Dmac is right.

We should increase minimum wage by 350% to $2625/hr (minus differences in taxes and risks). After equivalents, minimum wage would be $750/hr and we'd be one happy Communist Country

That would make the world right again... for these Neo-Coms to finally understand what they advocate for.

(10-27-2013 11:23 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let me ask you this: Is $40 million a year better better used by the CEO personally, or by the corporation?

Depends on the CEO. If he can put another $100 million on the bottom line, then paying him that $40 million is probably the corporation's best use of the money. If he can't, maybe not.
I think corporate executive salaries need some adjustment, but not because they are obscene. My issues are 1) too many supposed incentive bonuses end up getting paid whether the target was achieved or not, and 2) too much is tied up in short-term rather than long-term metrics.

In my mind, there are a lot of ways a corporation could use money more efficiently than a single person investing it. If they an increased salary leads to diminishing returns, why give extra money to that guy?

Are you thinking that those comments are responsive to the points I was making?

I'm not trying to argue with you, so no.

OK, well why is this "obscene"? And what would be "not obscene"?

(10-27-2013 09:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2it1XT9a6

Quote:The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range.

Quote:Congress thinks that corporate disclosures also can serve a social purpose. Why saddle the SEC with the job of overseeing these rules? It's because the SEC is the only agency with the legal power to mandate corporate disclosures; Congress is simply putting this preexisting authority to use. Nor is this the first time that's happened. As far back as the 1970s, the SEC was ordered to force companies to make environmental disclosures.

Quote:... "requiring companies to post potentially embarrassing information … can be a very powerful motivator to change corporate behavior.... There is a significant risk that people will keep pushing for it."

Quote:For one thing, the second figure should underscore that a board that pays an incoming CEO that much may be out to lunch. Smart investors try to find out everything they can about a company, so what's the argument for leaving this nugget out?

You, of course, are talking about CEO of a large, big city, public, multinational corporation. The gap for a CEO and worker of a small LLC-type, which accounts for something like 85% of employers, is not nearly that large, maybe 5-1 or 10-1 at most.

Envy is not very becoming.

What if the CEO of the company has two degrees and 20 years of industry experience (15+ in management)? What if the CEO has a background that can be used as justification for his salary?

The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

(10-28-2013 08:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

Why does it matter? The average American doesn't care. I would agree there is a huge disparity but they're in a position that commands more value. People often confuse hard work with value. Now, that being said they're likely not all worth what they're being paid but for people to argue that wealth needs to be spread around makes my blood boil. How about people make themselves more valuable of a commodity in the labor force as opposed to demanding more for their undesirable or less valuable skill set.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-28-2013 10:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

Why does it matter? The average American doesn't care. I would agree there is a huge disparity but they're in a position that commands more value. People often confuse hard work with value. Now, that being said they're likely not all worth what they're being paid but for people to argue that wealth needs to be spread around makes my blood boil. How about people make themselves more valuable of a commodity in the labor force as opposed to demanding more for their undesirable or less valuable skill set.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

The issue isn't wether or not they command more value but how much more.

I make more than my secretary because I have more responsibility. I also make more because I'm the one with the skill set.

The issue is different with corporate officer pay. Sure, they have more responsibility. However, are they the heart and soul of the company as a lawyer is in a practice or a doctor or a business owner? I'd say they are a cog in a machine to a greater degree and as such don't actually command a salary several thousand times higher than their secretary.

(10-28-2013 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

Why does it matter? The average American doesn't care. I would agree there is a huge disparity but they're in a position that commands more value. People often confuse hard work with value. Now, that being said they're likely not all worth what they're being paid but for people to argue that wealth needs to be spread around makes my blood boil. How about people make themselves more valuable of a commodity in the labor force as opposed to demanding more for their undesirable or less valuable skill set.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

The issue isn't wether or not they command more value but how much more.

I make more than my secretary because I have more responsibility. I also make more because I'm the one with the skill set.

The issue is different with corporate officer pay. Sure, they have more responsibility. However, are they the heart and soul of the company as a lawyer is in a practice or a doctor or a business owner? I'd say they are a cog in a machine to a greater degree and as such don't actually command a salary several thousand times higher than their secretary.

