Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:49 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: American CEO Pay Grossly Imbalanced Against Foreign CEO Pay Despite Noncomparison To Productivity Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 7:12:17 PM

Startling Comparison To Foreign CEOs

Steven Pearlstein - Washington Post: "We already know from numerous studies that chief executives of large U.S. corporations make hundreds of times what an average worker makes, with the gap growing steadily wider. We also know it's possible to run successful advanced market economies with large corporations where the ratio is 25-1 (Britain), 13-1 (Sweden), 11-1 (Germany) and 10-1 (Japan). Whether the ratio at Exxon-Mobil last year was 320-to-1 or 276-to-1 seems rather beside the point."

--Are American CEOs really that much more productive than their foreign counterparts? Do American companies generate that much more profit than similar foreign companies?

No.

So why do American CEOs get paid so much more?

Becker-Posner Discussion

Posner argues that boards of directors are often CEOs themselves and are motivated to keep the level of CEO pay high so they themselves will also be likewise considered.

--So it appears that the pay is so high not because they produce so much more profit but because they can get away with it. At least they have until now. What seems to be needed to reign them in is a good old fashioned protest movement from the people. A general statement that the greed is too much, too disgusting, too hurtful to the rest. Occupy has changed the conversation in America. The encampments may be gone but the discussion lives on. And there is new scrutiny of the 1% that never existed before. Heck, the term wasn't even commonplace. But now it is.

I don't think we've seen the end of disgust with the greed of our new gilded age robber barons. Looks to me like it is only beginning. And if we elect Romney it is only going to grow faster.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 5:25:53 PM

From the Becker-Posner Discussion:

"American CEOs make much more on average than their counterparts in other countries--about twice as much. You might think that this was because Americans at all levels earn more than their foreign counterparts, but this is not so; the difference between U.S. and foreign wages is much smaller below the CEO level. In other words, wages are more skewed in favor of CEOs in American companies. The disparity is related to the fact that salaries are a much smaller fraction of American CEOs' incomes (less than a half) than of foreign CEOs' incomes, with the rest consisting of bonuses but mainly of stock options. Both the fraction of CEO income that is nonsalary, and total CEO income, have been rising, dramatically in the United States, over recent decades."

--Wrong about the twice as much part...

"In Hannah Cho's excellent article on Maryland executive salaries ("On the Rise," July 10), she brings up the ratio of CEO salary to median worker salary. She says "CEOs at the largest U.S. companies made on average 343 times the median worker salary last year, according to the AFL-CIO.""

If foreign CEOs make around 20:1 times the worker pay that would put the American to foreign CEO pay ratio at about 343/20 or seventeen times as much.

But American companies are not 17 times as profitable as foreign companies. They are about the same in profitability.

This suggests that the American executives are overpaid. In general they are overpaid by the same amount as the ration of American to foreign executive pay.

btw, this comes out of your dividends. Or if you are a worker at a big American company, it comes out of your paycheck. They could be paying you more in dividends or salary. But they don't. Because they make the decisions.

Oh, but it is the board that decides how much salary the executives get, right?

Only problem is many of these CEOs sit on each other's boards.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Then we'll do lunch some time.

My yacht or yours?

I'll call my helicopter pilot.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 9:05:05 PM

Of course one would have to read Atlas Shrugged to know who John Galt is. (a fictitious character)

But that is exactly what he did. He claimed the system was falling apart as his reason to start an independent economy in a disconnected mystery valley. But just to make sure his claim was real he blew other people's things up to help crash the outside economy. You know, because it was falling apart on it's own, of course.

***

So how come nobody has been able to tell us why those foreign CEOs are able to make their companies every bit as profitable as the American ones on a fraction of the pay? Sure looks like the American ones aren't really worth what they are paid.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,261
Points:1,281,805
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 6:49:53 PM

The parade of the iggied continues.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 6:47:22 PM

John Galt was a criminal who destroyed other people's property and then claimed the system it supported was falling apart.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2012 6:06:06 PM

"So the taxpayers should be rooting for higher executive pay, because the more the executive is paid, the more in taxes he or she owes?"

--Only if the tax on Capital Gains over $100,000 is changed to be taxed on a bracket style similar to paychecks, rather than a straight 15%. 15% is the rate most CEO's pay for the majority of their pay since it is in the form of Stock Options rather than a paycheck which would be subject to bracket style tax rates of up to 35%.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,260
Points:1,958,655
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2012 5:58:35 PM

SS: "If you are a taxpayer, you have a stake in what a company pays its top executives."


