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.

(Opposing Views)   CEOs earn 273 times what the average worker earns because they work 273 times harder   (opposingviews.com) divider line 167
    More: Unlikely, orbital period  
•       •       •

6670 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 1:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 01:48:06 PM
www.busanhaps.com
 
2013-07-08 01:50:52 PM
Oh look, its this thread again
 
2013-07-08 01:57:27 PM
What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:40 PM
Obvious tag too busy working to show up?
 
2013-07-08 01:59:32 PM

LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.


Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.
 
2013-07-08 02:00:58 PM

bsharitt: Obvious tag too busy working to show up?


Everyone know the Obivious tag works 748 times harder than the unlikely tag. Study it out.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:16 PM
"Cut wages to increase profits. I'll be on my yacht."

CEOing is very hard work indeedily.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:31 PM
It takes 273 mashed-up workers to comprise the caloric intake a CEO requires a day.  It's a fact.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:48 PM

ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.


That's what all the hookers keep telling me.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:52 PM

LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.


When median wage increases keep pace with CEO's.

www.ritholtz.com
 
2013-07-08 02:02:29 PM

ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.


The problem isn't the multiplier, it's this:

"From 1978 to 2012, the pay for CEOs increased 875 percent, versus the 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker's pay over the same period. "

What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?
 
2013-07-08 02:03:07 PM
They're probably 273 times smarter.
 
2013-07-08 02:04:08 PM

TFerWannaBe: ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.

The problem isn't the multiplier, it's this:

"From 1978 to 2012, the pay for CEOs increased 875 percent, versus the 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker's pay over the same period. "

What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?


They created 875% more jobs.
 
2013-07-08 02:06:45 PM

Kome: TFerWannaBe: ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.

The problem isn't the multiplier, it's this:

"From 1978 to 2012, the pay for CEOs increased 875 percent, versus the 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker's pay over the same period. "

What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?

They created 875% more jobs.


I know, look at all the jobs we've got in America!  We have 2 billion jobs for 350 million people, and our unemployment rate is -24%.
 
2013-07-08 02:06:57 PM

TFerWannaBe: What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?


Since their job is to pay everyone else as little as possible, I'd say they earned that raise.
 
2013-07-08 02:07:52 PM
STOP HAVING MORE MONEY THAN ME
 
2013-07-08 02:07:57 PM
Unless you are a shareholder in that company then what business is it of yours what the CEO makes? For the life of me I just can't understand why people always complain about this.
 
2013-07-08 02:08:03 PM
competence is valued about all else.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-08 02:09:05 PM

The Third Man: Kome: TFerWannaBe: ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.

The problem isn't the multiplier, it's this:

"From 1978 to 2012, the pay for CEOs increased 875 percent, versus the 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker's pay over the same period. "

What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?

They created 875% more jobs.

I know, look at all the jobs we've got in America!  We have 2 billion jobs for 350 million people, and our unemployment rate is -24%.


Well, the joke is that 875% of 0 is 0.
 
2013-07-08 02:10:02 PM

TFerWannaBe: ManRay: LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.

Pulling a number out of thin air is easy. The justification takes a little more work.

The problem isn't the multiplier, it's this:

"From 1978 to 2012, the pay for CEOs increased 875 percent, versus the 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker's pay over the same period. "

What's the justification for that? Did CEOs really get 875 percent better at their jobs, and everyone else only get 5.4 percent better?


Yes they did.  CEOs embraced technology and all of the developing quality management tools to gather information, process it meaningfully, make decisions based on relative information and spearhead new initiatives that allowed them to streamline their companies and grow their businesses exponentially.

The average worker is just happy that they can play Angry Birds on their phones on compnay time.
 
2013-07-08 02:11:23 PM
We had a terrific quarter folks!  Now we need everyone to buckle down - next quarter is going to be tough!  We may have to lay some people off.

The above is our CEO's operating rhythm.
 
2013-07-08 02:12:52 PM
The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was convincing the poor they legitimately earned their money and it was something anyone could do.
 
2013-07-08 02:14:02 PM

LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.


It's a bit like the laffer curve, isn't it? If CEO pay is completely average (one), then everybody is good enough to be CEO. Then there'll be no leadership. Fun thought for anarchists maybe, but not for commercial enterprise, which will cease to exist. If CEO pay covers the entirity of what's left after everybody else has been paid, then there is no profit, and therefore the company will cease to exist. There exists an optimum in this curve, not necessarily in the middle, that takes into account difference in rank, and doesn't tank the company.
 
