.

And have actually done the opposite. They've spent money to reverse regulation and defund regulators.

The result?

What we have now.

And there will be a backlash. The government IS going to step in. Maybe not today..maybe not tomorrow.

But it's coming.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's just silly.

Capitalism is a liberal construct after all.

Now THAT'S silly.

No, it isn't. Liberals don't much LIKe capitalism, in point of fact. And we all know it. We surely see significant evidence of that fact day after day and post after post.

But more importantly, you and your like-minded liberal pals seem mightily offended that a CEO might make a few hundred times what the rank and file company workers make.

If 380 times is too much, it would SEEM to follow that you folks imagine YOU can tell us what multiple (if any) is appropriate. May a CEO make only a hundred times what the low level worker makes?

No? Too much?

Fifty times? Still too much?

Ok. How about 10 times?

I am gonna guess that there exists (out there in the ether) some formula that will advise the rest of us how the masterminds come to the conclusion about how much is fair, appropriate and justifiable. I'd like to examine that formula and get some explanation on how it is determined. What are the bases supporting that formula?

Again..the notion that Capitalism isn't liberal is a silly notion.

It was STARTED by liberals. It started with the rise of merchants that felt their goods and profits did not belong to the King.

CEOs, themselves, could kibosh this whole issue.

But they refuse too.

And have actually done the opposite. They've spent money to reverse regulation and defund regulators.

The result?

What we have now.

And there will be a backlash. The government IS going to step in. Maybe not today..maybe not tomorrow.

But it's coming.

It's amazing how ignorant your posts are.
What were called liberals in the 18th century are called conservatives today. Liberals are pushing for more regulation, more government control. And big companies love gov't control because it eliminates competition. Plus the crony capitalism that comes from gov't regs too expensive for anyone but big companies to follow.

 

[KevinWestern]

CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

So does the CEO work 380 times harder?

The goal of the shareholders is to maximize the profit for the company and not the CEO. Why would they pay the CEO any more than they think he/she is actually worth?

We're seeing CEO pay increase for a lot of reasons, but most are not malicious ones. Consider the fact that in 1950 there may have been 100 regional companies competing against each other (each with 500 employees) and now there are just two super companies (in 2014) that span the globe with over 2,500 employees each. Are you going to be upset at the fact that the guy residing over 2,500 employees makes more than the guy residing over 500?

These are the business trends - consolidation - which means there are less guys at the top and naturally more money to be made by that guy (or gal) who makes it to the top.

You have to consider all angles.

 

[boedicca]

It's amazing that "conservatives" don't see anything wrong with this picture:

That isn't AVERAGE CEO pay - it's the pay for public company CEOs, who are the minority of CEOs across the country. Most CEOs manage small and medium sized businesses and earn nowhere near that level of pay.

The public company CEO pay is also distorted by the expensing of stock options that haven't even been sold. GAAP requires an accounting charge which is included in compensation reported to the SEC. It's not cash income. If the Feds hadn't printed so much money, and if the IRS hadn't changed tax laws to bias comp towards options, there would not have been such a steep run up in CEO "pay".

And the public company ones contribute more to the economy (jobs) than do basketball players who earn far more.

 

[Nosmo King]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's amazing that "conservatives" don't see anything wrong with this picture:

That isn't AVERAGE CEO pay - it's the pay for public company CEOs, who are the minority of CEOs across the country. Most CEOs manage small and medium sized businesses and earn nowhere near that level of pay.

The public company CEO pay is also distorted by the expensing of stock options that haven't even been sold. GAAP requires an accounting charge which is included in compensation reported to the SEC. It's not cash income. If the Feds hadn't printed so much money, and if the IRS hadn't changed tax laws to bias comp towards options, there would not have been such a steep run up in CEO "pay".

And the public company ones contribute more to the economy (jobs) than do basketball players who earn far more.

She can't read a chart. She can't reason. Her knowledge base sucks. Of course she's a lib.

 

[The Rabbi]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

HOLY SHIT! You didnt just write that and mean it, did you??? That is the stupidest most ignorant post on economics I've ever seen. Ever. Literally every sentence is incorrect.
Business investment drives the economy. How much did Apple earn in the 1950s? Yeah.
Capitalism is not about money changing hands.
More capital does not mean capital is shrinking.

Geez, I cannot believe an adult actually wrote something so stupid and ignorant. It wins "Worst Post of the Day".

