How'd You Feel If Your Boss Made $486 For Every Dollar You Make?

Fledermaus said:

A CEO's decision making likely has 500 times more of an impact on the success for the entire company.

Click to expand...

And maybe he'll tank the company and sail to the ground on his golden parachute.

What if...? said:

OK, try it this way:

Why do billionaires try to get more billions by any means necessary? Why work so hard when you don't need to work at all anymore?

Basic biology. The member of any species with the best access to resources is the most likely to reproduce. In social species, status in the group confers better access to resources. Behaviors associated with gaining access to resources are rewarded with pleasurable neurochemicals. These chemicals are addictive. It is how instincts manifest. A cat chases a string because it feels good. It feels good because it hones his skills and improves his chances of reproducing.

So those billionaires are seeking higher status, trying to get ahead of the guy above them on the ladder while holding off the guy below them. They are jealous of those whose status is higher. And the guy below is jealous of them.

Click to expand...

Methinks you've got a hole in your theory. It is the ones on welfare that are reproducing at record numbers.

What if...? said:

And maybe he'll tank the company and sail to the ground on his golden parachute.

Click to expand...

Yes. And?

What if...? said:

Its right in the name.

Click to expand...

No its not.

What if...? said:

So the right cries foul when a foreign person comes here illegally because it takes an American job. They are villains. (They don't like to talk about employers).

But when a businessman gives your job to a foreigner, which takes away an American job too, he's a savvy fellow.

There isn't much internal consistency there.

Click to expand...

what the hell are you talking about?

and more importantly, how did you go there from my statement?

visa workers? what did i say that led you to that?

would you like to bring up something about planting tulips next?

gdgyva said:

what the hell are you talking about?

and more importantly, how did you go there from my statement?

visa workers? what did i say that led you to that?

would you like to bring up something about planting tulips next?

Click to expand...

Seemed pretty clear but I will clarify.

Foreigner comes here illegally and takes an Americans job. Monster!

American businessman gives an Americans job to a foreigner overseas. Brilliant!

Media_Truth said:

A big part of what's wrong with America. Does anybody believe that these CEOs work 150-500 times harder than their employees?

Top Bank CEOs Questioned About Their Pay In House Hearing : NPR

The heads of some of the nation's biggest banks faced tough questions from Democrats on Wednesday about overdraft fees, the stability of the banking system and their own multimillion-dollar compensation.

The House Financial Services Committee hearing was titled, "Holding Megabanks Accountable: A Review of Global Systemically Important Banks 10 years after the Financial Crisis."

"Ten years ago, the CEOs appeared before this very committee to discuss the financial crisis and the massive bailout taxpayers provided," said committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif. "A decade later, what have they learned? Are they helping their customers and working to benefit the communities they serve? Or are the practices of these banks still causing harm?"

View attachment 67254742

Click to expand...

OK, to play the devil's advocate here, the Bank of America CEO earns 22 million for running a company of 91 billion in revenue last year and 2.3 trillion in assets. His compensation is less than 0.2% of the company's revenue. In the scheme of things, that doesn't seem out of line. This is particularly true when you consider that pool of candidates to run a financial institution of that size is not that big.

The problem is that the way that our tax system is structured, he may pay a lower percentage of his compensation in taxes than his median employee does.

What if...? said:

Seemed pretty clear but I will clarify.

Foreigner comes here illegally and takes an Americans job. Monster!

American businessman gives an Americans job to a foreigner overseas. Brilliant!

Click to expand...

i understand your point....what the **** did that have to do with what we were discussing?

we werent discussing foreign visa's, or illegal immigration....what you didnt like the way the conversation was going and wanted to change it?

too out there for me.....i prefer rational thought

Lutherf said:

A big part of what's wrong with America is that so many people believe that if others have what they want then government should step in and reallocate stuff.

America is a land of great opportunity for those who seek opportunity. If, however, you choose to lament the fact that you don't have the same opportunity as others then you will never find those opportunities.

