• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: U.S. CEOs earn 312 times more than average workers do

Polar Bum said:
Clearly the people that hire CEO's are firm believers in the adage, "You get what you pay for".

When you get to be a board member, you go ahead and hire whomever you want.
Click to expand...

why cheap labor from the third world? management can't complain about Labor.

Especially, Hostess management.
 
danielpalos said:
why cheap labor from the third world? management can't complain about Labor.

Especially, Hostess management.
Click to expand...

You must be dizzy from these constant circular arguments.
 
danielpalos said:
cheap is cheap under Capitalism not Socialism. Why quibble if you are a capitalist?
Click to expand...

You seem to have over looked the "You get what you pay for" part of my previous statement.

There, I have said it again; now, the comprehension part is entirely up to you to figure out.
 
Mason66 said:
Who says an employee doesn't have a labor contract?
Click to expand...

I say so, if there is no written, signed agreement. Verbal contracts are unenforceable in a court of law in most circumstances.

Mason66 said:
Do you think they work there with no parameters on what they will get paid?
Click to expand...

The only parameter is that they must be paid the state's minimum wage. They can be promised anything verbally, but in the event of a dispute, the state will mandate payment of whatever the minimum wage is.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press International

Study: U.S. CEOs earn 312 times more than average workers do
​

Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Chief executive officers at the United States' 350 largest companies earned substantially more last year than did average employees, an economic analysis showed Friday.

CEOs have always made more than typical workers, but the study showed the gap is increasing.

The non-governmental Economic Policy Institute said the average CEO salary was $18.9 million in 2017, an 18 percent increase over 2016. In that span, employees' wages rose just 0.3 percent.

The payout for executives included salary, bonuses, restricted stock grants, long-term incentive payouts and stock options.

COMMENT:-

To put that in perspective, based on the number of "working days" in a year, those CEOs earn as much in one day as the average worker earns in 8.371 years.

PS - Did you get your 18% raise last year?
​
Click to expand...

This is fantastic news! Great to see.
 
Polar Bum said:
You seem to have over looked the "You get what you pay for" part of my previous statement.

There, I have said it again; now, the comprehension part is entirely up to you to figure out.
Click to expand...

why does the right wing advocate for abolishing the minimum wage for Labor?
 
danielpalos said:
why does the right wing advocate for abolishing the minimum wage for Labor?
Click to expand...

You would have to ask someone on the right that question; this thread deals with CEO compensation vs. employee compensation differences, and why they exist.

That question has already been answered....perhaps it is not the answer you want or like, but, there it is.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Okay. Substitute stadium sweeper with team headquarters janitor. Are we cool?

The player doesn't pay the janitor...the CEO doesn't pay the janitor. In both cases, the company pays the janitor, just as the company pays the CEO and the player.

Yes, that income issue is my point. People want to denigrate CEO's, yet nobody denigrates NFL players. Why not?

The fact is, both the CEO and the player are highly qualified and very good at what they do and what they do makes a lot of money for the company. The janitor? Well, he doesn't make quite as much money for the company, does he? This makes their value to the company MUCH greater than the janitor. THAT'S why they get so much more money.
Click to expand...

I have no issue denigrating both. But there is a difference in that the CEO absolutely could make a decision to pay the lower level workers more money and even reduce his own paycheck to do it (as well as some paychecks of other top workers). The NFL player likely has no such option to opt to increase the janitor's actual pay himself, even if he took a pay cut.

Pro sports players do get paid way too much. But it is definitely not an equivalent comparison.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
"That's why we need to bring back strong unions." Who is "we" and what are you proposing to impose membership in "strong unions"?
Click to expand...

We are Americans who care about this country, and no one is proposing to impose anything, just give the workers a choice to unite and be as powerful as the bosses, or not unite and continue to be trampled underfoot.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Sen. Warren has proposed something very close to that in her ACA bill. One obvious problem with such 'porifit sharing' ideas is that it violates the concept of equal pay for equal work.

Using a very simple example points this out. Company A and company B both employ cashiers and have company owned retail outlets. Company A sells cellphones and Company B sells lightbulbs. Company A makes 10% profit on each sale and Company B makes 3% profit on each sale. Would it be 'fair' that Company A paid its cashiers more than 3X what Company B pays its cashiers?
Are cellphones more profitable than lightbulbs are because of a variance in the skills of their cashiers?

The idea of using gross revenue, net profit margins or the number of employees that a particular company has to assign (define?) a 'fair" pay rate for an employee with the same job duties (skills?) makes little (if any) sense.

There is now far more variation in what CEO's make per hour than there is in what cashiers make per hour - why do you suppose that is and what (if anything) would having a union do to change that situation?
Click to expand...

Having a union would give the workers of both of your hypothetical companies a way to have enough power to see to it that they got a share of the profits. Without such power, there is no limit to what the bosses will take for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the workers. That is the root cause of the disparity in wealth we're seeing, a disparity approaching what we see in third world countries.