The overreaching question is still what difference does it make?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-28-2013 10:25 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

Why does it matter? The average American doesn't care. I would agree there is a huge disparity but they're in a position that commands more value. People often confuse hard work with value. Now, that being said they're likely not all worth what they're being paid but for people to argue that wealth needs to be spread around makes my blood boil. How about people make themselves more valuable of a commodity in the labor force as opposed to demanding more for their undesirable or less valuable skill set.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

The issue isn't wether or not they command more value but how much more.

I make more than my secretary because I have more responsibility. I also make more because I'm the one with the skill set.

The issue is different with corporate officer pay. Sure, they have more responsibility. However, are they the heart and soul of the company as a lawyer is in a practice or a doctor or a business owner? I'd say they are a cog in a machine to a greater degree and as such don't actually command a salary several thousand times higher than their secretary.

The overreaching question is still what difference does it make?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

A corporation has to find those millions to pay them. They find them by short hanging you, the consumer, denying coverage, jacking up prices, the works.

(10-28-2013 07:40 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Dmac is right.

We should increase minimum wage by 350% to $2625/hr (minus differences in taxes and risks). After equivalents, minimum wage would be $750/hr and we'd be one happy Communist Country

That would make the world right again... for these Neo-Coms to finally understand what they advocate for.

No one should have to flip hamburgers for less than $3,000/hour.
P.S.-
Wouldn't your percentage be more like 3500%?

(10-27-2013 10:34 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The point is that this is a case where a little bit of awareness could spur social change

Social change? Businesses aren't primarily worried about Social change. Good grief... why do we go through this argument every so often.

Go create your own business, make billions of dollars by doing so successfully, and then earn those millions of dollars in pay and stock options. And if you want to give away your income to your workers, go right ahead...

I think that's the point. It'd be a desirable outcome if more CEO's wanted to do this. There are more reasons to support this than just ethics.

Mao would be so proud.

Go make your own money. How does what any other single person on God's green earth affect what you are "allowed" to make?

Now, your own shortcomings?, they may play a direct part, but not someone elses successes.

Another ruse from the occupy stupid street cabal, bring about this "social change" so we're all worse off.

Spread the Misery, vote Jimma in '16!

Saying CEOs are overpaid when they make thousands of times more than other workers in their companies is not the same thing as being a socialist or a communist.

Would it anger you to know that particular CEOs make millions while their corporations use public welfare systems to supplement their pay structures? To break that down, the CEO gets paid millions to rip off and abuse the use of your tax dollars. Does that colour this conversation a little differently?

CEOs should get paid a sh!t ton more than the worker bees. A CEO can usually do a lower level job; however, no way the average worker bee can perfom a CEO's duties.

Having said that, I absolutely hate so called "golden parachutes" or paying some failed CEO millions just to go away. That is asinine, IMO.

(10-28-2013 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Saying CEOs are overpaid when they make thousands of times more than other workers in their companies is not the same thing as being a socialist or a communist.

Would it anger you to know that particular CEOs make millions while their corporations use public welfare systems to supplement their pay structures? To break that down, the CEO gets paid millions to rip off and abuse the use of your tax dollars. Does that colour this conversation a little differently?

Indeed. You are still most certainly welcome to say whatever you would like.

Anger me? Uhhhh, no. Except perhaps at the legislative buffoons that would allow such a structure or an Executive branch either incapable or unwilling to prosecute in the instances of such easily identifiable fraud and abuse...

Jon Corzine, I'm looking at YOU!

(10-28-2013 12:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Saying CEOs are overpaid when they make thousands of times more than other workers in their companies is not the same thing as being a socialist or a communist.

Would it anger you to know that particular CEOs make millions while their corporations use public welfare systems to supplement their pay structures? To break that down, the CEO gets paid millions to rip off and abuse the use of your tax dollars. Does that colour this conversation a little differently?

Indeed. You are still most certainly welcome to say whatever you would like.

Anger me? Uhhhh, no. Except perhaps at the legislative buffoons that would allow such a structure or an Executive branch either incapable or unwilling to prosecute in the instances of such easily identifiable fraud and abuse...

Jon Corzine, I'm looking at YOU!

Prosecute? You'd have to break a law.

Underpaying people and having the government subsidize their dinner table will make a man millions.

That's greed. That's what massive CEO pay rewards.

(10-28-2013 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Saying CEOs are overpaid when they make thousands of times more than other workers in their companies is not the same thing as being a socialist or a communist.

