Average CEO now makes $10.7 million

[Gray Phoenix]

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.

There seems to be the assumption that if you earn lots of money this is because your ripping people off. There are always bad apples. Some go to jail, while others get away with it. States tend to get ripped off more than people and businesses simply because politicians tend not to have the altruistic approach to governing we might wish they had.

Our government does not exist to set up rules for business. Our government exists to protect our freedoms. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Gray Phoenix]

... 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.

Yes, I agree, CEO salaries have increased. The average income has also increased. I was making a comparison of negotiating power, nothing more.

However, since you brought it up, unions have been on the decline because they restrict people who can do better. Unions exist to make sure that the guy who works really hard is treated the same as the slacker. The proletariat has recognized this and done away with the archaic system.



As far as "parroting" capitalist doctrine :soapbox: , I'm a proud capitalist, but don’t think for a minute that I haven't given my personal philosophies a whole lot of thought. Including studying the "Long Wave" theories of Nikolai Kondratyev, a Russian economist employed by Lenin to prove that capitalism would fail. When he proved the opposite would come true, he had the terrible misfortune of finding Stalin in power.

Our founding fathers were capitalists. Our countries freedoms are maintained by capitalists. Our capitalist economy supports the world economy. One can argue that we prevent others from succeeding, but they can do the same thing our country has done (once they run out of excuses). Remember, on the world clock, our land is young, our ideas are young, but in that short time we have moved humanity out of the trees and into outerspace using capitalism.


I'll refrain from returning your insults and only ask that you not assume my incompetence and spout old communistic platitudes just because we may disagree.:asian:

 

[digitalronin]

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."

Some one please define a living wage in a dollar rate. Every time i hear the term its this group is not making a living wage, so what is it $8/hr, $9, $10, ...

peace

 

[Makalakumu]

However, since you brought it up, unions have been on the decline because they restrict people who can do better. Unions exist to make sure that the guy who works really hard is treated the same as the slacker. The proletariat has recognized this and done away with the archaic system.

Unions exist to bring you the eight hour day. Unions exist to make sure your kids are working in sweatshops. Unions exist to bring you the weekend. Unions exist to bring you fair compensation and benifits.

Every luxury you have as a worker, every "right" or expectation was first set by a Union.

And people paid in blood for these rights...why? Because families were important. More important then work.

The bottom line is that Unions are democracy in action. Without them we slip into totalitarianism...

 

[Makalakumu]

Some one please define a living wage in a dollar rate. Every time i hear the term its this group is not making a living wage, so what is it $8/hr, $9, $10, ...

peace

$9.58 dollars an hour will make roughly 19,500 in one year. That is the poverty line and that is what is considered living, by progressives.

 

[MissTwisties]

Well lets see...if you need to pay an average of $500/month for an ordinary apartment, $100/week grocery, gaz, car payments, utilities, insurances for the car and health (if not provided by your employer), medical expenses (visits copays and such), clothing, etc...$10/hour is not even enough let's say for a single parent to make a normal living with their children. But at this hourly rate, they're not even allowed on MassHealth (free medical insurance in Massachusetts), no food stamps, no programs to help the single parent. So your life is lived in hardship, you're poor, and it's hard for you and your children.

Thank God, I'm not in that situation. But I've been thinking about it sometimes, what if I end up alone with my 2 children? I know I couldn't live with a $10/hour wage. I would be struggling big time. Specially knowing that most jobs around here don't even pay you that $10....it's more like $7/$8 for an ordinary job. And you have to find that job.

 

[shesulsa]

$500 per month? That is a steal.

The minimum wage varies from state to state. Here is a link to the Departnemt of Labor's listing of minimum wage rates in the US. I think the map colors are very telling. Washington State's minimum wage is $7.35 per hour. An "average" two-bedroom apartment here goes for about $800 per month. The cost of living here is lower than other places I've lived. Gross pay for 30 days on that wage is approximately $1200. After taxes, that's about $900. So that's $100 per month left to pay all other expenses. That's not enough, of course, so one must have a second job (at least). So let's say spouse also has a minimum wage job. That doubles the income and leaves $1,000 per month to pay for expenses - that's more like it. But then out of that comes utilities, food, car insurance / payments, child care (of course, because both parents have to work) leaving no wiggle room for education so that one may better oneself to get a better job.

