If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Salaries up 26% over the last 12 months (for CEOs)   (startribune.com) divider line 114
    More: Obvious, salary  
•       •       •

3432 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2012 at 9:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-31 03:13:15 AM
Hey, if Romney get in, you CEOs can keep this up for another four years.

/maybe longer
 
2012-07-31 03:15:25 AM
The lamentations of your women. We shall hear them.
 
2012-07-31 03:15:40 AM
www.aaanything.net
 
2012-07-31 03:17:51 AM
Lo, how they've suffered.
 
2012-07-31 04:05:39 AM
This country is irredeemably f*cked.

These are the people we value above all others.
 
2012-07-31 05:27:18 AM
For the love of God, someone get these Job Creators a tax cut so they can make jobs with that money! They can't make jobs without tax cuts!
 
2012-07-31 09:44:38 AM
The Obama presidency has been very good for the wealthy.

In his next term he vows to work on the middle class.
 
2012-07-31 09:44:58 AM
They deserve that money. They put in the hard work and built those corporations from nothing. Without their leadership and vision...I can't ...I just can't. They do almost nothing, but they are paid quite well for that nothing.
 
2012-07-31 09:45:00 AM
Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.
 
2012-07-31 09:45:31 AM
Soon there won't be any money left for them to be given, and they will start demanding slaves
 
2012-07-31 09:45:39 AM
So, set a personal goal of becoming a CEO.
 
2012-07-31 09:46:50 AM
A blue state does it without farking up the tax system or slashing social welfare spending.
 
2012-07-31 09:47:09 AM
Boo hoo!
 
2012-07-31 09:47:14 AM

Cletus C.: The Obama presidency Republican obstructionism has been very good for the wealthy.

In his next term he vows to work on the middle class.


See how we can spin in both ways.

BSABSVTAPF
 
2012-07-31 09:47:19 AM
Hubby hasn't seen a raise (not even cost of living) in 6+ years. Me, I'm a freelancer so I never get raises.
 
2012-07-31 09:49:04 AM
I just accepted a pay cut (about 8 grand) but I get to stay here for a while longer. And Fark. I still get to Fark.

Funny thing is, as soon as I did, I started hearing from the head hunters and the people I sent resumes out to. It was almost as if the HR thugs in this company have some kind of link with the HR thugs in the other company. "Harry just accepted our offer. Go ahead and offer him a job now. Make it a really good offer with money AND benefits. If he takes you up on it, tell him "Oh so sorry. Too late. Offer's gone."

HR Thugs laughing
 
2012-07-31 09:49:11 AM
Corporate governance is systemically broken.
 
2012-07-31 09:49:15 AM
Salaries are up 26%, back to pre-2007 levels in Minnesota.

Subby be trollin'
 
2012-07-31 09:49:43 AM
If you weren't so farking lazy and stupid, you would be a CEO, or hedge fund manager, or private equity manager, too, and have billions and billions of dollars.

Lazy farks.

/Vote RMoney
 
2012-07-31 09:50:53 AM
This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!
 
2012-07-31 09:51:29 AM
Now combine this revelation with the recently disclosed survey in which 48% of CEOs admitted that they fudge on earnings statements to investors and regulators and one begins to see what's really happening in this country.
 
2012-07-31 09:53:08 AM
Wow, they have done horribly under Obama... and probably most of these rich CEO's are now spending millions on PACs to get rid off Obama.
 
2012-07-31 09:55:10 AM
"Good news for the 1 percent," said V. John Ella, a Minneapolis attorney who specializes in executive compensation. "Hopefully, this portends the beginning of a true economic recovery for all."

Hopefully, this portends the beginning of CEOs getting the Mussolini Treatment
 
Skr
2012-07-31 09:55:23 AM
Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"


Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.
 
2012-07-31 09:56:19 AM

Harry Freakstorm: I just accepted a pay cut (about 8 grand) but I get to stay here for a while longer. And Fark. I still get to Fark.

Funny thing is, as soon as I did, I started hearing from the head hunters and the people I sent resumes out to. It was almost as if the HR thugs in this company have some kind of link with the HR thugs in the other company. "Harry just accepted our offer. Go ahead and offer him a job now. Make it a really good offer with money AND benefits. If he takes you up on it, tell him "Oh so sorry. Too late. Offer's gone."

HR Thugs laughing


Human Resources are neither human or a resource.
 
2012-07-31 09:57:19 AM

Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"


Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.


Methinks it has more to do with dodging taxes and making out like a bandit.
 
2012-07-31 09:57:40 AM
"Corporate welfare is totally fine bro." -Republicans
 
2012-07-31 09:57:50 AM

meat0918: Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.


Get a new job. The only time I've gotten boosts like that are from heading to a different company. Though a 9% raise per year is pretty nice, honestly.
 
