CEO Pay Has Increased By 937 Percent Since 1978

[Mainecoons]

Whats wrong with america part 2

Why don't you tell us what's wrong with Canada? You are a Canadian, after all.

Yes, CEOs are as a group grossly overpaid. I've suggested reforms that do not involve blanket confiscation and waste by government, just a simple change in the rules governing PUBLIC companies. Basically, the problem here is cronyism between Boards of Directors and Executives of large publicly traded companies. While theoretically the shareholders should be able to control this stuff, in reality the ownership is too diffuse and much of it is in funds which benefit from the cronyism.

The solution is a simple one: All executive pay is capped at a percentage of the total payroll. So if the "help" earns more, theoretically the executive can earn more.

This should not apply to privately held companies which, BTW, don't seem to have near as much a problem with this. That's because the ownership is much more focused and in control.

At least most of these executives work very hard and they make good decisions and money. Government workers are also grossly overpaid in America and for the most part they don't work very hard at all and they make bad decisions. But they are good at stealing bonus money.

[Newpublius]

Public corporations - the CEO doesn't make his own salary.

true, but in many corporations the majority shareholder makes the elections to the Board of Directors which in turn can be the majority shareholder and 'his people' who in turn, shocker, elect him CEO....now, sometimes that's not a good thing, sometimes though that majority shareholder is the face of the company, the shareholders want him there, the proverbial 'cult of personality' like Zuckerberg, Murdoch, Jobs....

[darroll]

Larry Page, CEO of Google, $1 Salary

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Peter1469Public corporations - the CEO doesn't make his own salary.

true, but in many corporations the majority shareholder makes the elections to the Board of Directors which in turn can be the majority shareholder and 'his people' who in turn, shocker, elect him CEO....now, sometimes that's not a good thing, sometimes though that majority shareholder is the face of the company, the shareholders want him there, the proverbial 'cult of personality' like Zuckerberg, Murdoch, Jobs....

You said TRUE, and you and Peter are correct.

Since this is not from some book, some press reports, etc, this is what we as BOD had happen.

First, set the stage

We had a CEO running our operation

He controlled our information. I figured this gave him raw power so I decided to check up on him. He learned of it two ways. I was open in all meetings when I challenged him and fired any person who talked to me.

When CEOS get challenged, they rush to defend themselves. They don't take it from the Directors and ally with Directors who favor the CEO.

I polled directors by asking as well as seeing how they voted.

Some of us calculated 40 percent were honest, as I was.

60 percent took the CEO side no matter what.

We got to his contract.

I had 20 minutes to study it and was not allowed a copy in the meeting room. I was forced to memorize all of his contract and was banned from having it in the board meeting room. I was not allowed a copy off the premises. (so far as I know, all Directors had the same thing other than I presume the Executive committee, all his best pals)

There were many pages to his contract.

His 60 percent share of Directors made sure he was protected.

Finally we got some outside group to study his wages and terms

But guess who gave all the data to that outside group?

The CEO and his 60 percent pals on the BOD did.

YES, his income went up over 50 percent.

No matter what some of us said or tried to do, he had enough votes to win.

CEOS that are wiley coyotes, as most are, understand career building. YES folks, they are smart.

[Bob]

Folks, stop talking CEO as if they were equal.

You find CEOS over small operations. Say 1 to 25 workers

Those earn far less than those you talk of

Those who run 25 to 100 are different

And on and on

Every CEO in the mega rich works for operations that have tens of thousands of employees.

While they rake in huge incomes, it comes from huge operations. The BOD wants happy CEOs. When CEOS are not happy, they quit or get fired. Many CEOS get fired. Many quit the job.

When Mega Company A, loses a CEO, they pour a huge bundle of cash looking for the next CEO. They check out a hell of a lot of CEOs. Most will not want to move jobs. Some will. Some figure they can demand high pay. Well, if Company A wants say Henry Ford, over say Bill Jones, to make cars, guess who they choose?

They can hire Bill jones for say $100,000 but Henry Ford won't work for less than ten million. If Ford is proven, they go to him. This is not rocket science.

Look who runs GE. He has worked for them forever. When Jack Welch with his enormous income retired, look who they put in the same job? Immelt

Look how long GE kept each CEO

1. Past Leaders | GE.com
   
   www.ge.com/about-us/leadership/past-leaders
   General Electric
   
   
   
   Chairman & CEO 1981 - 2001 ... Chairman & CEO 1972-1981 ... Chairman & CEO 1967-1972. President & CEO 1963-1967 ... Chairman & CEO 1958-1963
   
   

[Refugee]

I’d just say, so what? I earn more than some of you and some of you earn more than me. What anybody else earns doesn’t affect me, because I’m not trying to make the world equal. Once you get over that, it doesn’t matter so much anymore.

[Refugee]

Why don't you tell us what's wrong with Canada? You are a Canadian, after all.

[/COLOR]

I'd do one on the UK, but I know for certain that within one page it would turn into a discussion on anarchism.

[Bob]

Both classes of workers should get all they possibly can, voluntarily, ie. not because the government mandates anything. Fact is corporations can spend their money any way they want. Overpaying for CEOs is simply not in their interest anymore than paying for free agents in baseball makes sense.

This is nonsensical outrage on what private individuals are willing to pay somebody for their time/labor/services. If y entity wants to pay x person $z, so be it. The $z doesn't go to the workers. When Alex Rodriguez clears his contract, whatever reduction in Yankee player payroll won't magically be disbursed to the hot dog vendors. Hal Steinbrenner will keep that, or more likely spend it on some other assortment of players, but the point is that it's his choice. That's the hallmark of private enterprise, they make the economic decisions and should suffer the costs and benefits of those decision (the bailout was absurd)

When we spend money, it is our right to spend it wisely or foolishly.

This is free will. Companies that pay far too much perhaps are poorly managed. Directors are there in part to macro manage the company. Super large companies hire CEOS to also macro manage. They have VPs and lower management to dig in the weeds of the operation.

I would not ask so much what the first ranked EO makes, but for a company of that size, large or small, what is the payroll. It it top loaded with the bright people? Suppose they use only university graduates. I mean all workers must hold advanced degrees. Would those earn more than the woman rolling out tortillas or making donuts at Crispy Kreme?

Who should the company pay more for? The donut maker or the scientist?

One way to eliminate payroll is to use robots. We are in the age of robots. Not tomorrow, but today.

[Bob]

I’d just say, so what? I earn more than some of you and some of you earn more than me. What anybody else earns doesn’t affect me, because I’m not trying to make the world equal. Once you get over that, it doesn’t matter so much anymore.

Short but sweet and pure truth.

[Private Pickle]

Larry Page, CEO of Google, $1 Salary

What an idiot...