Short a way for the workers to have equal power, the US will continue to go the way of the third world. What we forget by having a system in which a few get most of the wealth is that a society in which the common man has money is a society that has a market and keeps the economy going. If only a few have all of the marbles, who is going to buy the goods that keep the factories humming and the people working?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press International

Study: U.S. CEOs earn 312 times more than average workers do
​

Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Chief executive officers at the United States' 350 largest companies earned substantially more last year than did average employees, an economic analysis showed Friday.

CEOs have always made more than typical workers, but the study showed the gap is increasing.

The non-governmental Economic Policy Institute said the average CEO salary was $18.9 million in 2017, an 18 percent increase over 2016. In that span, employees' wages rose just 0.3 percent.

The payout for executives included salary, bonuses, restricted stock grants, long-term incentive payouts and stock options.

COMMENT:-

To put that in perspective, based on the number of "working days" in a year, those CEOs earn as much in one day as the average worker earns in 8.371 years.

PS - Did you get your 18% raise last year?
​
Click to expand...

Lol, It is almost like clockwork that people fall for this misleading BS every year the Salary information comes out for the top 350 CEOs.

You are comparing an outlier and thinking it provides some sort of insight in to the way the world is. Newsflash, the top 350 CEOs represent the 1/200 of 1%, the top 1% of most professions pay absurdly high salaries as at that level there are very few that can match the level of success and if their salary weren't as high then a competitor would likely hire them away.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We are Americans who care about this country, and no one is proposing to impose anything, just give the workers a choice to unite and be as powerful as the bosses, or not unite and continue to be trampled underfoot.
Click to expand...

You are right, people who question should yield to those of you who "care" more than everyone else. Something about the "road to hell..." comes to mind, but I'm sure that isn't your intention.

Tell me more about these new requirements you want to impose to make people want to join a union and to stick it to the man. Quick question for you: have you ever signed the front of a paycheck?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Having a union would give the workers of both of your hypothetical companies a way to have enough power to see to it that they got "a share of the profits". Without such power, there is no limit to what the bosses will take for themselves, leaving little to nothing for the workers. That is the root cause of the disparity in wealth we're seeing, a disparity approaching what we see in third world countries.

Short a way for the workers to have equal power, the US will continue to go the way of the third world. What we forget by having a system in which a few get most of the wealth is that a society in which the common man has money is a society that has a market and keeps the economy going. If only a few have all of the marbles, who is going to buy the goods that keep the factories humming and the people working?
Click to expand...

First, one has to define what "a share of the profits" actually means. Simply because I hire a helper does not make them a partner in my business since they are taking no risk and are investing only their time and effort for a guaranteed profit (return?) of $X/hour (or day). Let's say that I spent $2K on a trailer and $5K on a tow vehicle to haul material (and that helper) to the job site what is that helper's share of those costs?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is, indeed, "how things go".

The "Top 1%" owns about 40% of America's wealth.

The "Middle 9%" owns about 20% of America's wealth.

The "Bottom 90%" owns just slightly under 40% of America's wealth.

The stuff that the "Bottom 90%" owns is to fragmented and widely scattered to be worth pursuing by the "Top 1%" - but the stuff that the "Middle 9%" owns isn't. That means that the inevitable result is for those in the (current) "Middle 9%" to fall out of that range and into the range occupied by the (current) "Bottom 90%".

Eventually you reach the situation where the "Top 1%" owns 60% and the "Bottom 99%" owns 40%.

When you reach that situation there is only one outcome - the percentage owned by the "Top 1%" grows and the percentage owned by the "Bottom 99%" shrinks.

This shrinkage continues until the is a sudden boom in the market for "Rope & Lamp-post Inc." franchises.

Of course, by that time the REALLY smart members of the "Top 1%" have found "alternative accommodation" elsewhere (and so has their money).
Click to expand...

Interesting how this is promoted as a bad thing but more importantly how it is never pointed out that the U.S. wealth continues to grow thus the economic pie and everyone has to opportunity to join this elite group of wealthy individuals through hard work, dedication, risk taking, but more importantly attitude. Instead of demonizing the top 1% and individual wealth creation it should be celebrated and encouraged rather than the entitlement mentality that far too many people have along with jealousy and class envy.

I am certainly not in the top 1% but I had every opportunity to join them but chose a different path. No rich person ever hurt me or my family which is contrary to the opinions of many here who continue to post anti capitalism thread after thread. This country wasn't created on the liberal values of massive central govt. and entitlement but has grown into that entity. Rather sad to see such destruction of the American values promoted by the same people over and over again.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how this is promoted as a bad thing but more importantly how it is never pointed out that the U.S. wealth continues to grow thus the economic pie and everyone has to opportunity to join this elite group of wealthy individuals through hard work, dedication, risk taking, but more importantly attitude.
Click to expand...

Lol you have a better chance of winning the lottery than joining the elite rich through hard work and all that right wing bull**** you spouted. And that especially goes for non whites and women...

Face it... to get the American dream is a myth in America and rarely happens. Social mobility in the US is highly limited for most.