2012-07-31 09:58:11 AM
Sgygus
Hey, if Romney get in, you CEOs can keep this up for another four years.

This literally happened under a Blue Team presidency, and you still manage to find a way to blame Red Team?


Lost Thought 00
Soon there won't be any money left for them to be given, and they will start demanding slaves

A significant portion of your labor currently goes to them as tribute. What's the difference?


Harry Freakstorm
I just accepted a pay cut (about 8 grand) but I get to stay here for a while longer.

Organize or don't whine.
 
2012-07-31 10:02:26 AM

Cletus C.: The Obama presidency has been very good for the wealthy.

In his next term he vows to work on the middle class.


So you are saying 'trickle down economics' does not work?
 
2012-07-31 10:04:52 AM
Any day now, that'll trickle down.
 
2012-07-31 10:06:08 AM
Proof positive that the Tea Party platform makes no sense. High unemployment + increased CEO salaries = cut taxes on the rich?
 
2012-07-31 10:08:59 AM
No raise this year, 3% last year, insurance cost up more than 3% so I came out even.
 
2012-07-31 10:10:17 AM

meat0918: Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.


Obviously, you need to work 15.6% harder.
 
2012-07-31 10:11:41 AM
Did anyone RTFA?
 
2012-07-31 10:13:25 AM

Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!


Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?
 
2012-07-31 10:13:26 AM

RanDomino: Sgygus
Hey, if Romney get in, you CEOs can keep this up for another four years.

This literally happened under a Blue Team presidency, and you still manage to find a way to blame Red Team?


This stat isn't bad in and of itself, but is very bad within the context of the current economy. With that in mind, I'll stick with the team that isn't afraid of government regulation and progressive tax brackets. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
2012-07-31 10:14:13 AM
This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.
 
2012-07-31 10:15:04 AM
Anyone who didn't get a 26% increase last year probably just wasn't bootstrappy enough amirite?
 
2012-07-31 10:16:38 AM

Skr: Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.


Depends on how long he has to hold the stock. Otherwise, this just means like 95% of all the other CEOs he's only concerned with this quarter's stock price and to hell with the long term health of the company.
 
2012-07-31 10:21:21 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!

Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?


Everyone who isn't a CEO is a freeloader.
 
2012-07-31 10:21:29 AM
my income is so sporadic i have no idea if i am making more. i charge about a third more this year, and usually get it. so that's good.
 
2012-07-31 10:22:01 AM
And all was right with the world.
 
2012-07-31 10:26:41 AM

meat0918: Cletus C.: The Obama presidency Republican obstructionism has been very good for killing Osama bin Laden.the wealthy.

In his next term he vows to work on the middle class.

See how we can spin in both ways.

BSABSVTAPF


Why, yes I do.
 
2012-07-31 10:26:46 AM
Well, who are dipshiats who keep approving raises for the CEOS? It's not like they can raise their pay themselves.
 
2012-07-31 10:27:15 AM

Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.


Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010.
 
2012-07-31 10:28:29 AM
Most CEOs deserve it, quite honestly.

Many of them are raking in record profits by making fewer employees do more work for less pay with little more motivation than a threat of losing their job, and they managed to convince half of us that it's the government's fault.

That's gotta be worth at least 26%
 
2012-07-31 10:29:27 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.

Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010. forever


FTFY
 
2012-07-31 10:29:41 AM

MayoSlather: They deserve that money. They put in the hard work and built those corporations from nothing. Without their leadership and vision...I can't ...I just can't. They do almost nothing, but they are paid quite well for that nothing.


Yes they do, while they reap vast rewards creating jobs when things are looking up, when everything tanks, they...um...reap vast rewards by firing people and getting a huge bonus.
 
2012-07-31 10:31:20 AM

meat0918: Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.


No raises for us as economy bad. :(
 
2012-07-31 10:32:29 AM

Ass Exploder: If you weren't so farking lazy and stupid, you would be a CEO, or hedge fund manager, or private equity manager, too, and have billions and billions of dollars.

Lazy farks.

/Vote RMoney


I had someone--a middle-class mother of one, in one of those chain mail messages supporting Romney (And as the token office librul, I'm basically trolling people at this point) actually respond to my claim that RMoney had a head start in life: "I do not look at myself as any less fortunate than Romney, only lazier."

Da fuq?
 
2012-07-31 10:32:30 AM
Even though my company is in the top 50 most profitable in the world, no COLA this year for low and mid-level employees.
 
2012-07-31 10:32:42 AM

nitefallz: Well, who are dipshiats who keep approving raises for the CEOS? It's not like they can raise their pay themselves.


Here's the best part; they approve their own pay. That's how the scam works. When you're CEO, you're also on the board of other companies AND you can approval the pay of people on the board. So it's just a circle jerk of rich guys approving raises on them and their friends.
 
2012-07-31 10:32:45 AM
I'm well below the poverty line for this year. I was almost there last year.
 
2012-07-31 10:33:39 AM

Harry Freakstorm: "Good news for the 1 percent," said V. John Ella, a Minneapolis attorney who specializes in executive compensation. "Hopefully, this portends the beginning of a true economic recovery for all."

Hopefully, this portends the beginning of CEOs getting the Mussolini Treatment


Not visual enough for TV. How about:

boisdejustice.com
 
2012-07-31 10:36:12 AM
Now, in general, companies are performing better. So it's no surprise CEO pay is going up. "Things are working the way they ought to,'' Lindner said.

Historically this usually happens in times of high unemployment as the remaining staff does all the work of the staff that's now gone for the same wages which increases profits. However this staffing level is now the benchmark and the newly unemployed are often pushed down several income levels in order to survive i.e. service jobs. Profit levels and CEO pay reflect the gap between decreasing staff levels and increasing work loads. It ain't rocket science and it can't continue forever as the working class gets smaller and smaller and more people fall below the poverty line. It keeps getting better for them and worse for the rest of us. That can actually see it, that is.

They are literally robbing America and rewarding themselves. I predict the trend will continue until it is simply untenable and our society completely collapses on itself. The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is there's a little less ammonia in what's trickling down with the Democrats. Doesn't sting your eyes quite so much when they piss on you.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a cynic. There's a difference. And it's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
 
2012-07-31 10:36:15 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.

Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010.


Why does the janitor stop stealing when the security cameras are put up, and then return to it when they get taken down? That dirty janitor is still looking out for number one in both situations.

You continue to dismiss any critique of the 1%'s pay increases relative to the rest of humanity and tell yourself its just because they've kept getting more and more rare relative to the companies' need for them. But now you want to look at CEO pay over time? In the last thread you ignored my point of looking at CEO pay over a span of decades and across cultures .

So the last 4 years is a good point of comparison, but that last fifty is a specious and laughably pointless thing such that you wouldn't even glance at it? You're like a climate denier starting his timeline at the most cherry picked spot he can find.
 
2012-07-31 10:37:52 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010.


Did CEO pay decline more or less than worker pay as a percentage in those years?
 
2012-07-31 10:38:05 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!

Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?

Everyone who isn't a CEO is a freeloader.


I know, Bobo Spiewack apparently has a job and his employers saw fit to give him a 15% raise. All because they, as a presumably profit making enterprise, think his efforts are worth his new salary.

That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.

I can jingle my tin cup as well as anybody, and my penmanship on
cardboard signs indicating my fake status as a homeless disabled hungry veteran is flawless. Yet society deems these skills of less value than CEOs or whatever Spiewack does.
 
2012-07-31 10:39:19 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!

Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?

Everyone who isn't a CEO is a freeloader.

I know, Bobo Spiewack apparently has a job and his employers saw fit to give him a 15% raise. All because they, as a presumably profit making enterprise, think his efforts are worth his new salary.

That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.

I can jingle my tin cup as well as anybody, and my penmanship on
cardboard signs indicating my fake status as a homeless disabled hungry veteran is flawless. Yet society deems these skills of less value than CEOs or whatever Spiewack does.


You're sticking with false dichotomy (the weakest of trolling techniques) then?
 
2012-07-31 10:39:47 AM

MayoSlather: They deserve that money. They put in the hard work and built those corporations from nothing. Without their leadership and vision...I can't ...I just can't. They do almost nothing, but they are paid quite well for that nothing.


And no consequences for failure.
 
2012-07-31 10:40:00 AM

Lost Thought 00: Soon there won't be any money left for them to be given, and they will start demanding slaves


There is, in fact, an interest by some corporations, in starting apprenticeship programs like they have in Europe.

Welcome to serfdom, sheeple.
 
2012-07-31 10:44:34 AM
Cattle mutilations are up...
 
2012-07-31 10:48:42 AM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.

Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010.

Why does the janitor stop stealing when the security cameras are put up, and then return to it when they get taken down? That dirty janitor is still looking out for number one in both situations.

You continue to dismiss any critique of the 1%'s pay increases relative to the rest of humanity and tell yourself its just because they've kept getting more and more rare relative to the companies' need for them. But now you want to look at CEO pay over time? In the last thread you ignored my point of looking at CEO pay over a span of decades and across cultures .

So the last 4 years is a good point of comparison, but that last fifty is a specious and laughably pointless thing such that you wouldn't even glance at it? You're like a climate denier starting his timeline at the most cherry picked spot he can find.


Dude, the headline talks about 26% over one year, which prompted your initial comment. You're like a climate change denier who has to throw a coat on for one day in early April and assumes this is the only data point.

