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  
•       •       •

3434 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 14 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report