So the taxpayers should be rooting for higher executive pay, because the more the executive is paid, the more in taxes he or she owes?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
GG060650
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:15,126
Points:1,569,620
Joined:Jan 2007
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2012 5:04:14 PM

Who is John Galt?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2012 4:56:35 PM

Anybody who owns stock in a company, or buys a product or service from that company, or works for that company, or is in an economy that is affected by that company has a stake in the balance sheet of that company, including what the company pays to its top executives.

If you are a taxpayer, you have a stake in what a company pays its top executives.

Here's one good reason.

The amount of tax the company owes the federal government (that would be the same government which is so in need of additional revenue) is dependent on how much they pay the CEO. In many cases (in American corporations that is) the amount of tax they pay the federal government is less than what they pay the CEO!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2012 11:41:35 AM

"...just because Mitt Romney pays at 15%..."

--What??? Did he INCREASE the amount he pays up from just 14%?
Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2012 6:35:12 PM

>>...why they don't share some of that with the people who actually did physical work to make it happen.<<

Who do you think built Paul Allen's yacht, "Octopus," other rich people? There's a great example of a rich person sharing his wealth with those who do physical labor.

>>Why else would anyone want so much money other than to try to take it with them when they go.<<

And that appears to explain why you blabber on endlessly, Stevie, because there are so many things that you just don't understand.

>>And these workers who earn a paycheck pay tax rates up to 35%,...<<

Can you give me an example of a "worker" that's paying at the 35% rate?

>>...a far greater percentage than the CEOs who get their earnings in the form of stock options ultimately taxed at just 15%.<<

Stevie, just because Mitt Romney pays at 15% doesn't mean that all CEOs pay at 15%. Either in this topic or another, you were schooled as to why you're wrong about the 15% tax rate on stock options but I see you've chosen to ignore your free education.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2012 4:34:34 PM


>>Ah, so foreign companies of similar size and profit in which the CEO is paid just 20 times the average workers pay should be considered in this when a comparable American company is deciding the pay for its CEO?<<

ZZZoop: "If the comparable American company board of directors wants to consider foreign company CEO pay in determining their CEOs compensation, that's OK with me. However, it's their call, not the general publics and not the government's."

--One would think with so many people so quick to defend the grossly overpaid American CEOs, the ones who turn out no more profit than their foreign counterparts yet are paid hundreds of times the average work pay and up to 25 times that of their equally performing foreign counterparts, that we have a forum FULL of American CEOs! Suspecting that is not the case this phenomenon is perplexing. Must be 'wannabe syndrome.' These are the ones who hope that they, too, will someday be vastly rich. They want to know that they will be able to pay not their fair share but a pittance of their taxes so they can keep the rest all for themselves.

I presume they intend to have a money-lined coffin in which to be buried. Why else would anyone want so much money other than to try to take it with them when they go.

Sadly that money comes out of the hands of real workers who actually crank our product and deliver services instead of simply dreaming up new schemes to hoard more. And these workers who earn a paycheck pay tax rates up to 35%, a far greater percentage than the CEOs who get their earnings in the form of stock options ultimately taxed at just 15%. So by keeping all this moolah for themselves they ensure that the federal debt remains high and the revenue that would pay it down remains low.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,260
Points:1,958,655
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 10:14:13 PM

SS: " I have to wonder why they don't share some of that with the people who actually did physical work to make it happen. "



If you really want an answer buy some shares and go the shareholders' meeting and ask the question, or send in your question to the investor relations department. At least that way as a part owner you will have some legitimate reason to ask the question and be entitled to a response; otherwise it's none of your business.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 10:00:14 PM

376 million. I have to wonder why they don't share some of that with the people who actually did physical work to make it happen.
Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 8:35:55 PM

>>Ah, so foreign companies of similar size and profit in which the CEO is paid just 20 times the average workers pay should be considered in this when a comparable American company is deciding the pay for its CEO?<<

If the comparable American company board of directors wants to consider foreign company CEO pay in determining their CEOs compensation, that's OK with me. However, it's their call, not the general publics and not the government's.

Stevie, I'm assuming from your ignorance of how CEO pay is set that you've never laid eyes on a 10-K or proxy statement from any large company? Give it a try. You'll be amazed at what you learn. However, I'm not holding my breath.