Now that is not saying being rich is a bad thing. The problem is the inequality between paying a CEO or top management several 100 times more than those that actually do most of the work. Add to this, the fact that wages have not budged for over 40 years with the exception of the top wage bracket. Plus of course top earners that get paid no matter if they do good or bad... like in banking and financial services.

It is always hilarious to hear some big corporation firing thousands while the CEO and management get pay rises..... That is a fundemental problem that people like you never get into.



Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
Lol you have a better chance of winning the lottery than joining the elite rich through hard work and all that right wing bull**** you spouted. And that especially goes for non whites and women...

Face it... to get the American dream is a myth in America and rarely happens. Social mobility in the US is highly limited for most.

Now that is not saying being rich is a bad thing. The problem is the inequality between paying a CEO or top management several 100 times more than those that actually do most of the work. Add to this, the fact that wages have not budged for over 40 years with the exception of the top wage bracket. Plus of course top earners that get paid no matter if they do good or bad... like in banking and financial services.

It is always hilarious to hear some big corporation firing thousands while the CEO and management get pay rises..... That is a fundemental problem that people like you never get into.



Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, with that attitude and entitlement mentality you have you would be right. It is interesting how there is such hatred for corporations and yet so little discussion about entertainers, baseball players, actors, etc most of whom employ very few but let's attack the corporate CEO's who run big companies, hire thousands of workers and contribute millions to charity. You have a choice of where to spend your money so if you don't like corporate CEO pay stop buying from them.

I find it quite disturbing that people from Europe are telling the American people who bad we have it here and then rely on us for your security while spending most of your GDP on social programs that don't promote individual wealth creation. There certainly is a fundamental problem here but it rests with you and the radical left, not the American people who are benefiting from the Trump economy and the capitalistic system we have in this country.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, with that attitude and entitlement mentality you have you would be right. It is interesting how there is such hatred for corporations and yet so little discussion about entertainers, baseball players, actors, etc most of whom employ very few but let's attack the corporate CEO's who run big companies, hire thousands of workers and contribute millions to charity. You have a choice of where to spend your money so if you don't like corporate CEO pay stop buying from them.

I find it quite disturbing that people from Europe are telling the American people who bad we have it here and then rely on us for your security while spending most of your GDP on social programs that don't promote individual wealth creation. There certainly is a fundamental problem here but it rests with you and the radical left, not the American people who are benefiting from the Trump economy and the capitalistic system we have in this country.
Click to expand...
Oh don't get me started on sports people and entertainment types.. that situation ain't no better but not the point of the discussion.

As for Europe telling the US and defence spending and all that right wing Trump bull****.... fine leave Europe and don't let the door hit you on the way out. But that also means no using European bases... including Diego Garcia and Ramstien when you fight your often illegal wars.... which is where you spend most of your defence budget. Fact is you spend very little in NATO....ups eh?

And you do realise that the only place in the world where you can actually achieve the American dream and move up the social economic ladder is in many European countries.....



Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
Oh don't get me started on sports people and entertainment types.. that situation ain't no better but not the point of the discussion.

As for Europe telling the US and defence spending and all that right wing Trump bull****.... fine leave Europe and don't let the door hit you on the way out. But that also means no using European bases... including Diego Garcia and Ramstien when you fight your often illegal wars.... which is where you spend most of your defence budget. Fact is you spend very little in NATO....ups eh?

And you do realise that the only place in the world where you can actually achieve the American dream and move up the social economic ladder is in many European countries.....



Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Awesome, let it be done and let the new Islamic state of Denmark operate on its own

Great economic model you have there and based upon the results don't think you have a lot of room to tell this country how to operate

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12881/denmark-welfare-socialism
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the typical has at least 312 times the impact on the corporate bottom line as the typical worker.
Click to expand...

I will also go out on a limb, as say that the CEO compensation is significantly higher in the US than in the rest of the world, .. and that wasn't always that case, It wasn't until reganomics that that happened.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will also go out on a limb, as say that the CEO compensation is significantly higher in the US than in the rest of the world, .. and that wasn't always that case, It wasn't until reganomics that that happened.
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't until people clamored for CEOs to have "skin in the game". Thus all the stock options and restricted stock. Then you have BODs compensation committees that look at "competitive" salaries more than they look at performance.
 
washunut said:
Actually it wasn't until people clamored for CEOs to have "skin in the game". Thus all the stock options and restricted stock. Then you have BODs compensation committees that look at "competitive" salaries more than they look at performance.
Click to expand...

Never the less.. the U.S. is out of wack with the rest of the country, and it started around the late 70's early 80's
 
RAMOSS said:
Never the less.. the U.S. is out of wack with the rest of the country, and it started around the late 70's early 80's
Click to expand...

While that is true it had less to do politics and more to do with investor desires. Did not turn out well.

Not everything is a partisan issue. Taking shots at the "opposing" side rather than debating causation is not different than what Trump does.
 
Polar Bum said:
You would have to ask someone on the right that question; this thread deals with CEO compensation vs. employee compensation differences, and why they exist.

That question has already been answered....perhaps it is not the answer you want or like, but, there it is.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been answered. If CEOs base their compensation on valuation of the company, so should Labor, for their base wage at that Firm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom