Median CEO pay crosses $10 million

[AvgGuyIA]

It don't work that way. I have NEVER gone to a job and tried to debate my wage. Its either told to me what the wage IS or its in the job ad etc before I apply...its already a done deal.

You are not in the rigged game of CEOs. They even negotiate what they get when they fail, and it's a lot. Think the average worker will get hired if he wants to negotiate his failure at the job?

Exactly. I could have run Target into the ground and gotten 15$ million for it! That's what their last CEO did...15$ as a severance package.

It don't work that way. I have NEVER gone to a job and tried to debate my wage. Its either told to me what the wage IS or its in the job ad etc before I apply...its already a done deal.

Then whose fault is that? If you are just going to take what they offer without even making an attempt to get higher pay, why should you get paid more?

Its not a fault its the way it is. You either take what's offered or they will simply find another worker. Which is why I am a such a huge proponent of Workers Unions.

You'll get the same pay as the slowest, laziest worker working next to you. I'd be pissed about that.

 

[zeke]

05]what is a "living wage" pray tell leftard?[/B]
is it the same everywhere?

Why do you want to know bedoninny? It is a wage above yours I would bet. How much money do you need to earn to live in a 400 sq. ft. storage building? How ever much it is, that amount is YOUR living wage.

And no, it is not the same everywhere. Some storage buildings cost more than others.

Hope that helps in your education. But I doubt it.

 

[bedowin62]

05]what is a "living wage" pray tell leftard?[/B]
is it the same everywhere?

Why do you want to know bedoninny? It is a wage above yours I would bet. How much money do you need to earn to live in a 400 sq. ft. storage building? How ever much it is, that amount is YOUR living wage.

And no, it is not the same everywhere. Some storage buildings cost more than others.

Hope that helps in your education. But I doubt it.

if you bet you would be wrong leftard

but arent you used to that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Rich, including the rich CEO's, are the so-called 'job creators' aren't they, supposedly?

And yet most CEO's have it in their job descriptions, implicitly, to make their corporation run with as few jobs as possible,

at the lowest wages possible, all things considered.

So?

That's how business is supposed to run.

Says the guy who allows an employee to keep their job because she is a friends wife.
That's how business is supposed to run, right skull?

You can't read can you?

We're in the process of hiring a new employee which means we are running short handed I can't be down 2 people and like I said it costs me less to keep her on and she does an adequate job.

But you've never run a business or had employees so I'm sure your opinion is worthless.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

Done over and over again here. Why are you pretending that it has not?

You say that you believe that we have a problem. Why not spend a few posts trying to convince the RIGHT of that fact before you challenge the left to repeat their argument again?

You have one side arguing with you regarding the existence of a problem......but you want to wage your bullshit battle against those who agree with you.....because you think they don't have an answer.

This is why you are known as a waste if time.

Earmuffs!

 

[bedowin62]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

Done over and over again here. Why are you pretending that it has not?

You say that you believe that we have a problem. Why not spend a few posts trying to convince the RIGHT of that fact before you challenge the left to repeat their argument again?

You have one side arguing with you regarding the existence of a problem......but you want to wage your bullshit battle against those who agree with you.....because you think they don't have an answer.

This is why you are known as a waste if time.

Earmuffs!

nobody here; with a possible few exceptions; is a bigger waste of time than you lone loser

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it any of you busybody's concern what a private company pays its employees?

BTW the answer is that it is none of your concern.

 

[LoneLaugher]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Forty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn. His only concern is stock price.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly. Tie bonuses to increases in numbers of employees or payroll increases. This will force CEOs to act in the best interests of the employees .......and indirectly, the US economy.

Try a little sanity.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna try to push this thread into more of a solutions-based conversation than the standard hyperbole and partisan politics-filled insult-fest so common here.

For the sake of the conversation, let's just stipulate that we have a problem (I'd agree, by the way). So rather than the standard partisan back-and-forth, I wonder if anyone on the Left can toss out some specific ideas on how this might be addressed:

• Some kind of law that puts a maximum on salary based on percentages?
• Higher top-end marginal income tax rates?
• Ending stock options as compensation?
• Some combination therein?

Howzabout some civil, mature, thoughtful specifics this time?

Just taking a shot here, not holding my breath.

.

Done over and over again here. Why are you pretending that it has not?

