Average CEO now makes $10.7 million

[shesulsa]

By Reuters

Chief executives at many of the biggest U.S. companies got an average 5% raise last year to $10.7 million, and more corporate boards concluded that pay for performance is the way to go in the executive suite.

In a survey of 50 large U.S. companies, restricted stock and other performance-based incentives constituted 41% of long-term CEO compensation, up from 18% in 2003. The percentage was the highest since 1994.

Stock options, meanwhile, constituted 59% of long-term awards, down from 82%, according to the survey released Thursday by Pearl Meyer & Partners, a New York-based pay consultant. Long-term awards, which exclude salaries and bonuses, accounted for about 63% of total compensation.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P110043.asp?GT1=6110

 

[kenpo tiger]

We are SO in the wrong business.

 

[Ray]

We are SO in the wrong business.

Yikes, it's more like we're on the wrong level of the business we're in.

 

[Makalakumu]

Think about the incredible gap there is between CEOs and other workers. Do they deserve that kind of compensation? Why are they so much more important? Thirty years ago, people didn't feel like they were so much more important. The gap was much much less.

 

[Flatlander]

I'd say the CEO of a profitable company is more entitled to this level of compensation than a professional sports player.

 

[MissTwisties]

Who makes a successful company? THE EMPLOYEES. No employees, no successful business. The CEO of a company is surely important because of decisions making, supervising, controling, etc. but I don't think the CEO should be paid millions of dollars a year, and the employees paid at normal salary level, when they work hard also, after all, to make that company what it is.

And sport players getting MILLIONS to play a sport? Don't even get me started on that one! While millions of people are starving and living in misery, they live in luxury, decadence, for playing a sport for christ sake. Do they save lifes like doctors do? Nope. Are they smart enough or have the education to find a cure for cancer? Nope. (or very few of them...) Many people have jobs that help people, they save lifes everyday, they do something concrete. They don't get paid millions of dollars. Sport players do nothing more than just entertained people, by just having fun on a field. I don't believe it justify them having a 5 car garage, a mantion, maids, clothes and shoes to dress a whole village and so on. Makes me sick. Money should be used to have everyone eat 3 meals a day, have a roof over their head, and be comfortable. I think this world is so screwed up, you have the poor, and you have the rich.

Think about the incredible gap there is between CEOs and other workers. Do they deserve that kind of compensation? Why are they so much more important? Thirty years ago, people didn't feel like they were so much more important. The gap was much much less.

 

[Flatlander]

Who makes a successful company? THE EMPLOYEES. No employees, no successful business. The CEO of a company is surely important because of decisions making, supervising, controling, etc. but I don't think the CEO should be paid millions of dollars a year, and the employees paid at normal salary level, when they work hard also, after all, to make that company what it is.

IMO, employees are a dime a dozen. A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.

Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money. Mind you, I'm no CEO.

 

[Makalakumu]

IMO, employees are a dime a dozen. A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.

Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money. Mind you, I'm no CEO.

I can't imagine that, in a day with the proliferation of higher education, competition would drive salaries up that high. People should get paid appropriately for what they do, but is 400 times the amount of the average worker appropriate? 30 years ago, the figure was 40 times. Some would even say that is excessive...

 

[Kreth]

And sport players getting MILLIONS to play a sport? Don't even get me started on that one! While millions of people are starving and living in misery, they live in luxury, decadence, for playing a sport for christ sake.

I agree completely. I gave up watching baseball after the last major strike. I know there were other issues regarding player compensation vs. owner compensation, but it irks me when a group of coddled athletes whines about not making enough money, when they're getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to play a game.
In contrast, we have teachers who are struggling to pay bills. If not for the teachers, we wouldn't have doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc...

Jeff

 

[Flatlander]

I can't imagine that, in a day with the proliferation of higher education, competition would drive salaries up that high. People should get paid appropriately for what they do, but is 400 times the amount of the average worker appropriate? 30 years ago, the figure was 40 times. Some would even say that is excessive...

True, but in the past thirty years, there has been one significant change which has changed the entire marketplace. Globalization. Because of the commoditization of nearly everything as a result of ever changing and dynamic global markets, its no longer about national company A competing against national company B. Now its all about who is going to take the biggest slice of the global pie. There can only be one winner; everyone else is going to be runner up, and investors are rewarded accordingly. The leader of that global champion will be worth a pretty penny.