Click to expand...

A big part of what's wrong with America is that so many people equate seeking opportunity with their attempt to join the economic elite and participate in the exploitation of the workforce.

They believe that the system is "fair" as long as it gives everybody a chance of joining in such exploitation, and they forget the fact that the economic elite actively tries to get government's help through lobbying to have the "correct" type of legislation which will facilitate the economic interests of the few at the expense of the economic interests of the many.

And by the way, it has been known in the last couple of decades that the "socialists" in the western developed countries give more opportunities for economic mobility. The American dream is, well, a dream in the modern US!

The U.S. Does Poorly On Yet Another Metric of Economic Mobility

So what does the picture look like for the US? We know from work done by Raj Chetty and others using income to measure mobility, that absolute upward economic mobility has been declining since the 1940s. For children born in the 1940s, more than 90 percent were earning more than their parents. Today, that number has dropped to 50 percent. The figure below documents that decline.

...


Doing a similar analysis using the new World Bank data for educational mobility for the U.S., there is an unfortunate similarity. The chart below shows the average probability that a child in a particular birth cohort will attain higher education credentials than their parents. In the 1940s, the average probability was close to 70 percent. For the 1980s cohort, that number has dropped to below 45 percent.

...


The map of global economic mobility shows pockets of hope and pockets of concern. Thirteen of the fifteen least mobile countries globally are in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, while some of the most mobile economies are in Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan. But the divisions are not clear cut. The threat to economic mobility exists even in developed, high-income countries such as the United States. The U.S. is one of only four high income economies amongst 50 economies with the lowest rates of relative upward mobility.

iguanaman said:

What happens if the "risk" they are taking bankrupts their company? They have millions in the bank and you are out of a job. You are the one taking the risks.

Click to expand...

Unless they know how to file it and are prepared for the pitfalls. It will still damage them far more than it will me. There are also checks in place to ensure that workers are paid as well, even paying out 401ks in due time and ahead of filings. With only a minimal risk of losing those funds and a steep fine for the owner if they failed to do so, as per The Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Oborosen said:

Unless they know how to file it and are prepared for the pitfalls. It will still damage them far more than it will me. There are also checks in place to ensure that workers are paid as well, even paying out 401ks in due time and ahead of filings. With only a minimal risk of losing those funds and a steep fine for the owner if they failed to do so, as per The Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Click to expand...

Saved by Govt. regulations enacted after the Great Depression I bet. We need to listen to our ancestors better. They worked hard to fix the problems that created that disaster too.

SouthernDemocrat said:

OK, to play the devil's advocate here, the Bank of America CEO earns 22 million for running a company of 91 billion in revenue last year and 2.3 trillion in assets. His compensation is less than 0.2% of the company's revenue. In the scheme of things, that doesn't seem out of line. This is particularly true when you consider that pool of candidates to run a financial institution of that size is not that big.

The problem is that the way that our tax system is structured, he may pay a lower percentage of his compensation in taxes than his median employee does.

Click to expand...

Who made up the "scheme" where $22 million is a fair equity for one year of a persons efforts? Why are CEO's making 250 times more than their average worker when in the 1950's -70's they made about 20 times? I'm sorry but computers are supposed to make everything easier not harder. Something has fundamentally changed and it is not the difficulty of CEO's jobs.

iguanaman said:

Who made up the "scheme" where $22 million is a fair equity for one year of a persons efforts? Why are CEO's making 250 times more than their average worker when in the 1950's -70's they made about 20 times? I'm sorry but computers are supposed to make everything easier not harder. Something has fundamentally changed and it is not the difficulty of CEO's jobs.

Click to expand...

Obviously CEO salary's have increased tremendously. In 1955, GM's CEO compensation was .06% of GM's revenues. This is compared to today where CEO compensation runs around 0.1% to 0.3% of a large company's revenues. Just the same, the fact that CEOs are earning more does not explain why the average worker is earning less. The two are not connected.