 

[boedicca]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

Perhaps the answer to keeping money in the hands of workers is to tax them less, bub.

 

[paulitician]

Been my experience only miserable losers sit around whining about how much money others make. It's a losers mentality. It's there if you want it bad enough. Get rich, or die tryin. If you're doing anything less than that, don't bother bitchin & whinin. You don't want it bad enough. Period, end of story.

 

[paulitician]

If it was that simple, everybody would be doing it.

Exactly the point. It's incredibly difficult becoming a CEO. Not everyone can be a star athlete, movie star, or CEO. That's just the way it is. But that in no way justifies stealing from or punishing those who do achieve such success. If you wanna be a CEO, go for it. Don't just sit around whining about how good they have it. Do something. Work for it.

My stars - - - - - he still doesn't get it.

Stop being bitter & envious. Work harder and become a CEO. Being an Entitlement Whiner is no way to live. You'll always fall short if you cling to your losers mentality. Life really is what you make it. Now quit ya bitchin and get to work.

 

[Sallow]

CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

So does the CEO work 380 times harder?

The goal of the shareholders is to maximize the profit for the company and not the CEO. Why would they pay the CEO any more than they think he/she is actually worth?

We're seeing CEO pay increase for a lot of reasons, but most are not malicious ones. Consider the fact that in 1950 there may have been 100 regional companies competing against each other (each with 500 employees) and now there are just two super companies (in 2014) that span the globe with over 2,500 employees each. Are you going to be upset at the fact that the guy residing over 2,500 employees makes more than the guy residing over 500?

These are the business trends - consolidation - which means there are less guys at the top and naturally more money to be made by that guy (or gal) who makes it to the top.

You have to consider all angles.

Shareholders have very little say in CEO compensation.

 

[Sallow]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

HOLY SHIT! You didnt just write that and mean it, did you??? That is the stupidest most ignorant post on economics I've ever seen. Ever. Literally every sentence is incorrect.
Business investment drives the economy. How much did Apple earn in the 1950s? Yeah.
Capitalism is not about money changing hands.
More capital does not mean capital is shrinking.

Geez, I cannot believe an adult actually wrote something so stupid and ignorant. It wins "Worst Post of the Day".

70% of the economic activity in the United States is based on consumerism.

it's also a basic tenet of the Supply and Demand.

Rich folks, by the way, don't spend much. And when they do? It's generally on high ticket items that don't add much to the economy.

 

[Nosmo King]

It kinda sorta looks a little bit like the thing that offends our liberals is not the fact that some CEOs make 380 times what a worker makes.

What appears to really chafe our liberals is that it is happening with the construct of capitalism at all.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

Perhaps the answer to keeping money in the hands of workers is to tax them less, bub.

Workers are over taxed, that's true. But there still isn't justification for their wages to shrink while the wealthiest enjoy gargantuan increases in their income. There still isn't any rebut to the FACT that exchange of capital for goods and services is the metric by which we measure economic activity and thus the growth or diminishment of our economy.

If Capitalism is our system, today we find that system rigged in favor of the wealthy and against those who EARN a living.

Why are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie seen as successful? Because they are the exceptions the exceptional, not the average. Those who sneer and blame the average wage earner as lazy or indifferent or a 'loser' simply don't have enough life experience to make such a ham handed claim. Therefore, they should be excused from any serious discussion. They just don't have the facts. What they do have is bumper sticker thinking indoctrinated to them by some ex-DJ radio talk show host.

 

[paulitician]

CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

So does the CEO work 380 times harder?

The goal of the shareholders is to maximize the profit for the company and not the CEO. Why would they pay the CEO any more than they think he/she is actually worth?

We're seeing CEO pay increase for a lot of reasons, but most are not malicious ones. Consider the fact that in 1950 there may have been 100 regional companies competing against each other (each with 500 employees) and now there are just two super companies (in 2014) that span the globe with over 2,500 employees each. Are you going to be upset at the fact that the guy residing over 2,500 employees makes more than the guy residing over 500?

These are the business trends - consolidation - which means there are less guys at the top and naturally more money to be made by that guy (or gal) who makes it to the top.

You have to consider all angles.

Shareholders have very little say in CEO compensation.

Why ya hatin? Do you think you could be a CEO? Do you really believe you have what it takes? If so, make it happen. Otherwise, it's no one else's fault you're stuck cleaning shitters or digging ditches. That's on you. More work, less whining.