For extra credit, take a look at Apple's SEC filings. There you will learn that none other than Al Gore, Jr. sits on Apples' board of directors as well as Apple's compensation committee. That's right, Al Gore, Jr. and a couple of other directors along with a compensation consultant determine what Apples executives will make. Then it's put before the shareholders for a vote. And Apple's shareholders reliably vote for the recommended compensation packages. Why? Because it's a good value for shareholders.

What did Tim Cook, Apple CEO, make in 2010? A total compensation of just under $60 million, which just happens to be about how much Apple stock Al Gore, Jr. owns!

But that was 2010. What did Apple's shareholders vote for Tim Cook in 2011? A total compensation package worth in the neighborhood of $376 million.

So those are the kinds of compensation packages being supported by America's liberal darling, Al Gore, Jr.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 4:26:36 PM

"The point to be made is there's no connection between worker pay and executive pay. Each worker's pay is based on the value that that worker brings to the company and the prevailing wage in the labor market for a worker with that skill set."

--Ah, so foreign companies of similar size and profit in which the CEO is paid just 20 times the average workers pay should be considered in this when a comparable American company is deciding the pay for its CEO?

"I would suggest a rule that sets a proportion of executive pay vs average worker pay. If an exec wants to earn more all he has to do is figure out how to pay the workers more."

theTower: "Who are you and what gives you the right to impose your will on to a private company and how it operates?"

--Are you that against paying the workers of a company more when the company obviously has plenty of money to overpay the CEO? These would be the same workers without whom the CEO would make nothing? The same workers whose toil and efforts produces the profits which are so unevenly divided?

American CEOs are paid way more than what they are worth. They are paid what their system of collusion gives to them for scratching each others backs. Many sit on the boards of each others companies and decide each others pay packages. Do you really think they are going to cut one of their cohorts pay packages when the same people will be deciding their own pay? Get real.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 10/17/2012 4:26:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,783
Points:639,735
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 8:38:17 PM

"I would suggest a rule that sets a proportion of executive pay vs average worker pay. If an exec wants to earn more all he has to do is figure out how to pay the workers more."

Who are you and what gives you the right to impose your will on to a private company and how it operates?

"--Most people I know who started and grew a successful business had help from their families which looked the other way as the kids grew up without a Dad. Many marriages have been broken by people trying to start a business and realizing that the necessary commitment is far greater than they could have imagined. Unless you think a 15 year chunk out of your life is a good idea when you are trying to raise a family or have a life."

I think you are making that up to fit your weak argument. I don't believe you have any real data to support this.

Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 8:05:21 PM

>>--No. I did not. I said the 'average worker pay.' <<

As usual, Stevie, you get bogged down in the minutiae. It doesn't matter whether it's lowest paid worker or average paid worker. The point to be made is there's no connection between worker pay and executive pay. Each worker's pay is based on the value that that worker brings to the company and the prevailing wage in the labor market for a worker with that skill set.

Do you think that when Brian Cashman sits down to negotiate a contract with A-Rod or Jeter that he first checks what the guy cutting the grass in the outfield is being paid?

>>Do you feel so strongly that execs should be unrestrained in their greed that you are willing to give up some of your pay to support that? Because there is only so much pie.<<

See my previous post about the liberal misconception that pies only come in one size.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,655
Points:3,509,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 7:29:04 PM

SemiSteve chided: "Most people I know who started and grew a successful business had help from their families which looked the other way as the kids grew up without a Dad. Many marriages have been broken by people trying to start a business and realizing that the necessary commitment is far greater than they could have imagined. Unless you think a 15 year chunk out of your life is a good idea when you are trying to raise a family or have a life."

--Steve, that is a lifestyle choice that those folks made. It's not right, nor is it wrong. It simply "is". I resent that you are again making lifestyle judgements according to how YOU feel the world ought to be. Folks who are scratching to start a business are doing so, often, to better themselves or their families. And it's usually not completely "without a dad". Dad's still around. I have a pal, a professor at a university, who used to spend Saturdays and Sundays with his dad pulling wires through conduit (his dad was an electrician). He had to work weekends to pay for college for his kids. My friend said he spent plenty of quality time working with hid dad. Why not so at a family business? I have another friend who started a carpet cleaning business in order to get away from the 9 to 5 grind. He also wanted to teach his children a trade. My friend is a Christian minister and has an MBA and kept getting layed off from job after job. It was time to get his family a trade and something they could hold onto and call theirs.