 

[MissTwisties]

Have you ever watched "Crib" or something like that, I believe it plays on MTV? Stars showing off their houses, cars, collections of whatever, etc. etc.? I just want to vomit when I see that show...lol I've seen one of the basketball player, showing off his huge house, and he had a huge underground basketball court in his basement!! I couldn't believe it! I believe it was on the lower level of his basement (the basement had two levels...). That is crazy...just crazy. Some of those people's bedroom is once/twice/three times the size of my house! :whip:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

IMO, employees are a dime a dozen. A good CEO with a track record of profitability and success is a rare find, and deserving of elite compensation.

Of course 10 million dollars is an unimaginable sum of money. Mind you, I'm no CEO.

Well, I think one of the problems is that CEOs seem to be making a hefty chunk of change (so to speak) - even when companies go into decline/lay off hundreds or thousands of workers, move the company overseas, etc. If only successful CEOs who created good working environments and profitable companies got this much money, that would be one thing. But all the "golden parachutes" make me ill.

 

[Flatlander]

If only successful CEOs who created good working environments and profitable companies got this much money, that would be one thing. But all the "golden parachutes" make me ill.

Yes, that's certainly a major difficulty. Hopefully, with financial reporting transparency, coupled with an honest and rigorous regulatory environment, shareholders will begin to reward the companies who do well, and punish those who take advantage. When stock prices decline, boards make changes.

 

[Phoenix44]

I fail to understand why a CEO who makes $10 million per year refuses to raise the minimum wage above $5.15. If the greedy SOB dropped his salary to "only" $9 million per year, he could raise the wages of nearly a million workers to $6.00/hr--still not a living wage.

I'd suggest you all read "Fast Food Nation."

 

[stephen]

I
I'd suggest you all read "Fast Food Nation."

I'd suggest you all learn some Economics...

/steve

 

[Rynocerous]

This is the reason why I'm back to school...


Rynocerous,

 

[Gray Phoenix]

SO WHAT??!!! Basic economics my friends. A person is worth however much someone else is willing to pay them. Corporations are not individuals. They are companies with many partners. That CEO must answer to a Board of Directors. That Board must answer to the Shareholders who exercise their control by voting not only with a ballot but with their ability to SELL the stock. Thus pushing down the price, reflecting poorly on the CEO and his pay. Yes, some CEO's can negotiate great packages, but they have no more ability than workers unions do.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'd suggest you all learn some Economics...

/steve

We are talking about both economics, AND politics/social structure. How does "learning economics" equate to CEOs necessarily making millions - even when, oh, say, the State of California is being ripped off, or stock value is collapsing and stockholders are left stiffed?

Our government exists, in part, to set up rules about what is and is not OK for corporations - who are treated like individuals, with the rights of individuals, sadly, under our laws right now - to do, and not to do.

One corporation making huge profits may be good for their bottom line, but that does not necessarily equate to greater wages, benefits, or employment for citizens - nor protecting the environment that we, the citizens, inhabit. Corporations that are profitable may be poisoning the neighborhoods they inhabit. Good for profits? Maybe. Good for our communities? Not at all.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Yes, some CEO's can negotiate great packages, but they have no more ability than workers unions do.

... which explains why CEO salaries have increased on a massive scale over the past two to three decades, while workers unions have been broken up, restricted, and their jobs have been shipped overseas?

Understanding economics means more than just parroting capitalist doctrine.

 

[shesulsa]

Indeed. These are the people who decide to fire people from their organizations in the final fiscal quarter in order to make budget just so they can get their bonuses. Ruining the lives of others and compromising the integrity of a company for a few people's material reward alone is moral corruption at it's most basic definition and is fueled by nothing more than greed.

The bottom line isn't always the bottom, nor are riches the final destination.

Am I saying it's wrong to be rich? No. What I am saying is the actions some CEOs take so that they can pay off the yacht and buy that island regardless of the integrity of the company or lives of those who make the CEO's magic happen is corruption and is wrong.

There is no honey, no royal jelly, no hive security, no future without the worker bee. The queen must have her workers or she will die, one way or the other.