Heres the deal: private companies are private companies and they can pay their executives whatever the fark they want. Unless you are a shareholder, you have no farking say in the matter. If you do own shares and cannot influence company policy and are unhappy with CEO pay or Corp governance, then sell your shares. Put all your money in govt debt and you wont have to worry about CEO pay.

Other than that, you can pound your whiny little impotent fists of rage all day long. You have no ownership interest in the companies, and accordingly your opinion is meaningless.
 
2012-07-31 10:52:54 AM

The Homer Tax: Most CEOs deserve it, quite honestly.

Many of them are raking in record profits by making fewer employees do more work for less pay with little more motivation than a threat of losing their job, and they managed to convince half of us that it's the government's fault.

That's gotta be worth at least 26%


That is depressingly close to the truth.
 
2012-07-31 10:53:41 AM
Just read this article about Caterpillar They want a six year pay freeze on workers at a time when profits and CEO compensation are at record highs.
 
2012-07-31 10:54:47 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.

Why did CEO pay decline for two consecutive years and then stay flat in 2010, as it says in the second farking line of TFA?

If the hike in pay in 2011 is evidence that CEOs put themselves first they've apparently farking done it wrong from 2008-2010.

Why does the janitor stop stealing when the security cameras are put up, and then return to it when they get taken down? That dirty janitor is still looking out for number one in both situations.

You continue to dismiss any critique of the 1%'s pay increases relative to the rest of humanity and tell yourself its just because they've kept getting more and more rare relative to the companies' need for them. But now you want to look at CEO pay over time? In the last thread you ignored my point of looking at CEO pay over a span of decades and across cultures .

So the last 4 years is a good point of comparison, but that last fifty is a specious and laughably pointless thing such that you wouldn't even glance at it? You're like a climate denier starting his timeline at the most cherry picked spot he can find.

Dude, the headline talks about 26% over one year, which prompted your initial comment. You're like a climate change denier who has to throw a coat on for one day in early April and assumes this is the only data point.

Heres the deal: private companies are private companies and they can pay their executives whatever the fark they want. Unless you are a shareholder, you have no farking say in the matter. If you do own shares and cannot influence company policy and are unhappy with CEO pay ...


And private companies operate in a bubble and what they do couldn't possibly influence or effect things for the rest of society.
 
kab
2012-07-31 10:57:08 AM

Harry Freakstorm: Hopefully, this portends the beginning of CEOs getting the Mussolini Treatment


Just the opposite actually. If anything, CEO's are the new sacred cow for the average 'murkin, to be defended and justified at all costs.
 
2012-07-31 10:58:28 AM
As an unemployed job creator, I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
 
2012-07-31 11:06:48 AM
"Sniiiiiiiif!!!" Ahhhh, smell the wondrous stench of unregulated globalization. Keeping slaves in work and workers in poverty but making billionaires crazy rich.

I'm sure the useless f*cks somehow deserve all that money for doing nothing though 'cause, you know, America and shiat.
 
2012-07-31 11:07:45 AM

Carn: And private companies operate in a bubble and what they do couldn't possibly influence or effect things for the rest of society.


If externalities were important, the CEO would already have accounted for them. If you weren't so devoted to communist ideals, comrade, you'd put your faith in the infallible CEO (shaman of the Free Market, from which all blessings flow) class.
 
2012-07-31 11:09:28 AM
Personally in a perfect world CEOs should only be paid based on how successful they make the company (quarterly, yearly, etc) and get rid of their base pay.

No more golden parachutes, and best believe there better not be anymore bailouts. These guys want capitalism, then let it be a dog eat dog darwinian orgyfest. The CEOs that do well deserve to have the spoils, and the ones that fail get kicked out.
 
2012-07-31 11:18:35 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, the headline talks about 26% over one year, which prompted your initial comment. You're like a climate change denier who has to throw a coat on for one day in early April and assumes this is the only data point.


So to summarize your thoughts on time periods: 1 year is too little to justify conversation on the issue, 4 is the correct amount to conclusively view as proof (even though it still isn't, as even if they put themselves first and raise pay based on non-market forces they would still have limits in bad years - that is obvious to anyone thinking at a middle school level), and a 50 year period is irrelevant and unworthy of responding to?

Debeo Summa Credo: Heres the deal: private companies are private companies and they can pay their executives whatever the fark they want


I've never said otherwise. For the record though, companies don't "want" things. They aren't people. So what you mean to say is that those with a controlling interest pay CEOs whatever they want, or in other words: 'the very small percent of those with partial ownership of a company pay themselves whatever the fark they want' which I guess I'll take to be an agreement with my long-standing statement: CEO salaries are not determined primarily by market forces.

I'm glad you finally came clean on that point. Good talk.
 