 

[Sallow]

Exactly the point. It's incredibly difficult becoming a CEO. Not everyone can be a star athlete, movie star, or CEO. That's just the way it is. But that in no way justifies stealing from or punishing those who do achieve such success. If you wanna be a CEO, go for it. Don't just sit around whining about how good they have it. Do something. Work for it.

My stars - - - - - he still doesn't get it.

Stop being bitter & envious. Work harder and become a CEO. Being an Entitlement Whiner is no way to live. You'll always fall short if you cling to your losers mentality. Life really is what you make it. Now quit ya bitchin and get to work.

Modern CEOs in the United States, for the most part, are born into the role.

It's a new aristocracy. Which is why Conservatives defend them so vehemently.

 

[paulitician]

My stars - - - - - he still doesn't get it.

Stop being bitter & envious. Work harder and become a CEO. Being an Entitlement Whiner is no way to live. You'll always fall short if you cling to your losers mentality. Life really is what you make it. Now quit ya bitchin and get to work.

Modern CEOs in the United States, for the most part, are born into the role.

It's a new aristocracy. Which is why Conservatives defend them so vehemently.

Warped Entitlement Whiner mentality.

 

[Sallow]

The goal of the shareholders is to maximize the profit for the company and not the CEO. Why would they pay the CEO any more than they think he/she is actually worth?

We're seeing CEO pay increase for a lot of reasons, but most are not malicious ones. Consider the fact that in 1950 there may have been 100 regional companies competing against each other (each with 500 employees) and now there are just two super companies (in 2014) that span the globe with over 2,500 employees each. Are you going to be upset at the fact that the guy residing over 2,500 employees makes more than the guy residing over 500?

These are the business trends - consolidation - which means there are less guys at the top and naturally more money to be made by that guy (or gal) who makes it to the top.

You have to consider all angles.

Shareholders have very little say in CEO compensation.

Why ya hatin? Do you think you could be a CEO? Do you really believe you have what it takes? If so, make it happen. Otherwise, it's no one else's fault you're stuck cleaning shitters or digging ditches. That's on you. More work, less whining.

Not hating at all.

It's a dangerous threat to the Democratic Republic of the United States.

And stop projecting what you do for a buck on me.

I work in tech..

 

[paulitician]

Shareholders have very little say in CEO compensation.

Why ya hatin? Do you think you could be a CEO? Do you really believe you have what it takes? If so, make it happen. Otherwise, it's no one else's fault you're stuck cleaning shitters or digging ditches. That's on you. More work, less whining.

Not hating at all.

It's a dangerous threat to the Democratic Republic of the United States.

And stop projecting what you do for a buck on me.

I work in tech..

Yes you are hatin. You want to steal from and punish others because of your warped Entitlement Whiner mentality. Fact is, you're not capable of becoming a star athlete, movie star, or CEO. That's life. Deal with it.

 

[boedicca]

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. More money in more hands means more capital is being exchanged, and that's what Capitalism is all about. Take that money from the wage earners and put it in fewer hands and our economy grinds to a halt. Sequestering capital among the very very few and then allowing those few to sequester it further in off shore accounts means that the big pie of capital is shrinking.

10,000 workers with decent wages can out spend 1 CEO with an exorbitant wage. Why kill Capitalism to protect the greediest?

Perhaps the answer to keeping money in the hands of workers is to tax them less, bub.

Workers are over taxed, that's true. But there still isn't justification for their wages to shrink while the wealthiest enjoy gargantuan increases in their income. There still isn't any rebut to the FACT that exchange of capital for goods and services is the metric by which we measure economic activity and thus the growth or diminishment of our economy.

If Capitalism is our system, today we find that system rigged in favor of the wealthy and against those who EARN a living.

Why are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie seen as successful? Because they are the exceptions the exceptional, not the average. Those who sneer and blame the average wage earner as lazy or indifferent or a 'loser' simply don't have enough life experience to make such a ham handed claim. Therefore, they should be excused from any serious discussion. They just don't have the facts. What they do have is bumper sticker thinking indoctrinated to them by some ex-DJ radio talk show host.

We don't have a Capitalist System. We have a Big Government Cronyist system in which the politically connected conspire to squash competition and funnel taxpayer money into their own coffers.

That.Is.Not.Capitalism.