And then there's your favorite whipping boy, medical doctors. People do that job, and have families. And while the job takes them away from family, they may still want to have families. So what? So while they are working their keysters off, the family gets to enjoy the $$ they drag in.

I resent your characterization as too broad a brushstroke, and an inaccurate one, at that. And as well, it sounds like you advocate NEVER starting a business, that one should work for someone else. That, or we all work for the government and everyone makes "the same". Ooops, that's right... we already tried that, and those countries managed to topple themselves through overspending.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 2:06:05 PM

MarkJames: "Workers are free to start their own business if they're unhappy with the differential in compensation."

--Most people I know who started and grew a successful business had help from their families which looked the other way as the kids grew up without a Dad. Many marriages have been broken by people trying to start a business and realizing that the necessary commitment is far greater than they could have imagined. Unless you think a 15 year chunk out of your life is a good idea when you are trying to raise a family or have a life.

"As Obama implied, the government, not business owners built their businesses, so let them build one for you... "

--As a plethora of business-friendly tax-cutting and tax-waving ALEC bills are passed around the country for the purpose of attracting business to their region, one has to wonder how the right can claim that government did not help them build their business. Everything from infrastructure to community colleges and trade schools to supply business with the building blocks and potential employees they need are poured into the effort to help build businesses. But, of course the CEO did it all by himself.

Just like Columbus sailed those three ships across the sea all by himself. He had no help to buy them or to rig and sail them. Right.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 11:20:20 AM

Me: "I'd still just like to see executive pay limited to a maximum proportion of average worker pay."

And:

>>Back when the US executive pay was 10-15 times the worker pay,...<<

ZZZoop: "You know, it wasn't that long ago that the Socialist Party USA had such a provision in their platform; i.e., the highest paid worker couldn't be paid more than 10 times the lowest paid worker."

Me: "Who said anything about the lowest paid worker?"

ZZZoop: "You did."

--No. I did not. I said the 'average worker pay.' You somehow get 'lowest' out of 'average,' and THEN claim that -I-said it. Go ahead. Go back and read what I said. Then read your reply again. You reacted to something I never said. You just made up something I didn't say and then commented on what you made up. Perhaps you don't even need me in this conversation at all. If you are going to make up both sides of it you can just have the entire conversation with yourself. But if that's what you want to do, please don't attribute any part of it to me.

And as for the comment about Jobs being limited to $600K. Absurd. First of all it was based on the COMPLETELY INCORRECT quote that I was referencing the lowest paid worker, which I never did. I didn't say nor agree that Jobs should've been limited to $600K either. I have not commented on how much the maximum exec compensation should be as a proportion of average worker pay. Do I think it should be just ten times? No. Should it be over 300 times? No. Somewhere in between. First we need to agree that exec pay is exorbitant and in need of limits. THEN we can talk about how much.

Now I wonder. Do you feel so strongly that execs should be unrestrained in their greed that you are willing to give up some of your pay to support that? Because there is only so much pie. And if you let them continue to slice off bigger and bigger slices for themselves that leaves less pie for the rest of us. Are you ready to have a smaller slice? Then let them keep strong-arming their way before you get yours.

Otherwise we need to draw the line somewhere.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,772
Points:47,160
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 9:57:17 AM

Workers are free to start their own business if they're unhappy with the differential in compensation.

As Obama implied, the government, not business owners built their businesses, so let them build one for you...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,260
Points:1,958,655
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:58:51 PM

SS: "The workers have their lives invested."


If the workers don't like what they are being paid they are free to quit anytime they want to, just like the shareholders are free to sell their shares anytime they want to if they don't like how the company is run. It's called freedom, and it works.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
PappaVanTwee
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:14,635
Points:715,110
Joined:Feb 2003
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 8:56:08 PM

>>>
Is the man largely responsible for growing the largest company on the planet worth only $600K/yr?
<<<

Some are saying the CEO of Sesame Workshop, a $132m per year company, shouldn't be worth almost $1m. I'm not one of them. And I'm not one who thinks Jobs only deserved $600k (although that would be a lot less if you count the people who make the devices in China).
Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 6:47:33 PM

>>Who said anything about the lowest paid worker?<<

You did.

