• 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!

With workers cutting back, wealthy CEOs should cut back too. Agree/disagree

With workers cutting back, wealthy CEOs should cut back too. Agree/disagree

  • Disagree. Quality CEOs are in short supply. They must be paid more or companies can't survive.

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Agree. Times are tough. CEOs should take pay cuts to help their companies be more profitable.

    Votes: 40 95.2%

  • Total voters
    42
Despite the difficult economy, CEO pay increased in 2010. Here's an article about it:

CEO pay in US soared 23 percent in 2010

Vote in this poll what you think of that.


I agree that CEOs should take pay cuts too, it is morally wrong to screw the people on the bottom who do most of the physical work to fatten the pockets of those on top. But there is nothing we can legally do and nor should we legally require them to do anything. We would be treading on dangerous ground if we were to make a maximum wage.
 
You can't compare them without noticing their differences and those differences are why I say no. Though the yes choice is not my reason, so I decided to not vote in the poll.
 
You posted a column from a commie publication slamming capitalists who are successful at what they do.

If a CEO's company makes money, why shouldn' the CEO get a raise, like everybody else? Including the workers in the mailroom?
 
Consumers are the ones who end up eating these big pay increases:(
 
Consumers are the ones who end up eating these big pay increases:(

I doubt companies raise their consumer prices so the big guy can get a raise.

Has anyone read the link? The first sentence is easily refuted. And then, later on, there's this line of crap:

The aim is to make the working class pay the full cost of the crisis of American and world capitalism by smashing all of its past social gains and reducing it to a state of poverty and immiseration.
 
Hey. Maybe they really aren't the problem. Maybe it's this little factoid.

From the time they founded the Tea Party in 2009 to today, the Koch brothers' wealth shot up from 28 billion to 44 billion, nearly 60 percent;
 
You posted a column from a commie publication slamming capitalists who are successful at what they do.

If a CEO's company makes money, why shouldn' the CEO get a raise, like everybody else? Including the workers in the mailroom?

What if the companies aren't making money, and wokers pay is reduced or not subject to any raise, while the CEO's pay goes up substantially?
 
I agree that CEOs should take pay cuts too, it is morally wrong to screw the people on the bottom who do most of the physical work to fatten the pockets of those on top. But there is nothing we can legally do and nor should we legally require them to do anything. We would be treading on dangerous ground if we were to make a maximum wage.

It would be hard to say that the government can do something in this case. Well depending on how much in subsidies those companies are getting. But this is sorta what unions are for.
 
What if the companies aren't making money, and wokers pay is reduced or not subject to any raise, while the CEO's pay goes up substantially?

We have had to many examples in recent years of companies taking a loss or even going under yet those at the top are recieving huge bonuses or golden parachutes worth big $. In many instances the very people responsable for the companies deminse are the very ones walking away with massive amounts of $$ while share holders and employees are left taking the loss. This type of thing just infuriates me.
 
You didn't give me a choice on this poll. Almost nobody knows how much CEO’s are paid. They get money from the company via mechanisms that don’t have to even be revealed to the whole board, or to stock holders, or to the government. Some of these techniques have been made illegal, but not enough. One favorite of mine, which is now has to be revealed to the board, is differed pay. Money earned this year but paid to the CEO after he leaves the company. So, what pay are you asking about, the pay we know about or the pay we don’t know about? Do you want to be made happy by what you’re told or by what is real? (I had a short conversation with a high level accountant at a large US corporation that confirmed other reports I’d read.)
 
I agree that CEOs should take pay cuts too, it is morally wrong to screw the people on the bottom who do most of the physical work to fatten the pockets of those on top. But there is nothing we can legally do and nor should we legally require them to do anything. We would be treading on dangerous ground if we were to make a maximum wage.

But at what point does the freedom of those CEOs to make as much money as they can start to conflict with everyone else's rights to not live as paupers? How much does this small class of people get to manipulate the law to ensure that they get all the money before someone calls them out on it?
 
But at what point does the freedom of those CEOs to make as much money as they can start to conflict with everyone else's rights to not live as paupers? How much does this small class of people get to manipulate the law to ensure that they get all the money before someone calls them out on it?

We are now finding out about some of what is paid to CEO’s and their ilk. It’s making the news. If there were laws forcing reporting ‘other benefits’, like deferred pay, there would be more news because it’s outrageous, esp. for publically held companies. No limit laws, but, rather, reporting laws.
Note that I know that if you total all the CEO ‘income’ relative to the total amount paid to all the other employees. However, what you end up with is workers that have almost no influence via disposable income vs. a CEO that has a huge disposable income.
Think about your senator being influenced by visiting with 1,000 people contributing $100 each ($100,000) vs. a visiting lobbyist representing a CEO offering $100,000 direct support via an organization that is difficult to trace to the CEO, $100,000 indirect support, and some vacations at his properties.
 
I was interested if there were any companies who asked workers to take a pay cut and also cut their CEO's pay. I did a search of google news and didn't find anything. I did find that Sony's CEO took a pay cut. The article didn't say whether workers were also taking a cut:

Sony's CEO Howard Stringer Takes Pay Cut as Profit Drops - WSJ.com

I wonder if there are companies out there whose CEOs are writing memos like this one: "Times are tough; we've asked you to take a pay cut. I will also be taking a cut." That would be the right thing to do. If a CEO out there did that, I would have a lot of respect for him.

I wonder if Congress will vote themselves a hard times pay cut. Hahahahahahahah! I had to include some humor in this thread.
 
