CEO Pay jumps 36%

[mjbrox]

So, this is a conflict for me. I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff.

I also believe that companies should be able to pay their CEOs what ever they want, but there seems to be something fundementaly wrong when their pay jumps this much

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

I dont get it. Why is this happening?
Can it be fixed?
should it be fixed?

 

[brushogger]

So, this is a conflict for me. I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff.

I also believe that companies should be able to pay their CEOs what ever they want, but there seems to be something fundementaly wrong when their pay jumps this much

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

I dont get it. Why is this happening?
Can it be fixed?
should it be fixed?

The bsst way for it to be handled is for the stockholders to get together and vote the board members who are on the compensation commitee out. The stockholders are the owners, and if they're not happy with their returns or how much the CEO makes give them the boot. It's the stockholders money and votes to do with as they wish.

 

[Blue]

So, this is a conflict for me. I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff.

I also believe that companies should be able to pay their CEOs what ever they want, but there seems to be something fundementaly wrong when their pay jumps this much

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

I dont get it. Why is this happening?
Can it be fixed?
should it be fixed?

Fixed? Is something broken?

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Assuming that you aren't a shareholder of a company, why should it matter to you what the CEO gets paid?

I love it when someone says something like this: "I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff." What you really meant was: "The idea of a free market is cool as long as someone doesn't make more money than what I think they should be paid."

You are just buying into the class warfare bullshit being spewed by the antagonizer in chief Barack Obama. Did you notice how he backed off the extra taxes for the filthy rich? Shit, this is the second time he's done it. That guy won't raise taxes on the rich. Too many of his campaign contributors are rich.

 

[ptschram]

You are just buying into the class warfare bullshit being spewed by the antagonizer in chief Barack Obama. Did you notice how he backed off the extra taxes for the filthy rich? Shit, this is the second time he's done it. That guy won't raise taxes on the rich. Too many of his campaign contributors are rich.

Let's not forget that the vast majority of those in Congress and the Senate are all millionaires-they weren't when they first got elected, by and large.

Yeah, right, raising THEIR taxes will go over about as well as limiting their retirement that they are vested in very quickly.

 

[leeawalden]

How do yall feel about salary caps on professional athletes?

 

[JohnB]

As long as they are not government employees it is none of our business. If you don't like it then don't buy what there company sells.

 

[evoasis]

exactly what JohnB is saying.. The thing is, what really sucks is it falls on the taxpayers when these companies fail because of their CEO salaries and business as usual crap.. 100,000 people will be fired before a company changes it's marketing strategy and lowers its CEO's pay.

 

[JohnB]

Assuming that you aren't a shareholder of a company, why should it matter to you what the CEO gets paid?

I love it when someone says something like this: "I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff." What you really meant was: "The idea of a free market is cool as long as someone doesn't make more money than what I think they should be paid."

You are just buying into the class warfare bullshit being spewed by the antagonizer in chief Barack Obama. Did you notice how he backed off the extra taxes for the filthy rich? Shit, this is the second time he's done it. That guy won't raise taxes on the rich. Too many of his campaign contributors are rich.

Yes he is a wimp we all know. What he really did was do what he had to do so that all the folks who are still getting unemplyment and the middle class can take home a few extra dollars everyweek, at least for another 2 months.

He may as you say never touch the rich. You do have to remember that Obama did get alot of $5-$10 donations for his first election. Now whether those dollars are still going his way I can't say.

 

[kennith]

How do yall feel about salary caps on professional athletes?

If I was a professional athlete, I wouldn't want one, and I'd be after every single penny I could squeeze out of the sport.

I'm not a professional athlete, though, so I don't care.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Jake1996D1]

So, this is a conflict for me. I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff.

I also believe that companies should be able to pay their CEOs what ever they want, but there seems to be something fundementaly wrong when their pay jumps this much

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

I dont get it. Why is this happening?
Can it be fixed?
should it be fixed?

I have a solution. Why dont you go and take his job, and then tell the company you dont want the extra money. Guess what, it's been happening for years and will most likely continue for years.

I think it's all a bunch of bull shit honestly. Stop worrying about what other people make and start worrying about what you make. If you're not happy about it actually do something about it.

If this turns into another "our economy is in the shitter" thread I am going to freak out.

 

[Jake1996D1]

Assuming that you aren't a shareholder of a company, why should it matter to you what the CEO gets paid?

I love it when someone says something like this: "I believe in Free markets and all that good stuff." What you really meant was: "The idea of a free market is cool as long as someone doesn't make more money than what I think they should be paid."