2012-07-31 11:20:17 AM
Very disappointing trollery in this thread DBC. Bring your A game or stay home.
 
2012-07-31 11:20:45 AM

palelizard: meat0918: Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.

Get a new job. The only time I've gotten boosts like that are from heading to a different company. Though a 9% raise per year is pretty nice, honestly.


THIS. Last year I left a shiatty job of five years for my current one and got a 67% boost out of it. Goes to show how much I was underpaid and how little they valued me and the job. A few years ago I brought up how much I was underpaid with actual DOL stats; they acknowledged the deficiency and led me on the possibility I might get a nice bump to market pay just over some mythical horizon. I knew they were full of it and took my time finding something better.
 
2012-07-31 11:24:32 AM
times are tough,and CEOs deserve that money way more than working stiffs like us.
 
2012-07-31 11:34:53 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!

Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?

Everyone who isn't a CEO is a freeloader.

I know, Bobo Spiewack apparently has a job and his employers saw fit to give him a 15% raise. All because they, as a presumably profit making enterprise, think his efforts are worth his new salary.

That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.

I can jingle my tin cup as well as anybody, and my penmanship on
cardboard signs indicating my fake status as a homeless disabled hungry veteran is flawless. Yet society deems these skills of less value than CEOs or whatever Spiewack does.


I take it you've never worked for a corporation or had any contact with a CEO...ever.
 
2012-07-31 11:35:16 AM
Uh huh, how many of you own an Apple product? How about a computer? A TV? Car? if you don't like evil corporations paying their top people a lot, don't buy from them. I am sure there is a mom and pop shop that makes iPads and Priuses.

Why no outrage at politicians who are filthy rich? How much does Bambam make a year?
 
2012-07-31 11:35:28 AM

Debeo Summa Credo:
That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.


My wage increase was determined by my value to ANOTHER employer. Akin to being a free agent third baseman with power from the left side.

"Hello, Yankees? Sure. We can talk."
 
2012-07-31 11:43:19 AM
Loot and Scoot™
 
2012-07-31 11:47:20 AM

hugram: Wow, they have done horribly under Obama... and probably most of these rich CEO's are now spending millions on PACs to get rid off Obama.


The chance to have a bought and paid for corporate puppet president, one who can shape (along with a compliant congress) financial and other regulatory policy for the next generation, is one they can't pass up.

And because with all they have, all they've had, and all they're going to get... THEY WANT MORE.

/vote Rmoney
 
2012-07-31 11:56:13 AM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, the headline talks about 26% over one year, which prompted your initial comment. You're like a climate change denier who has to throw a coat on for one day in early April and assumes this is the only data point.

So to summarize your thoughts on time periods: 1 year is too little to justify conversation on the issue, 4 is the correct amount to conclusively view as proof (even though it still isn't, as even if they put themselves first and raise pay based on non-market forces they would still have limits in bad years - that is obvious to anyone thinking at a middle school level), and a 50 year period is irrelevant and unworthy of responding to?

Debeo Summa Credo: Heres the deal: private companies are private companies and they can pay their executives whatever the fark they want

I've never said otherwise. For the record though, companies don't "want" things. They aren't people. So what you mean to say is that those with a controlling interest pay CEOs whatever they want, or in other words: 'the very small percent of those with partial ownership of a company pay themselves whatever the fark they want' which I guess I'll take to be an agreement with my long-standing statement: CEO salaries are not determined primarily by market forces.

I'm glad you finally came clean on that point. Good talk.


In other words, you can't argue with my logic re the determination of CEO pay, nor with my referencing the time periods specifically mentioned in the second line of the article, so you'll just declare victory and go home.

Does it hurt to contort yourself so in your utterly futile and misguided crusade against CEO
pay? Maybe if you pound your fists a little harder your conspiracy theories will become true.
 
2012-07-31 12:00:41 PM

Bobo_Spiewack: Debeo Summa Credo:
That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.


My wage increase was determined by my value to ANOTHER employer. Akin to being a free agent third baseman with power from the left side.

"Hello, Yankees? Sure. We can talk."


Exactly. That's how it works and how it should work. If your current employer (the mariners, let's say) wants to keep you, then they need to pay up. If they can find a convenient replacement for you at your current wage, then they won't bother counteroffering.
 
2012-07-31 12:07:16 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Bobo_Spiewack: This is an outrage! My salary has only gone up 15%...

Damn CEOs! Why do I bother to improve my skills and prove my value if I don't get a fair slice of the pie?

OCCUPY SOMETHING!

Lucky! My panhandling revenues have remained flat! Oh why oh why does society discriminate against freeloaders and bestow all good fortune on those whom others are willing to pay for their services?

Everyone who isn't a CEO is a freeloader.

