Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Yahoo: It’s Good to Be the King: CEO Pay Up Big 2010, Not So Much For the Average Worker

endzone_dave

By endzone_dave
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

endzone_dave

endzone_dave

Posted
Posted

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/good-king-ceo-pay-big-2010-not-much-20110411-085325-820.html

Not from the article, from me:

Worker pay only went up 2%. So at least we know where Obama's stimulus funding has gone - right into the pockets of the company executives. As workers become more and more productive, the top brass is reeping the rewards.

As companies demand more from their employess, is there a point where we decide it's not worth it. If your reward for busting your ass at work all year is an extra 1/2% in your salary increase, why bother. I think there will become a point where people are going to feel like suckers for working hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted

No, I don't agree with this. I think you also must account for the fact that the job of CEO is much tougher now then it was in past years. You have to deal with less staff, less budget, tougher credit lines, a harder environment in which to turn a profit, and fewer CEO jobs because companies are going under. If you want to get yourself a good CEO in todays market, you have to pay for them because all of these factors go into the deal. I think that just taking an oversimplified position on this and say, that's why you have to raise taxes is wrong. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAVEONAWARPATH

BRAVEONAWARPATH

Posted
Posted
No, I don't agree with this. I think you also must account for the fact that the job of CEO is much tougher now then it was in past years. You have to deal with less staff, less budget, tougher credit lines, a harder environment in which to turn a profit, and fewer CEO jobs because companies are going under. If you want to get yourself a good CEO in todays market, you have to pay for them because all of these factors go into the deal. I think that just taking an oversimplified position on this and say, that's why you have to raise taxes is wrong. JMO.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but considering many corporations are making record profits, I don't think the world will end if these guys pay 3% more in taxes.:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted
I don't necessarily disagree with you but considering many corporations are making record profits, I don't think the world will end if these guys pay 3% more in taxes.:2cents:

I don't know about the information that says corporations are making record profits but I do know that corporations are dropping at a record pace. It would stand to reason that record profits might be had because essentially, your thinning the herd, so to speak. To me, even more reason you might pay a good CEO more money. If yours is one of the ones that is growing in these economic times, then your CEO is doing something right. I'll be glad when our economy comes around again. Right now, what is happening is dangerous IMO. Fewer business, fewer options means more control of consumers and I don't like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
No, I don't agree with this. I think you also must account for the fact that the job of CEO is much tougher now then it was in past years. You have to deal with less staff, less budget, tougher credit lines, a harder environment in which to turn a profit, and fewer CEO jobs because companies are going under. If you want to get yourself a good CEO in todays market, you have to pay for them because all of these factors go into the deal. I think that just taking an oversimplified position on this and say, that's why you have to raise taxes is wrong. JMO.

I'd also say that one of the reason they suffer thru the burdens of less staff is because they decided to have a grotto put in their penthouse this year, and had to lay off a few hundred people to cover costs.

In "today's market" it seems to me that to get a good CEO it means to get a guy who will keep the company afloat while making sure everyone at the top is unbelievably well take care of.. while everyone else can fend for themselves.

This of course is a broad generalization, and most of my ire is kicked at the CEOs in the financial industry.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted

My question would be is that including stock options, becuase if a CEO's net worth increased because the market increased and his stock options increased in value then that could account for a large part of it. Additionally, if the CEO hit performance incentives that could result in bonuses as well. Just saying that it might not just be pay, it could be other factors involved in that 12% increase that might not be so nefarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted

The process of determining CEO compensation is horribly corrupted. They serve on each others' boards, and voter shares are often dominated by friends and family of the board members or the CEOs. As long as the corporation does okay (and sometimes even if not) this little fleecing of the corporation by CEOs with ridiculously high compensation packages is somehow tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Posted
Posted

The point is that you can't just make a blanket statement that says all CEOs are this or that. Every Company is different and every CEO is different. I think you have to stay away from these kinds of generalizations or you may find yourself included in one at some point and the labels may not be accurate. That is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prosperity

Prosperity

Posted
Posted
No, I don't agree with this. I think you also must account for the fact that the job of CEO is much tougher now then it was in past years. You have to deal with less staff, less budget, tougher credit lines, a harder environment in which to turn a profit, and fewer CEO jobs because companies are going under. If you want to get yourself a good CEO in todays market, you have to pay for them because all of these factors go into the deal. I think that just taking an oversimplified position on this and say, that's why you have to raise taxes is wrong. JMO.