For example, if you took the 22 million a year that Bank of America CEO gets a year, dropped his compensation down to 2 million a year, and took the 20 million you saved and divided it among all the rest of Bank of America's employees, they would each get an extra 98 dollars a year or so. If you did that with all the C levels in the corporation, then maybe that extra 98 dollars a year goes up to 150 bucks a year or so per employee.

My point is, the reason why wages have been stagnant for 80% of Americans is not CEO pay.

iguanaman said:

Who made up the "scheme" where $22 million is a fair equity for one year of a persons efforts? Why are CEO's making 250 times more than their average worker when in the 1950's -70's they made about 20 times? I'm sorry but computers are supposed to make everything easier not harder. Something has fundamentally changed and it is not the difficulty of CEO's jobs.

Click to expand...

the same people who make it fair to pay Lebron 100 million in endorsements, and 30 million to dribble a basketball

or the Rock the earn 35 million to make a movie

supply and demand still is the engine that drives prices in our economy....

how many CEO's made 22 million last year? 20? 30?

how many mult national conglomerates do we have here?

MSM loves to throw big numbers around.....and yes, the executives at some companies are paid handsomely

most of those numbers arent salary....it is stock bonuses paid over time, because the stock price has appreciated

but do your own research, and make your own conclusions...or better yet, become a CEO and work for 100k a year, and show your employees you are better than the rest of them

Looking back to when I retired, the CEO salary was about 25 times my wages and including his bonus his total benefit was about 60 time my wages.
I have no idea how much the current CEO is remunerated, or the wages paid those who perform the same job I did, but am quite pleased with the return on my investment in the company.
If annual pay increases for workers in the job I performed kept pace with what they were before I retired, the CEO would be making between $45 and $50 million a year today, if he is being paid $486 per $1 the employees in my job are probably being paid now.
My boss, however, earned $1.15 for every $1 I earned, and there times I earned much more than my boss as I was paid bonuses and overtime that he was not.

gdgyva said:

the same people who make it fair to pay Lebron 100 million in endorsements, and 30 million to dribble a basketball

or the Rock the earn 35 million to make a movie

supply and demand still is the engine that drives prices in our economy....

how many CEO's made 22 million last year? 20? 30?

how many mult national conglomerates do we have here?

MSM loves to throw big numbers around.....and yes, the executives at some companies are paid handsomely

most of those numbers arent salary....it is stock bonuses paid over time, because the stock price has appreciated

but do your own research, and make your own conclusions...or better yet, become a CEO and work for 100k a year, and show your employees you are better than the rest of them

Click to expand...

I did the research and the average S&P 500 CEO makes 361 times his median workers salary. Those are the facts and denying them does not make it true.
If you have any doubt about our country’s disappearing middle class, check out the current CEO-to-employee pay gap.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

Despite increasing protests from unions and consumer groups, the average CEO pay climbed 6% last year. Meanwhile, the average production worker earned just $38, 613, according to Executive Paywatch.

The good news, if there is any, is that this year CEOs have to disclose the pay gap between them and their median employees -- one of the ongoing benefits of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Click to expand...

CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker

SouthernDemocrat said:

Obviously CEO salary's have increased tremendously. In 1955, GM's CEO compensation was .06% of GM's revenues. This is compared to today where CEO compensation runs around 0.1% to 0.3% of a large company's revenues. Just the same, the fact that CEOs are earning more does not explain why the average worker is earning less. The two are not connected.

For example, if you took the 22 million a year that Bank of America CEO gets a year, dropped his compensation down to 2 million a year, and took the 20 million you saved and divided it among all the rest of Bank of America's employees, they would each get an extra 98 dollars a year or so. If you did that with all the C levels in the corporation, then maybe that extra 98 dollars a year goes up to 150 bucks a year or so per employee.

My point is, the reason why wages have been stagnant for 80% of Americans is not CEO pay.

Click to expand...