I know, Bobo Spiewack apparently has a job and his employers saw fit to give him a 15% raise. All because they, as a presumably profit making enterprise, think his efforts are worth his new salary.

That's bullshiat. Your value to your employer should have no part in determining your wages. Such a system unfairly discriminates against people with no marketable skills.

I can jingle my tin cup as well as anybody, and my penmanship on
cardboard signs indicating my fake status as a homeless disabled hungry veteran is flawless. Yet society deems these skills of less value than CEOs or whatever Spiewack does.


Wow, the mere idea of anyone but the CEO doing better financially really fills you with rage doesn't it?

You would have been the model serf during feudal times.
 
2012-07-31 01:32:21 PM

Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"

Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.


Capital gains (stock grants) are taxed at 15%. Salaries get taxed at almost 35% for someone in the top pay grade he would otherwise be in. He's FAR from a hero, he's a tax cheat that just happens to have enough money and clout that he can do it. You only pay near 15% taxes if you make less than $35K a year as a serf... they just go up from there.
 
2012-07-31 01:39:40 PM

Smackledorfer: This is totally market based, right dbc and the other rich-dick-suckers? the demand for a great CEO has gone up, or the supply gone down?

It's not because the people who control the companies simply put themselves first (as everyone does, janitors just don't have the same effect if they sneak home some cleaning products) and act accordingly? No, that would be a conspiracy.


That raises an interesting point - one that I wish I'd realized earlier in life.
You work in the sewers, you come home covered in shiat.
Work in video games, you come home with free video games.
Work with money, you come home covered in money.
 
2012-07-31 02:01:42 PM
If only we'd cut their taxes some more, they'd let that wealth trickle down on us, and the economy would be fixed.
 
2012-07-31 02:19:03 PM

Sgygus: Hey, if Romney get in, you CEOs can keep this up for another four years.

/maybe longer


Obama had four years to fix this. Who will he blame this time? Could be anyone, it doesn't matter. He is without a doubt a clueless idiot. His only redeeming quality is convincing other clueless idiots that he's intelligent.

That reminds me, isn't it about time that Obama has his photo op basketball game? A Whitehouse discussion about the jobless rate with Beyonce and JayZ? A random photo with a sports star or celebrity? Flashy objects excite and amaze his followers. Gullible idiots.
 
2012-07-31 02:27:56 PM

SweetBluebonnet: Sgygus: Hey, if Romney get in, you CEOs can keep this up for another four years.

/maybe longer

Obama had four years to fix this. Who will he blame this time? Could be anyone, it doesn't matter. He is without a doubt a clueless idiot. His only redeeming quality is convincing other clueless idiots that he's intelligent.

That reminds me, isn't it about time that Obama has his photo op basketball game? A Whitehouse discussion about the jobless rate with Beyonce and JayZ? A random photo with a sports star or celebrity? Flashy objects excite and amaze his followers. Gullible idiots.


I didn't know Obama was a dictator... with the ability to bypass the House and Senate and shove his evil agenda down our throats.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Republican led House would have created tons laws to regulate CEO payments and send the bills straight to Obama's desk to sign.
 
2012-07-31 02:30:49 PM

Pitabred: Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"

Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.

Capital gains (stock grants) are taxed at 15%. Salaries get taxed at almost 35% for someone in the top pay grade he would otherwise be in. He's FAR from a hero, he's a tax cheat that just happens to have enough money and clout that he can do it. You only pay near 15% taxes if you make less than $35K a year as a serf... they just go up from there.


Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Stock grants are not taxed at capital gain rates. If your employer gives you $50k worth of stock, you pay ordinary income tax rates on that $50k. If you then sell it for, say, $75k a year later the extra $25k is subject to the cap gains rates. Just like if you had gone into your pocket to buy te stock the previous year.
 
2012-07-31 03:16:26 PM
I really must look into manufacturing rails (or reasonably-priced rail substitutes), torches and pitchforks locally, check with the neighbors with chickens for a source cheap feathers, and see where I can find room-temperature-runny tar. It could become a profitable side business in the near future.
 
2012-07-31 03:23:38 PM

Carn: Anyone who didn't get a 26% increase last year probably just wasn't bootstrappy enough amirite?


Boss offered 20% in January this year. We then chatted for a bit and decided on 25%

It's not too tough to have a few skills and know how to prove your worth when sitting face to face
 
2012-07-31 03:26:25 PM

Debeo Summa Credo:
Stock grants are not taxed at capital gain rates. If your employer gives you $50k worth of stock, you pay ordinary income tax rates on that $50k. If you then sell it for, say, $75k a year later the extra $25k is subject to the cap gains rates. Just like if you had gone into your pocket to buy te stock the previous year.


It isn't that simple, and you should know that.
Nor are stock options simple.
 