2013-07-08 02:15:10 PM
Are some CEO's overpaid in respect to their company's performance?  Yes...others are worth every penny.   Look at Alan Mulally.  His base is $2 million with bonuses adding an addition $3.95 million...the rest of his pay is stock options which are tied to the company's performance.  Ford didn't take a government bailout.  Ford is profitable and is increasing market share.  The stock price has increased to $15/share from a low under $2.  So yes subby, he's worth 273 times the worker on the line.

For a poorly performing company...those CEO shouldn't take a dime.  That's really the fault of the Board of Directors for paying CEOs of poorly performing companies because it's their decisions and leadership that can make a difference.
 
2013-07-08 02:16:11 PM
CEOs are 15x as smart, and at least 25x as hard working. They are probably relatively underpaid if anything.
 
2013-07-08 02:16:31 PM

K3rmy: CEOs embraced technology and all of the developing quality management tools to gather information, process it meaningfully, make decisions based on relative information and spearhead new initiatives that allowed them to streamline their companies and grow their businesses exponentially.


Translation:  They read something in Fortune magazine and dictated a memo to middle-management to execute it.
 
2013-07-08 02:17:47 PM

MayoSlather: The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was convincing the poor they legitimately earned their money and it was something anyone could do.


Yeah, why bother trying? I know those guys just got lucky.
 
2013-07-08 02:18:07 PM

LandOfChocolate: What is an appropriate multiplier in your mind subby?  I'm interested in the number and your justification for it.


I understand that Japan adopted a standard of the CEO making at most 15 times what the lowest paid employee makes.  The exact justification for this is unknown to me but perhaps someone else will be able to supply.  Additionally companies like Costco and Wholefoods operate under similar parameters (or so I am told) under the idea that paying them more means they can buy more.
 
2013-07-08 02:18:17 PM

MayoSlather: The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was convincing the poor they legitimately earned their money and it was something anyone could do.


Something something temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
 
2013-07-08 02:18:31 PM
Though the pay is stomach churning, I'm much less interested in the pay scale and more interested into the psychology and path to becoming a CEO.  I happen to work for a company where our CEO is a good companywide and longterm thinker, but this seems to be an exception.  US CEO's seem to be the most wasteful, disorganized, sociopathic person from a sales & marketing background - though I'm sure there's bias in our news sources.  No one publishes stories about the CEO who achieves modest improvements and does right by his or her workforce.
 
2013-07-08 02:19:57 PM
More or less, this means CEOs have so much power they set their own pay packages

The board sets the CEO's compensation. Who sits on the board? Other CEOs. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. With a solid gold, gem encrusted back-scratcher!

And if you completely fark up, no worries. You will get millions in severance pay before you go off to screw up another company.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:16 PM
The funny thing about horrible inequities in the distribution of wealth is that historically, they tend to sort themselves out. Just ask the Bourbons or the Romanovs.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:52 PM
There are probably multiple factors to the disparity between CEO pay and worker pay. Obviously globalization (larger companies, more labor competing with each other) is a big factor. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look into changing the system to not favor executive pay so much (like taxing their primary source of compensation -- C-level options -- at ridiculously low rates).
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-08 02:21:49 PM
Incompetence on the part of a CEO impacts more lives than it ever did before.

graniteslate.typepad.com

When this shiatstain was the CEO of Tyco, he was one of the top 10 paid CEOs at the time.

Yes there is a correlation between quality and pay, and it's a farking negative one.
 
2013-07-08 02:23:10 PM
So what needs to happen in order to attain the balance we had going in the middle of the 20th century?  Or is that just a historical myth?  Passing legislation or a mandate saying maybe cap the pay for a CEO at 100x that of an average employee would probably not be effective.  Companies could just shuffle this way or that to meet their own ends.  Trying to tell people "don't go work for Company X because Y" isn't going to work either because people are just happy to have a job that pays over 30k these days.