I don't buy this argument at all

this applies to everyone from the part time cleaning crew to the CEO

They get raises because they are buddy buddy w/ their boards of directors, and shareholders don't have enough information to elect the right board members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
The process of determining CEO compensation is horribly corrupted. They serve on each others' boards, and voter shares are often dominated by friends and family of the board members or the CEOs. As long as the corporation does okay (and sometimes even if not) this little fleecing of the corporation by CEOs with ridiculously high compensation packages is somehow tolerated.

There’s some truth in what you’re saying, but I think the process of determining CEO compensation is flawed, not “horribly corrupted.” Directors who sit on compensation committees of public corporations have to be “independent.” Might they know and like the CEO? Sure, but I don’t think there’s a way to avoid that possibility. The directors are charged with supervising management. How can they supervise management if they don’t know them?

Also, FWIW, I am not aware of any public company whose shares are controlled by a handful of the CEO’s pals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
There’s some truth in what you’re saying, but I think the process of determining CEO compensation is flawed, not “horribly corrupted.” Directors who sit on compensation committees of public corporations have to be “independent.” Might they know and like the CEO? Sure, but I don’t think there’s a way to avoid that possibility. The directors are charged with supervising management. How can they supervise management if they don’t know them?

Also, FWIW, I am not aware of any public company whose shares are controlled by a handful of the CEO’s pals.

The shares aren't controlled by the CEO's pals, but the compensation committee on the Board of Directors certainly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Tater

Darth Tater

Posted
Posted

Given the FACT that the purpose of government interference in the free market is to create moral hazard for business by minimizing the possibility of marginal failure, raising barriers to entry and forcing society to use resource counter to the way society wants, why is anyone surprised? I think that the surprise, if any, is that CEO compensation grew by such a small amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
Given the FACT that the purpose of government interference in the free market is to create moral hazard for business by minimizing the possibility of marginal failure, raising barriers to entry and forcing society to use resource counter to the way society wants, why is anyone surprised? I think that the surprise, if any, is that CEO compensation grew by such a small amount.

I certainly disagree "that the purpose of government interference in the free market is to create moral hazard." I'd like to hear why you think that's the case. Also, are you arguing that the increase in CEO compensation is due to government interference in the market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
Why should I be concerned over another mans wages?

It sometimes can be an indicator. If we paid more attention to some of those warning bells the financial crisis might have been averted. Besides that, wealth disparity actually does matter. If the corp is making record profits then the CEO deserves to be rewarded, but so do the employees. Afterall, if the plan wasn't executed and the widgets weren't made there would be no profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
How is the compensation committee controlled by the CEO's pals?

Is this a genuine question? Shareholders do not vote on the pay for CEOs, and proxy rules make it almost impossible for shareholders to get their own people on the Board.

The people on the Board, who virtually all are CEOs themselves (or aspiring CEOs or clebrity placeholders) set the pay. All members of that club setting upper level executive pay are upper level executives, and have a built in incentive for upper level executive pay to go up as much as possible. They are only "independent directors" in the sense that they run different companies, but that's ok - the guy who's salary you are raising through the roof will be the guy setting your own salary next year. They hire "corporate consultants" to help set the pay, but guess which corporate consultants get hired - the ones that recommend enormous pay increases, of course.

The model of corporate governance is breaking down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
Given the FACT that the purpose of government interference in the free market is to create moral hazard for business by minimizing the possibility of marginal failure, raising barriers to entry and forcing society to use resource counter to the way society wants, why is anyone surprised? I think that the surprise, if any, is that CEO compensation grew by such a small amount.

What in the world are you talking about?

Anyway, hope everyone enjoys economic imbalances growing ever-more imbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...