2012-07-31 03:29:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I really must look into manufacturing rails (or reasonably-priced rail substitutes), torches and pitchforks locally, check with the neighbors with chickens for a source cheap feathers, and see where I can find room-temperature-runny tar. It could become a profitable side business in the near future.


Oh, and a fast-working low-cost (to me) tar remover. That could easily quintuple profits.
 
2012-07-31 04:23:29 PM

quick_thinkfast: Carn: Anyone who didn't get a 26% increase last year probably just wasn't bootstrappy enough amirite?

Boss offered 20% in January this year. We then chatted for a bit and decided on 25%

It's not too tough to have a few skills and know how to prove your worth when sitting face to face


HA! So like I said, you aren't bootstrappy enough. Try harder next time, stooge.

Seriously though, forgive me if I doubt the veracity of your claim unless you were extremely underpaid in the first place, or half your department left recently, or some other extreme circumstance exists. 10% would be an amazing increase for a regular employee. 20% is crazy unless it's a promotion.
 
2012-07-31 05:58:35 PM
My income is up about 20% on the year...good thing I work for a rich guy.

www.shirtaday.com
 
2012-07-31 06:15:52 PM

Elephantman: My income is up about 20% on the year...good thing I work for a rich guy.

[www.shirtaday.com image 400x377]


I guess Sweden is heaven.

Although don't call it "socialism" socialism, it tends to upset some of them. My brother-in-law prefers the term "Democratic Socialist".

He really, really hates fascists though.

And Finns.
 
2012-07-31 06:22:08 PM

Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"


Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.

incentive for a CEO to engage in deceptive behavior and think in the short term to prop up stock prices.

FTFY.
 
2012-07-31 07:18:24 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Stock grants are not taxed at capital gain rates. If your employer gives you $50k worth of stock, you pay ordinary income tax rates on that $50k. If you then sell it for, say, $75k a year later the extra $25k is subject to the cap gains rates. Just like if you had gone into your pocket to buy te stock the previous year.



Wow, this is shocking. THE biggest Fark business apologist troll out there has no farking idea what he's talking about. Amazing turn of events. Now go email your buddies to come in here and do damage control so everyone will forget about your complete fail in every post here. As usual.
 
2012-07-31 07:18:57 PM

LegacyDL: Personally in a perfect world CEOs should only be paid based on how successful they make the company (quarterly, yearly, etc) and get rid of their base pay.

No more golden parachutes, and best believe there better not be anymore bailouts. These guys want capitalism, then let it be a dog eat dog darwinian orgyfest. The CEOs that do well deserve to have the spoils, and the ones that fail get kicked out.


slap a similar situation on the suits of WashDC too. make the lying bastard politicians work for the people not the payola.
 
2012-07-31 07:32:15 PM
But if that's true, why haven't they created more jobs???
 
2012-07-31 07:44:03 PM
I was a CTO for years. I have worked directly with numerous CEO throughout my career. I can honestly say most are lazy, self-important, and effectively useless. Anyone can do their job, but they would have trouble filling the shoes of the janitor.

Maybe there are some competent hard-working ones out there worth the x1000 premium we pay them. I personally have never worked with one.
 
2012-07-31 08:38:59 PM

intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Stock grants are not taxed at capital gain rates. If your employer gives you $50k worth of stock, you pay ordinary income tax rates on that $50k. If you then sell it for, say, $75k a year later the extra $25k is subject to the cap gains rates. Just like if you had gone into your pocket to buy te stock the previous year.


Wow, this is shocking. THE biggest Fark business apologist troll out there has no farking idea what he's talking about. Amazing turn of events. Now go email your buddies to come in here and do damage control so everyone will forget about your complete fail in every post here. As usual.


That's why I have that Farker's posts show up in Red Team Red.

Cuts down on the BS quotient in my daily intake.

For some reason, thought it was a she, though...
 
2012-07-31 09:48:04 PM

meat0918: Damn, mine's only up 9% over the last 12 months.

I'd kill(well maybe not kill, but perhaps talk strongly) for 26%.


2.5% :( thats the average yearly wage increase for this hospital across the board minus doctors and the bigwigs.
 
2012-07-31 11:21:53 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Dude, the headline talks about 26% over one year, which prompted your initial comment. You're like a climate change denier who has to throw a coat on for one day in early April and assumes this is the only data point.

So to summarize your thoughts on time periods: 1 year is too little to justify conversation on the issue, 4 is the correct amount to conclusively view as proof (even though it still isn't, as even if they put themselves first and raise pay based on non-market forces they would still have limits in bad years - that is obvious to anyone thinking at a middle school level), and a 50 year period is irrelevant and unworthy of responding to?