>>And a lot of good all that money did Jobs.<<

What good that money did for Jobs is between Jobs, his family, and his employer.

>>He's dead.<<

The torrent of insight continues.

>>Perhaps he worked so hard that he worked himself into an early grave.<<

He worked as he chose to work and accomplished more in 56 years than most could ever hope to accomplish.

Why does freedom so annoy liberals?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 6:03:46 PM

Who said anything about the lowest paid worker?

And a lot of good all that money did Jobs.

He's dead.

Perhaps he worked so hard that he worked himself into an early grave.
Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 5:57:53 PM

>>Back when the US executive pay was 10-15 times the worker pay,...<<

You know, it wasn't that long ago that the Socialist Party USA had such a provision in their platform; i.e., the highest paid worker couldn't be paid more than 10 times the lowest paid worker. Isn't it wonderful in socialist utopia where the ratio of value between top and bottom never changes?

>>Nobody is worth that much.<<

How much was Steve Jobs worth? Given your "formula," if the lowest paid Apple worker was paid $40,000/yr, Jobs would have been limited to an annual compensation of $600K. Is the man largely responsible for growing the largest company on the planet worth only $600K/yr?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 3:42:08 PM

Thanks, Edpap, for speaking up about this topic.

I was initially draw to your idea and could still be convinced it was the best approach. Perhaps if the proceeds were designated to be put towards the federal debt and not to be used for any other purpose.

Although I'd still just like to see executive pay limited to a maximum proportion of average worker pay. And that could vary depending on the size of the company and the nature of the business.

What the punishment would be for violation is another matter. I would like to see it be something so disagreeable that no company would choose that option. If it boils down to dollars and cents, most companies would simply look at which ever option cost them the least. I would want to make certain that the option they choose is the one we are trying to make happen - they simply pay their workers more. Let worker pay be increased until the agreed proportion is reached.

Back when the US executive pay was 10-15 times the worker pay, as it is in most foreign nations, it seemed fair enough. But now it is just absurd with some execs making 400-500 times the worker pay. Talk about overkill. Pure greed. Nobody is worth that much.

And it undermines our economy. The lust over really big pay is driving execs to do whatever it takes to show results. 'Whatever it takes' means treating people like rented machinery. Found a better machine? Get rid of the old one. Lives, families, communities, nation, economy, values, morals are not given consideration. Get the results, get a big yacht, get waited on, have a personal plane, you're above the common folk now, get the big ego, be a snob.

We don't need to be encouraging any more of this in our nation. Enough already. It is really hurting us.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,533
Points:3,069,120
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 7:21:33 PM

"I would suggest a rule that sets a proportion of executive pay vs average worker pay. If an exec wants to earn more all he has to do is figure out how to pay the workers more."

That would be a nice rule, even if it were established as an ethical rule, instead of a legal obligation. The disparity in pay has spiraled out of control and there doesn't seem to be a reasonable mechanism for restoring rationality to the system.
Profile Pic
Edpap
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:7,778
Points:1,134,825
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 12:24:25 PM

Steve, this is the first time I believe I actually agree with you...on anything.
Some of the pay for CEO and their boards is so out of whack that it is just plain ridiculous. Maybe we need to add a tax penalty to corporations that exceed a certain % of gross income for executive pay....start by making it non-tax deductible and subject to a personal fixed rate Federal Tax of at least 50% with no deductions permitted for these "bonus" salary amounts.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,655
Points:3,509,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 12:00:42 PM

sgm4law said: "Most of the votes of shareholders are made by institutional investors, who may not have the same voting sentiments as individual investors would. It sounds good to say that the shareholders have the real control over the company, but we all know it doesn't really work that way."

--That depends on who owns the company, but your point is well taken. That said, the way most companies are set up, it's not "one person, one vote", it's one vote per share controlled. And it often only takes 8 -15% of shares held to get a seat on the board. And that "one vote per share owned" has been considered "fair" for a long time. And why not? If I own 1000 shares of a company, and you own 10 shares, I have 100X as much of my capital invested as you do, therefore I ought to have more of a say in how the company is run. That just makes sense.

Oh, and related to that, look at the automakers and their unions. In the latest rounds of bankruptcy, the unions were compelled to actually "buy in" to the automakers. That strikes me as only sensible. If the unions (through their pension funds) owned, say 10% of the company, they'd be on the board of directors to fight for their own interest and they'd also have (as Obama put it) "some skin in the game." The unions would have privy to the financials, and be able to determine in a fair fashion what good the union was doing the company and how much in pay/benefits they could negotiate for.