You say that you believe that we have a problem. Why not spend a few posts trying to convince the RIGHT of that fact before you challenge the left to repeat their argument again?

You have one side arguing with you regarding the existence of a problem......but you want to wage your bullshit battle against those who agree with you.....because you think they don't have an answer.

This is why you are known as a waste if time.

Earmuffs!

nobody here; with a possible few exceptions; is a bigger waste of time than you lone loser

Is that right? Cool.

 

[Skull Pilot]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

They get taxed on the stock eventually. so the government gets its pound of flesh.

 

[bedowin62]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

the whole issue is a red herring pandering Progressive demagogues use to deflect attention away from their own failures

 

[Darkwind]

How about this?
Have a corporate policy where the CEO makes no more than 7 times the pay of the lowest paid worker.
It's been tried... and it failed.

Ben & Jerry's ice cream were just two hippies who took the ice cream course at Penn State. They went home to Vermont and converted a gas station into an ice cream shop.

The rest is history.

They got to a point where they were getting so big they had to hire people. But since money wasn't their original objective, they instituted a "Seven times rule". They would make no more than seven times the pay of the floor sweeper.

He still was paid just above minimum wage.

The money was put into the company and Ben & Jerry took home small salaries.

The company got too big for them, so they needed to hire a CEO.
At a salary that was seven times the minimum worker's?
They got no takers at all. So they had to abandon that policy.
They hired a CEO and had to pay him $1,000,000 a year. He lasted 12 months, and accepted an offer someplace else with a much higher salary.

Sigh...

So Ben & Jerry sold the company to Unilever for a pantload of money.

There are lots of qualified people that will work for 7x the average workers pay.

Define 'qualified'.

A 'qualified' CEO will not, and neither would I.

 

[LoneLaugher]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

the whole issue is a red herring pandering Progressive demagogues use to deflect attention away from their own failures

Funny.....I don't see your comments regarding my suggestion. Did you forget?

 

[bedowin62]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

the whole issue is a red herring pandering Progressive demagogues use to deflect attention away from their own failures

Funny.....I don't see your comments regarding my suggestion. Did you forget?

what part of red herring dont you get?
if you dont understand the word look it up

 

[LoneLaugher]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

They get taxed on the stock eventually. so the government gets its pound of flesh.

Not at the rate that their salary would be taxed. But you knew that.

 

[bedowin62]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

They get taxed on the stock eventually. so the government gets its pound of flesh.

Not at the rate that their salary would be taxed. But you knew that.

good one stupid; you want to crush the only bright spot in an otherwise failed tenure of obama; the success of Wall Street

 

[LoneLaugher]

the whole issue is a red herring pandering Progressive demagogues use to deflect attention away from their own failures

Funny.....I don't see your comments regarding my suggestion. Did you forget?

what part of red herring dont you get?
if you dont understand the word look it up

You are arguing with Mac on this one. The thread acknowledges that a problem exists and asks for solutions. Where are yours?

 

[bedowin62]

Funny.....I don't see your comments regarding my suggestion. Did you forget?

what part of red herring dont you get?
if you dont understand the word look it up

You are arguing with Mac on this one. The thread assumes that a problem exists and asks for solutions. Where are yours?

the thread is about the problem; i say it isnt a problem

go cry little fascist wannabe

 

[LoneLaugher]

They get taxed on the stock eventually. so the government gets its pound of flesh.

Not at the rate that their salary would be taxed. But you knew that.

good one stupid; you want to crush the only bright spot in an otherwise failed tenure of obama; the success of Wall Street

You are still avoiding the issue. Want to demonstrate why you are not a waste of time?

 

[Skull Pilot]

CEO's used to be compensated and rewarded based on the performance of the companies that they ran. The company grew.....in number of employees as well as in the bottom line....and they got bonuses. Thirty years ago, if a company announced layoffs, you would see their stock price decline.

Now, however, a reduction in employees almost always leads to an increase in the stock price. And since a. CEO is compensated with stock options...and answers only to stock holders.....he is incentivized to reduce the workforce cost at every turn.

Solution?

End the practice of paying CEO's with stock options and other fucked up methods of compensation. They should get paid a salary and taxed accordingly.

Try a little sanity.

They get taxed on the stock eventually. so the government gets its pound of flesh.

Not at the rate that their salary would be taxed. But you knew that.

So?