Can you say economic suppression? Sure, I knew you could.

 

[MissTwisties]

oh yeah....I forgot childcare expenses! Average of $150/week for ONE child...who can afford that living on minimum wage?? ANd if you have to get a second job, you need a babysitter at night? When do you see your kids??? Life sucks for a lot of people...

 

[kenpo tiger]

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.

That would apply to publicly-held companies and in part to non-profit organizations (minus the shareholders, of course).

I work for a non-profit. Granted, mine is a very secondary income in our home, but according to our industry standard I am compensated adequately for what I do. If my family had to live on my income alone, we'd starve. I love what I do despite the long hours, aggravation, and responsibility (even though I'm a worker and not a queen.)

I come in contact daily with CEOs, CFOs and other *big shots* of corporations, and owners of private companies as well. Most of them are quite philanthropic. It behooves them to be because of their tax brackets. Same for corporations. They have to give away a certain percentage (at least here) to charities in order to fulfill certain company mandates. Besides, it looks great for them to be able to say they support the arts or a children's hospital or cancer research. People love that and are more willing to buy that company's product or use that bank's services.

As to the CEO of a public company making tens of millions, one thing I'd like to point out: if there's a problem (see Tyco), who's held accountable? The workers? Nope -- not even when they may have made mistakes which lead to said problem. It's the officers and directors of the corporation who are liable. That's why they are paid the big bucks. Frequently, the CEO/President/COO is the one who is the 'rainmaker' -- the guy who brings in new clients or new business.

Is all that worth $10 million? In my opinion,*one's* compensation should be commensurate with *one's* risk. Not $10 million, but a few hundred thousand should suffice.:shrug:

 

[stephen]

... 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.

Understanding economics means more than just parroting socialist doctrine. Where is YOUR economics degree from? I don't parrot capitalist doctrine, I've done the math.

Last I heard no company was going around with guns forcing people to quit their unions. But I do know that companies don't have rights reciprocal to those of the employees of the companies....

The main problem with all of this talk is that there is an artifical barrier erected between "employers" and "employees" (read: "Those who own the means of production" and "workers") There is no such barrier. As others previously have pointed out, the CEOs are simply employees of the shareholders.

The second problem is one of MORALITY. You see, everyone wants to be most happy they can be, and they want to pay the least for it. Please don't understand this previous sentence is some inane simply way. Happy = whatever that means to the individual whether that means being the richest person on earth or living with cockroaches helping the poor. Pay = effort = work. The morality problem comes in when some people think it is okay to substitute theft for effort, and stealing for paying.

To take from me, what I earn for my work, given WILLINGLY to me in OPEN and FREE exchange by another, and to take it for yourself IS THEFT. It is no different then going into a store and waliking out without paying, stealing from your mother's purse, and swindling your shareholders through fraudulent accounting. All are illegal, immoral, and reprehensible.

But, just because someone steals money from their mother dosen't mean that all children should be considered theives. But, as with Enron, the mothers should also learn that they can't leave the wallet sitting on the counter anymore. Shareholders have learned that they will need to pay more attention in the future.

It's funny, whenever the issue of taxes come up, a lot of people want to tax "the rich" but the definition of who is actually "rich" tends to vary with the respondant's income. TNSTAAFL.

/steve

 

[Gray Phoenix]

Having reread the posts on this thread I think its interesting to note a wide hled belief that entry level/low pay jobs should be enough to support a family.

Does this mean (in all seriousness), that I should be able to have children (as many as I can), be able to to work as little as I choose (or as the situation dictates) and live "well" according to American standards.

Is this not Karl Marx, and has his theories not been proven to fail when tested on large scale?