Debeo Summa Credo: Heres the deal: private companies are private companies and they can pay their executives whatever the fark they want

I've never said otherwise. For the record though, companies don't "want" things. They aren't people. So what you mean to say is that those with a controlling interest pay CEOs whatever they want, or in other words: 'the very small percent of those with partial ownership of a company pay themselves whatever the fark they want' which I guess I'll take to be an agreement with my long-standing statement: CEO salaries are not determined primarily by market forces.

I'm glad you finally came clean on that point. Good talk.

In other words, you can't argue with my logic re the determination of CEO pay, nor with my referencing the time periods specifically mentioned in the second line of the article, so you'll just declare victory and go home.

Does it hurt to contort yourself so in your utterly futile and misguided crusade against CEO
pay? Maybe if you pound your fists a little harder your conspiracy theories will become true.


Lame.
 
2012-08-01 04:03:21 AM
No, no, no, we need to increase payouts to welfare queens. They are the real job creators.
 
2012-08-01 04:31:54 AM

Phony_Soldier: No, no, no, we need to increase payouts to welfare queens. They are the real job creators.


While welfare queen is a fabrication, there is more than a grain of unintended truth in that statement.
 
2012-08-01 06:51:16 AM

Phony_Soldier: No, no, no, we need to increase payouts to welfare queens. They are the real job creators.


Totally! They're all getting rich driving Escalades and using iPhones!
 
2012-08-01 07:06:58 AM

Carn: quick_thinkfast: Carn: Anyone who didn't get a 26% increase last year probably just wasn't bootstrappy enough amirite?

Boss offered 20% in January this year. We then chatted for a bit and decided on 25%

It's not too tough to have a few skills and know how to prove your worth when sitting face to face

HA! So like I said, you aren't bootstrappy enough. Try harder next time, stooge.

Seriously though, forgive me if I doubt the veracity of your claim unless you were extremely underpaid in the first place, or half your department left recently, or some other extreme circumstance exists. 10% would be an amazing increase for a regular employee. 20% is crazy unless it's a promotion.


Small firm, lots of responsibilites, doing a good job and taking on more responsibilites every day.

I'm in Europe so that 25% raise equated into only around 15% bump in actual net salary.

Hoping for around 20% more this year, but there will be a promotion involved.

Getting raises is half the job you do, and half how you sell your worth as I said above. Working for a profitable company and having reasonsable superiors also helps.
 
2012-08-01 07:26:49 AM

intelligent comment below: Debeo Summa Credo: Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Stock grants are not taxed at capital gain rates. If your employer gives you $50k worth of stock, you pay ordinary income tax rates on that $50k. If you then sell it for, say, $75k a year later the extra $25k is subject to the cap gains rates. Just like if you had gone into your pocket to buy te stock the previous year.


Wow, this is shocking. THE biggest Fark business apologist troll out there has no farking idea what he's talking about. Amazing turn of events. Now go email your buddies to come in here and do damage control so everyone will forget about your complete fail in every post here. As usual.


Whoops. Intelligent comment below once again proving that his is the most ironic fark name out there.

Just because you and yor farklib pals REALLY REALLY want something to be true, doesnt mean its true.

Tell you what, stupid: if you ever get out of your moms basement long enough to get a job and actually pay taxes, and fool some prospective employer long enough to be hired to a job where they actually give you restricted stock, you can learn firsthand how they are taxed.

Until then, I suggest stop getting your financial and tax knowledge from Rolling Stone magazine and keep your mouth shut about topics you are completely clueless about.

Here's a link (first one on google, cut/paste) that explains how they are taxed, you dumb shiat:

http://fairmark.com/execcomp/grants.h tm
 
2012-08-01 10:32:22 AM

Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"


Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.


Not exactly:

Instead of salary he could be given a grant of $1,000,000 shares of stock for the year. If the value of the stock goes from $5.00 a share to $2.00 a share the company is doing horribly, but he is still OK.
 
2012-08-01 10:32:59 AM

jst3p: Skr: Reading the article is bit like staring into another world.

One part I saw that caught my eye-
"Lowest salary: Michael Reger, Northern Oil & Gas Inc., zero. (Under Reger's pay plan, he takes no salary and is compensated primarily through incentive stock grants.)"


Which, if I understand correctly, means the guy's pay is completely dependent on how well his company is doing. Unless there is some nefarious underlying portion to that, it sounds like a really awesome thing for a CEO to do.

Not exactly:

Instead of salary he could be given a grant of $1,000,000 shares of stock for the year. If the value of the stock goes from $5.00 a share to $2.00 a share the company is doing horribly, but he is still OK.

 
2012-08-01 12:06:43 PM
Beginning to think Bane had it right. I don't want to kill them, but their punishment must be more severe.

See also Trading Places...
 
2012-08-01 06:27:12 PM

Cletus C.: The Obama presidency has been very good for the wealthy.

In his next term he vows to work on the middle class.


Pull the other one!
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report