[Edited by: AC-302 at 10/12/2012 12:04:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 11:59:02 AM

Well it doesn't look like they are going to fix it by themselves so maybe we will have to.

I would suggest a rule that sets a proportion of executive pay vs average worker pay. If an exec wants to earn more all he has to do is figure out how to pay the workers more.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 11:46:19 AM

Like your other topic...who is going to decide how much a CEO is to receive?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 11:43:40 AM

Overpaid.

End of story.

The sit on each other's boards and they play leap-frog with each other's salaries using up money that could be used to pay the workers who generated the money more of what THEY are worth.

Workers put their life's toil into a company and get insulting small increases if any despite constantly being pushed to become more productive, which they do.

Some exec comes along from out of nowhere, hits the lucky button, and all of a sudden he is being paid enough to hire 200 more workers, or to pay the ones they have a rate that reflects their contribution to the company.

There is a reason why in our economy we have more and more job-seekers chasing after fewer and fewer positions. We have more and more citizens chasing after a fixed number of dollars in our economy and the proportion of dollars available to be chased is less and less as a bigger chunk of it goes to the 1%.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,533
Points:3,069,120
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 9:02:09 AM

"If the shareholders want to pay their CEO 10,000 times what the lowest paid worker makes, that's entirely their business because it's their money that the CEO is being paid with. End of story."

Most of the votes of shareholders are made by institutional investors, who may not have the same voting sentiments as individual investors would. It sounds good to say that the shareholders have the real control over the company, but we all know it doesn't really work that way.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 6:43:38 AM

More socialist bunk from the far left I see.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,783
Points:639,735
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2012 6:40:05 AM

"to vote against their own better interest and in favor of the super-rich."

Thats hysterical.
Own better interest huh.
Accordiong to whom?
You and your beliefs and values?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,655
Points:3,509,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 7:17:16 PM

SemiSteve - often these are performance based incentives. The CEO of my company was, for a time, one of the highest paid CEOs in California. It's not that his salary was high, but he had a performance bonus based on the stock price, how the business grew (in terms of revenue and companies integrated) and profitability.

And say what you will - if the board of directors of a private company approves this, than that is on them. But if the board is not representing shareholder interests, then that is also on them, and Sarbanes-Oaxley will catch up to them and they'll get thrown in the hoosegow. It seems you are suggesting "regulation" of pay in some form. But don't you think the SOX act is enough regulation?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,849
Points:458,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 12:01:20 PM

Shareholders have some money invested.

The workers have their lives invested.

But we know that, to the greedy, money is more important than life. That's how they justify allowing the shareholders to vote on CEO pay (if they even do) and not the employees.

But, of course, shareholders are also subject to the intense and expensive PR campaigns designed to get people to have pity on the poor 1% and to get the 99% to vote against their own better interest and in favor of the super-rich. They do this with pure baloney such as calling the ones who destroy jobs 'job-creators'; as if they are some kind of deity.

So many of the shareholders buy the propaganda feed, hook line and sinker. They think the American CEOs are WORTH these fantastic and exorbitant pay figures. They think nobody could POSSIBLY do as good a job for a fraction of the wealth.

But the problem with that belief is that foreign companies are every bit as profitable as American ones and their CEO's are paid FAR LESS. Unless you think Toyota hasn't sold any cars or SONY hasn't sold any electronic products. And imagine that. Those are both Japanese companies where the average CEO is paid just 10 times the workers pay.

Ya have to ask yourself:

How on Earth do they possibly get good corporate management while paying their CEOs so little?
Profile Pic
ZZZoop
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,965
Points:3,808,525
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 8:23:45 PM

>>And if we elect Romney it is only going to grow faster.<<

Except that nothing in either linked article reaches such a conclusion. And nothing in the OP explains why electing Romney would increase CEO pay or why reelecting Obama would reduce CEO pay.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,260
Points:1,958,655
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 8:14:45 PM

If the shareholders want to pay their CEO 10,000 times what the lowest paid worker makes, that's entirely their business because it's their money that the CEO is being paid with. End of story.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,533
Points:3,069,120
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 8:11:19 PM

In a word, collusion.
Post a reply Back to Topics