Really the only thing I can think of would be public shaming.  Find the worst offenders, tell everyone about them, and hold them to account in each specific case.  Go down the list and keep going until you force a paradigm shift.  The reason CEOs are getting paid so much is that they get away with it.  There's no public outcry or action to stop this sort of behavior except the general "OMG rich people are so much richer"  There need to be names and faces to shame and to hate and attack.  So instaed of "oh the rich are richer" it's "That bastard John Bankstone, he's making 375% more than his workers and he just spent a 6 month vacation in Belize while his company fired 10% of its workforce."
    The 1% have been so callous to the plight of the 99% because they have been able to create their own bubble of existence that they don't have to deal with the guilt and shame of their actions.  They're allowed to live how they please (which is freedom, and hey more power to them I guess) and are encouraged to be extravagant by their peers.   But we're getting close to societal breakdown if this trend continues as it has.  In order to avoid that, all options must be explored and exploited.   Public shaming is a lot better than public beheading.  The problem is that all the vehicles that would be necessary to disseminate this kind of publicity are owned by the very people whom we should seek to shame.
     Also, people generally don't give a crap, which is frustrating.
 
2013-07-08 02:23:40 PM
They get that money because they can.

try-and-stop-us.jpg
 
2013-07-08 02:24:22 PM
It'd be awesome if the CEOs started getting little fiefdoms. Mobilising their own private little armies against each other.

They're better than us in every way. You'll never find the head/s of a major corporation with morals lower than a little peon worker.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:27 PM
Worked for a company here in Tampa several years ago. The owner of the company had just returned from a 6 week African tour and came by to show off his new Ferrari when he told us he was cutting pay by 10% and hours by 20% . He said it "was hard to make a dollar now a days".


Oh well, he'll die someday.....
 
2013-07-08 02:25:53 PM

tricycleracer: K3rmy: CEOs embraced technology and all of the developing quality management tools to gather information, process it meaningfully, make decisions based on relative information and spearhead new initiatives that allowed them to streamline their companies and grow their businesses exponentially.

Translation:  They read something in Fortune magazine and dictated a memo to middle-management to execute it.



Translation: You read a Dilbert Cartoon and you posted on Fark.,
 
2013-07-08 02:26:06 PM

Coming on a Bicycle: It's a bit like the laffer curve, isn't it? If CEO pay is completely average (one), then everybody is good enough to be CEO. Then there'll be no leadership. Fun thought for anarchists maybe, but not for commercial enterprise, which will cease to exist. If CEO pay covers the entirity of what's left after everybody else has been paid, then there is no profit, and therefore the company will cease to exist. There exists an optimum in this curve, not necessarily in the middle, that takes into account difference in rank, and doesn't tank the company.


Yep, this is nothing new yet some people are flipping out of there minds about this.
 
2013-07-08 02:26:42 PM
One of the last straws at my former company was when the newly hired well paid CEO was leaving at 2 PM to pick up his kids at school.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-08 02:27:04 PM

DubtodaIll: So what needs to happen in order to attain the balance we had going in the middle of the 20th century?


Look at graphs for all historical data you can find.  You'll see an absolute trend... divergences start at 1980.  It happens every freaking time.

1980 is also the year that big money lobbying became ascendant in D.C.  It really kicked in with the inauguration of Regan.

You want equality: bring back one man one vote.  Not just in the name only as we have it now, but in reality.  Those CEOs have at least 273 times the wait as your average taxpayer when talking to their congresscritter (a lot more actually).  If you can wound big money politics you can wound this trend.
 
GBB
2013-07-08 02:28:06 PM

slayer199: For a poorly performing company...those CEO shouldn't take a dime.  That's really the fault of the Board of Directors for paying CEOs of poorly performing companies because it's their decisions and leadership that can make a difference.


But, when the BOD decides they need a new CEO, how do they get the best one?  They do that by offering them a "competitive" package.  Sometimes (many times) that package is more of an all-in poker bet.  Either this new CEO delivers this company from devastation and is worth every penny the company can afford, or they just give this guy every penny they have and close up shop.

A CEO that is compassionate and willing to sacrifice a little compensation now for a better run company in the future is an oxymoron.   An owner might do that, but not a CEO.
 
2013-07-08 02:28:06 PM
This kind of thing never made any sense to me until I realized that the visible CEO pool from a board of directors point of view is small enough that pricing is dominated by perceived value, and is not market based. What I mean is, CEOs are thought of as people that perform a specific and unique function. That could be something like "increase stock price" or "be controllable by us" but from the board's perspective, they are not commodities, they are unique assets. That means their pay is determined by the value that the board perceives in that unique function. For example, if a CEO is expected to raise share prices 1%, and that represents $1 B, they have no problem spending $100M to retain him. The same logic is used for salaries at all levels, but because the perceived value is lower, the pay is lower.