The skyrocketing profits went somewhere didn't they? So if not executive pay, where? It certainly was not all put back into their companies.

iguanaman said:

The skyrocketing profits went somewhere didn't they? So if not executive pay, where? It certainly was not all put back into their companies.

Click to expand...

Shareholders mostly.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Shareholders mostly.

Click to expand...

Stock buybacks disproportionately benefit corporate executives too. The point is where those extra profits did not go.

AlbqOwl said:

If you are a SHAREHOLDER or board member what the CEO makes is your business. And if you get outvoted on that and/or are unhappy about it, you resign your seat on the board and divest yourself of the shares.

If you are not a shareholder or board member what the CEO makes is none of your business.

I can assure you that those who have risked their capital in the business will go elsewhere if the business is losing money or they otherwise are unable to profit from the shares they own.

Click to expand...

In a publicly held corporation the CEO's salary is the general public's business

AlbqOwl said:

Baloney. The employee takes almost no risk when he goes to work for a company unless it is on the basis that he will accept fewer wages and benefits on the promise that he will be rewarded once the company is prospering. And then the risk is entirely his choice.

If the company I work for goes broke and I'm out of a job all I lose is maybe one paycheck and possibly some retirement funds if I am stupid enough to allow the company to own and control my retirement fund. My boss however probably put up the venture capital to start or buy the business, has invested significant assets into infrastructure, furniture and fixtures, tooling, equipment, insurance, day to day costs of doing business etc. etc. etc. and stands to lose a great deal of that if the business goes belly up. He also assumes pretty much 100% of any liability for anything that goes wrong re his business, product, and/or service.

Taking that risk entitles him to however much income he chooses to keep for his personal use as long as he pays me what he agreed to pay me to work for him.

Click to expand...

CEO's are hired hands and have no personal risk in the corporations they run. They are protected from personal liability.

gdgyva said:

and you know this from first hand knowledge , right?

because as a CFO, for a 100 million dollar company, i worked my ass off

and my boss, he worked even harder than i did

Click to expand...

I didn't say they don't work hard. But that work has little to do with what the corporation produces and its ultimate success in doing so.

devildavid said:

In a publicly held corporation the CEO's salary is the general public's business

Click to expand...

Why would CEO pay of a publicly held company be the general public's business???

iguanaman said:

The skyrocketing profits went somewhere didn't they? So if not executive pay, where? It certainly was not all put back into their companies.

Click to expand...

Executive pay by definition is a business expense for the company and thus lessens profits. Just basics every adult should know.

Lutherf said:

A big part of what's wrong with America is that so many people believe that if others have what they want then government should step in and reallocate stuff.

America is a land of great opportunity for those who seek opportunity. If, however, you choose to lament the fact that you don't have the same opportunity as others then you will never find those opportunities.

Click to expand...

It's no longer true that America is 'the land of opportunity', it really isn't and hasn't been for many years. Sure, 100 years ago a man could land at Ellis Island in New York from Italy or Ireland and open up a bakery and be successful enough to open a chain of bakeries eventually. Today, that's not possible. Times have changed and opportunities for people who come to this country with nothing will end up working thankless jobs for minimum wage and struggle to make ends meet. There's no more substantial industry left in this country. Manufacturing was modernized with robotics, profit-seeking corporations moved their assembly plants overseas or to Mexico or Canada where the labor is cheaper.

Overall, our work force has fewer options since labor unions are becoming a thing of the past and large manufacturing plants no longer have training programs to teach these people some valuable skills. It's difficult enough if you're white and speak English without a college degree. You're destined to work in a gas station or Walmart or McDonald's. If you're from another country and haven't learned the language yet then you're going to work doing landscape work or some other low-paying manual labor. How can people like this possibly have aspirations or dreams of success?

We aren't the America we once were, we're no longer the 'land of opportunity'. The America we are seeing now is one where long-standing issues of racism, income inequality and immoral capitalism are now clear to see. We've become a country that is fearful, reclusive and not adapted to the new global economy.