Would it anger you to know that particular CEOs make millions while their corporations use public welfare systems to supplement their pay structures? To break that down, the CEO gets paid millions to rip off and abuse the use of your tax dollars. Does that colour this conversation a little differently?

Indeed. You are still most certainly welcome to say whatever you would like.

Anger me? Uhhhh, no. Except perhaps at the legislative buffoons that would allow such a structure or an Executive branch either incapable or unwilling to prosecute in the instances of such easily identifiable fraud and abuse...

Jon Corzine, I'm looking at YOU!

Prosecute? You'd have to break a law.

Underpaying people and having the government subsidize their dinner table will make a man millions.

That's greed. That's what massive CEO pay rewards.

Is "rip off" not akin to breaking a law in your book? It is in mine, least it was.

Who's underpaid? Go find another job elsewhere, people been doing that since the creation of man.

Greed is good. Keeps a person young and hungry. Kinda like starvation on the other end I guess. I'd prefer greed.

At least he'll spend that money. You know, spread the wealth the old fashioned way- buy a yacht.

(10-27-2013 09:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range.

If you look at the charts in those links of when those options (that make this so egregious) were granted, you'll see that they really started taking off in the early 90's.

What happened in the early 90's?

Bill Clinton raised the top marginal income tax rate from 28% to 40 and lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20. He then used the ensuing mass number of "roll-ups" where 2 or 6 CEOs were replaced by one (at an obviously much higher income than before, but still less than the sum of the 6 he replaced) to fuel an economic expansion.... because those CEOs wanted stock options and to grow their company which would be taxed at 20%... not "income" which would be taxed at 39.6.

(10-28-2013 10:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:25 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:23 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The greater point is that at a point pay for a leader is no longer proportional to their value in the mechanism that is the company.

To add to some frustration, the market rate is set by the very same people getting paid; its an interesting, if not unjust, system.

Why does it matter? The average American doesn't care. I would agree there is a huge disparity but they're in a position that commands more value. People often confuse hard work with value. Now, that being said they're likely not all worth what they're being paid but for people to argue that wealth needs to be spread around makes my blood boil. How about people make themselves more valuable of a commodity in the labor force as opposed to demanding more for their undesirable or less valuable skill set.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

The issue isn't wether or not they command more value but how much more.

I make more than my secretary because I have more responsibility. I also make more because I'm the one with the skill set.

The issue is different with corporate officer pay. Sure, they have more responsibility. However, are they the heart and soul of the company as a lawyer is in a practice or a doctor or a business owner? I'd say they are a cog in a machine to a greater degree and as such don't actually command a salary several thousand times higher than their secretary.

The overreaching question is still what difference does it make?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

A corporation has to find those millions to pay them. They find them by short hanging you, the consumer, denying coverage, jacking up prices, the works.

True, but I still have the option to leave or shop elsewhere and if you spread hundreds of millions of dollars around GE what difference would it make. Maybe a few cents less per light bulb?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-28-2013 12:25 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Saying CEOs are overpaid when they make thousands of times more than other workers in their companies is not the same thing as being a socialist or a communist.

Would it anger you to know that particular CEOs make millions while their corporations use public welfare systems to supplement their pay structures? To break that down, the CEO gets paid millions to rip off and abuse the use of your tax dollars. Does that colour this conversation a little differently?

Indeed. You are still most certainly welcome to say whatever you would like.

Anger me? Uhhhh, no. Except perhaps at the legislative buffoons that would allow such a structure or an Executive branch either incapable or unwilling to prosecute in the instances of such easily identifiable fraud and abuse...

Jon Corzine, I'm looking at YOU!

Prosecute? You'd have to break a law.

Underpaying people and having the government subsidize their dinner table will make a man millions.

That's greed. That's what massive CEO pay rewards.

Is "rip off" not akin to breaking a law in your book? It is in mine, least it was.

Who's underpaid? Go find another job elsewhere, people been doing that since the creation of man.

Greed is good. Keeps a person young and hungry. Kinda like starvation on the other end I guess. I'd prefer greed.

At least he'll spend that money. You know, spread the wealth the old fashioned way- buy a yacht.

That doesn't solve the problem. If every Wal Mart employee quit and went looking for a job, 5% of them would find a job, and it would likely be just as sh!tty. Wal Mart doesn't care if they should treat employees better, they're all replaceable.