The lesson is that if you want to make ridiculous amounts of money you have to figure out how to position yourself to be perceived as roughly ten times more valuable than the amount of money you want to make. If you weren't born into the upper circles of society that will take a lot of time, work, and marketing skills, but once you understand how it works, it is possible.
 
2013-07-08 02:29:50 PM

DubtodaIll: So what needs to happen in order to attain the balance we had going in the middle of the 20th century?  Or is that just a historical myth?  Passing legislation or a mandate saying maybe cap the pay for a CEO at 100x that of an average employee would probably not be effective.  Companies could just shuffle this way or that to meet their own ends.  Trying to tell people "don't go work for Company X because Y" isn't going to work either because people are just happy to have a job that pays over 30k these days.

Really the only thing I can think of would be public shaming.  Find the worst offenders, tell everyone about them, and hold them to account in each specific case.  Go down the list and keep going until you force a paradigm shift.  The reason CEOs are getting paid so much is that they get away with it.  There's no public outcry or action to stop this sort of behavior except the general "OMG rich people are so much richer"  There need to be names and faces to shame and to hate and attack.  So instaed of "oh the rich are richer" it's "That bastard John Bankstone, he's making 375% more than his workers and he just spent a 6 month vacation in Belize while his company fired 10% of its workforce."
    The 1% have been so callous to the plight of the 99% because they have been able to create their own bubble of existence that they don't have to deal with the guilt and shame of their actions.  They're allowed to live how they please (which is freedom, and hey more power to them I guess) and are encouraged to be extravagant by their peers.   But we're getting close to societal breakdown if this trend continues as it has.  In order to avoid that, all options must be explored and exploited.   Public shaming is a lot better than public beheading.  The problem is that all the vehicles that would be necessary to disseminate this kind of publicity are owned by the very people whom we should seek to shame.
     Also, people generally don't give a crap, which is frustrating.


The next idiot who wants to make the news because he shot a bunch of people should work his way down that list.


/not serious
//It would be effective though
 
2013-07-08 02:30:08 PM

Pappy091: Unless you are a shareholder in that company then what business is it of yours what the CEO makes? For the life of me I just can't understand why people always complain about this.


Are you serious?  I wish business and the economy was as clear-cut and gridded as you seem to think.
 
2013-07-08 02:30:30 PM
They are unionized while the workers are not. Big diff!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-08 02:30:48 PM

kriegsgeist: This kind of thing never made any sense to me until I realized that the visible CEO pool from a board of directors point of view is small enough that pricing is dominated by perceived value, and is not market based. What I mean is, CEOs are thought of as people that perform a specific and unique function. That could be something like "increase stock price" or "be controllable by us" but from the board's perspective, they are not commodities, they are unique assets. That means their pay is determined by the value that the board perceives in that unique function. For example, if a CEO is expected to raise share prices 1%, and that represents $1 B, they have no problem spending $100M to retain him. The same logic is used for salaries at all levels, but because the perceived value is lower, the pay is lower.

The lesson is that if you want to make ridiculous amounts of money you have to figure out how to position yourself to be perceived as roughly ten times more valuable than the amount of money you want to make. If you weren't born into the upper circles of society that will take a lot of time, work, and marketing skills, but once you understand how it works, it is possible.


You very tactfully left out the fact that most boards are full of CEOs from other companies.  There is a whole circle wank that happens here as well.

It's also bullocks.  Corporatespeak garbage.
 
2013-07-08 02:31:07 PM

DubtodaIll: So what needs to happen in order to attain the balance we had going in the middle of the 20th century?


Two world wars, one great depression and a couple of communist revolutions.
 
2013-07-08 02:35:39 PM

Pappy091: Unless you are a shareholder in that company then what business is it of yours what the CEO makes? For the life of me I just can't understand why people always complain about this.


Or if you are an employee since they are literally ripping off their labor (YOU) because they can. And now that you most likely don't have a union to join you have ZERO bargaining power to demand higher wages. You can't really as an individual do anything about it. You can threaten to quit and they will just wave bye since there is someone out of work willing to work for less than you since it's better than nothing.
Everybody is replaceable. 
All we can do is biatch.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report