Since CEO pay is almost entirely based on options and incentives, I don't have a problem with it. Pay is determined on the success of the company, specifically book value. Now I would have a problem if a company was drowning in red ink and its CEO was getting more and more money, like the banking giants were doing during the FNMA and FHLMC (that's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for those of you without a degree in finance) days. However, if a company was going "lean and mean" to propel themselves up, then the CEOs should get a reward for shrewd business practices. The truth is that we were running on a faulty business model for many decades, as GM has taught us in spades.

Besides, with the difficulty involved in being a CEO, they earn the right to demand a lot.
 
What if the companies aren't making money, and wokers pay is reduced or not subject to any raise, while the CEO's pay goes up substantially?

That would be a stupid move by the stock-holders, or the compensation committee. Many CEO salaries are performance-based and include long-term incentives that may be realized even in losing years.

This is from a WSJ piece a few months ago on the topic of 2010 CEO pay increases.

Several chief executives experienced sizable drops in pay. Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s Ray Irani, who retired Friday, saw his 2010 compensation shrink 71% to $14.9 million.

The decline mainly grew out of a shareholder backlash that prompted the big oil concern to set a new policy last year cutting its longtime leader's maximum compensation by nearly three quarters.

But Mr. Irani received an additional $70 million in long-term payouts in 2010—largely as a result of meeting performance goals set by Occidental's board in 2007. (The Journal does not count the payout of prior awards as part of annual compensation.)

While serving as executive chairman until 2014, Mr. Irani still will have most compensation based on long-term performance, an Occidental spokesman said.
The Year's Highest Paid CEOs - WSJ.com
 
Last edited:
Morally I agree - they should voluntarily take a pay cut. Realistically however, the amount saved by a CEO cutting 10% of their salary is next to nothing.
 
You posted a column from a commie publication slamming capitalists who are successful at what they do.

If a CEO's company makes money, why shouldn' the CEO get a raise, like everybody else? Including the workers in the mailroom?

Sooo...?
So whats your thought on this buddy?
 
Weeell, I think the link in the OP a load of socialist, class warfare crap, pal.

How is it crap? Is it because its socialist? Is everything socialists say or report just "crap"? Or is it because its tough facts that you just dont accept it as fact and play it off as just "crap"? What part about it is "crap"? Why is it "crap"? Can you answer these questions "pal"?
 
How is it crap? Is it because its socialist? Is everything socialists say or report just "crap"? Or is it because its tough facts that you just dont accept it as fact and play it off as just "crap"? What part about it is "crap"? Why is it "crap"? Can you answer these questions "pal"?

See post #7.

The first line in the article is wrong.

While US unemployment remains at near-Depression levels and health care, pensions and education are being slashed by all levels of the government, the pay of corporate CEOs is soaring.

We are not "at or near-Depression level unemployment."

It's deceptive, too, in that it looks only at companies that made billions - such firms are likely to have been successful.
The Times report was based on a survey conducted by the executive compensation firm Equilar. The company looked at CEO pay at companies with revenue of $10.78 billion or more.

I've already posted one example of a CEO whose compensation decreased drastically.

Then it gets to the heart of the matter, it's thesis: If government is broke, business has no right to be successful.

These numerical indices of unrestrained self-enrichment by the corporate-financial elite provide the appropriate context for considering the unprecedented wave of budget-cutting taking place across the country. Record budget deficits—the result of depleted tax revenues stemming from the economic crash precipitated by corporate fraud, plus the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the banks—are being used to justify the gutting of health care, pensions and education as well as pay cuts and attacks on workers’ bargaining rights and the right to strike.

The whole piece is replete with anti-capitalist buzz words.

the corporate elite . . .unrestrained self-enrichment . . . corporate fraud . . . the gutting of health care . . . attacks on workers’ bargaining rights and the right to strike. . . a modern-day example of the Big Lie . . . the ruling class . . . historically unprecedented transfer of wealth . . . assault on the working class . . .

Where is "Workers of the world, unite!" If I read nothing but bilge like this all day, I'd be pissed, too.
 
Last edited:
We are not "at or near-Depression level unemployment."

I'd say we're not at depression level unemployment but we're close. These days they measure unemployment by how many people are collecting unemployment benefits. Back in the depression they measured unemployment by counting everyone who was unemployed. Real unemployment is much higher than the 9% or whatever the official number is. Whenever unemployment benefits expire or get slashed the official rate goes down but it doesn't change the real unemployment rate.
 
I'd say we're not at depression level unemployment but we're close. These days they measure unemployment by how many people are collecting unemployment benefits. Back in the depression they measured unemployment by counting everyone who was unemployed. Real unemployment is much higher than the 9% or whatever the official number is. Whenever unemployment benefits expire or get slashed the official rate goes down but it doesn't change the real unemployment rate.

I don't dispute that, but then what is the real rate?

In 1933, the worst year, the population was 92,950,00, with a labor force of 51,840,000 and 12,830,000 unemployed, for a percentage of 24.75 unemployed

Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

The May report from BLS has this:

The number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) and the unemployment rate (9.1
percent) were essentially unchanged in May. The labor force, at 153.7 million, was
little changed over the month. (See table A-1.)

Employment Situation Summary
 
I don't dispute that, but then what is the real rate?

In 1933, the worst year, the population was 92,950,00, with a labor force of 51,840,000 and 12,830,000 unemployed, for a percentage of 24.75 unemployed

Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

The May report from BLS has this:



Employment Situation Summary

It's hard to say, I've seen figures ranging from 16% to 22%. It really depends on how you classify "unemployed" and wether or not this counts the underemployed who are working part time jobs. I assume these people would be counted in the labor force statistics but aren't fully employed.

Either way, it's not going to be 1933 levels. But even if the real rate is/was 15-16% it would still be on par with the onset of the depression or the years leading up to the war.
 
Back
Top Bottom