You are just buying into the class warfare bullshit being spewed by the antagonizer in chief Barack Obama. Did you notice how he backed off the extra taxes for the filthy rich? Shit, this is the second time he's done it. That guy won't raise taxes on the rich. Too many of his campaign contributors are rich.

YES YES AND YES!!!! Obama has acomplished so much in his term!

 

[ptschram]

Yes he is a wimp we all know. What he really did was do what he had to do so that all the folks who are still getting unemplyment and the middle class can take home a few extra dollars everyweek, at least for another 2 months.

He may as you say never touch the rich. You do have to remember that Obama did get alot of $5-$10 donations for his first election. Now whether those dollars are still going his way I can't say.

All of which reminds me of my junkie friend who would go out and rent a shotgun to commit a robbery to buy cocaine with it.

It was fine that evening and MAYBE the next day, but what was he going to do the next day and the day after.

These silly "tax cuts" do nothing but put a VERY few dollars into the pockets of those who are in the lower middle to lower strata of our economy who will merely wait for the next handout. And, guess who these folks will likely vote for?

Worse yet, our politicians are pandering to these folks as THEY are the ones benefiting from the sleight of hand.

These mis-guided politics are making crack whores out of all of us looking for .gov to give us just enough to keep thinking "good times" are just around the bend, if we tighten our belts and give up a little more now, Wooee will times be good next week-just like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck, Donald gets to open "next week's show, but it's always this week!

The only question i can think of is-do I spin this into ;lyrics for a C&W song, or Blues!

 

[bmohan55]

Hope this isn't a repost as i forgot where I got this from but here is a good explaination on why overtaxing the "rich" isn't always a good thing:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics



Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten

comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it

would go something like this:



The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the

arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are

all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your

daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the

first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they

divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted

that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would

each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's

bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the

amounts each should pay.



And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued

to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to

compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed

to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,

too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!'

shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only

two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get

anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat

down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,

they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money

between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is

how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the

most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for

being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they

might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat

friendlier.



David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

University of Georgia



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.fficeffice" /><O></O>[/font]

 

[mjbrox]

It does not bother me that CEOs make a whole lot more than the average worker. What bothers me is how CEO pay has skyrocketed over the years, and the average worker’s pay has stagnated. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o> </o>
Does this not seem fundamentally wrong to anyone? <o></o>
<o> </o>
As that pay goes up, their power and influence goes up with it. With that power and influence they are able to buy more power and influence. <o></o>
<o> </o>
Seriously, none of you think there is something wrong here? It all seems absolutely perfect? <o></o>

 

[antichrist]

What's worse, to me, is the layoffs of people to keep the bottom line looking good for shareholders, regardless of the actual costs to the company.
The company I worked for moved a lot of jobs to India for "cost savings" which resulted US layoffs, not to mention some very significant production failures.
I designed an automated process that not only significantly increased productivity for the division I was in, but also saved the company several million dollars over the past few years (far in excess of my total compensation), yet I was laid off as part of a "cost reduction". After being called in while on vacation to do a job no one else could (and no, I didn't fuck it up LOL).

 

[brushogger]

My only issue with this involves all the companies that were bailed out, and were allowed to keep the same management that ran them into the ground in the first place. If the government would have stayed out of it and let those companies (and CEO's) fail, the assets would be sold to companies that were in a good situation to buy them. Let those who caused it bear the shame of killing a once great company. Not get to be seen as a hero for turning it around when it was the gov't bailed them out. This is painful in the short term, but much better in the long run, plus the taxpayers don't end up on the hook for the debt. The concept of "Too big to fail" is flawed and should be abandoned. Let the assets go from the inept into the hands of the capable.

 

[mjbrox]

My only issue with this involves all the companies that were bailed out, and were allowed to keep the same management that ran them into the ground in the first place. If the government would have stayed out of it and let those companies (and CEO's) fail, the assets would be sold to companies that were in a good situation to buy them. Let those who caused it bear the shame of killing a once great company. Not get to be seen as a hero for turning it around when it was the gov't bailed them out. This is painful in the short term, but much better in the long run, plus the taxpayers don't end up on the hook for the debt. The concept of "Too big to fail" is flawed and should be abandoned. Let the assets go from the inept into the hands of the capable.

I agree 100%

 

[sideview]

I believe in free markets, if only we actually had them.

 

[RonL]

Where do you think the extra 36% come from?
They take it from the the workers. If the CEO is paid $1,000,000, his raise is $360,000 dollars.
That $360,000 would be better spend by giving the 180 workers($40,000 salary) a 5% raise. They would spend it and help the economy.

CEO don't make the company money, the workers done.