Maybe I am as dumb as some of you think I am, but I just cant seem to understand a socialistic mentality. :idunno:

 

[Nergul]

The reality is that we live in a society that has plenty of skilled workers. Yes the CEO needs workers and yes they are the foundation a company is built upon. However, they are a resource that can be renewable. There are plenty of people with BA's who can learn what they need to get the job done. Simple econ. is just that, supply and demand. There are relatively few people who can actually function in a CEO position correctly and a bunch of people who can do the normal daily work. Furthermore, the worker would be useless without the direction and power of the CEO. The worker's job is solely based upon what industry a CEO and company can carve out. Supply and demand. The worker can be replaced....thats the reality of it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The reality is that we live in a society that has plenty of skilled workers. Yes the CEO needs workers and yes they are the foundation a company is built upon. However, they are a resource that can be renewable. There are plenty of people with BA's who can learn what they need to get the job done. Simple econ. is just that, supply and demand. There are relatively few people who can actually function in a CEO position correctly and a bunch of people who can do the normal daily work. Furthermore, the worker would be useless without the direction and power of the CEO. The worker's job is solely based upon what industry a CEO and company can carve out. Supply and demand. The worker can be replaced....thats the reality of it.

Much as many people wish otherwise, that is the reality of it.

 

[TonyM.]

With robotics, pretty much all we need are janitors. Oops! No one has any money to buy my products.

 

[Bammx2]

With robotics, pretty much all we need are janitors. Oops! No one has any money to buy my products.

THAT is the reality also!
With all this "down sizing" garbage and the advancement of things like robotics to replace workers,just exactly how long can they maintain?
It also seems to me that the more money these corperate types make,the more some lowly worker has to lose.
Hence the technology side,you replace workers,the CEO's make more money and the worker loses his job,home,life(the CEO is still ok though,which is all that really matters,right?) all be cause of a recycled edsel!
And on the other side......
I believe 90% of the population could do the CEO thing if given the chance.
What do the CEO's know that can't be learned by anybody else?
Nothing. It's not exactly an "ancient chinese secret".(remember that commercial?!)
It's IS,however,a matter of being in the right place at the right time.
For most of these corperate types,it's not what you know...it's who you know.
Besides....who says a CEO is uncapable of navigating his way around a shovel?!

 

[Adept]

While I understand the situation, I dislike the fact that a CEO can get a $17,000,000 retirement package without working proprtionately that much harder to get it. He hasn't really earned it, and that gets on my goat.

 

[arnisador]

Same here. Just because I get the economics of it doesn't mean that I don't find it unpalatable.

But, there's no sense in complaining. There always has to be a noble/royal class at the top of the social pyramid.

 

[Nergul]

Well I mean there is the fact that education and job choices are the only real means to escape a middle or low income. Very few/nobody gets rich working for someone else.

 

[sgtmac_46]

THAT is the reality also!
With all this "down sizing" garbage and the advancement of things like robotics to replace workers,just exactly how long can they maintain?
It also seems to me that the more money these corperate types make,the more some lowly worker has to lose.
Hence the technology side,you replace workers,the CEO's make more money and the worker loses his job,home,life(the CEO is still ok though,which is all that really matters,right?) all be cause of a recycled edsel!
And on the other side......
I believe 90% of the population could do the CEO thing if given the chance.
What do the CEO's know that can't be learned by anybody else?
Nothing. It's not exactly an "ancient chinese secret".(remember that commercial?!)
It's IS,however,a matter of being in the right place at the right time.
For most of these corperate types,it's not what you know...it's who you know.
Besides....who says a CEO is uncapable of navigating his way around a shovel?!

It's not a matter of everyone being able to potentially do the job of a CEO. It's a lot like saying everyone can play football. Sure, everyone might be able to go through the motions of football, but that doesn't mean they all play it equally well. Some people can do the job of CEO far better than others. We call those people.....CEO's.

 

[shinbushi]

I believe 90% of the population could do the CEO thing if given the chance.

WRONG. Most people who try to startup a business fail like over 95%. Let's see you try to do what Bill Gates or his like did. As a small Business owner, I think you employees should thank your lucky stars someone is WILLING to hire you at all. If you socialists hate the CEO s so much start your OWN business and see how you do. Running a business is to to provide for one self and ones family not the community.(Which I think communities are a myth BTW, there are only self-centered individuals living near each other).