Nothing wrong with that. If they add the value, then they deserve to be paid
that much. If someone adds 1000 times the value of as assembly line
worker, then that person should be paid 1000 times the wages of the assembly
line worker.And yes, Steve Jobs added 1000 times the value of many
people at Apple. Only a lazy person would blame their own financial
situation on that of a rich person.If the CEO of my company
increases the value 1000 times what my work does, he should be paid for that.If I'm worth more than I'm making - a competitor will pay me
more than I'm making. If no one will pay me more than I'm making -
its because the value I add isn't worth more.
chris is a repulican ill bet. the rest of us our wages are stagnet, and prices
go up as big bussiness makes more profit. food containers get smaller and we pay
the same price or more. houseing is out of sight for most getting into the work
force now. stater homes are about 200,000 for a small 3 bed room. fuel is at the
high mark even though there is a surplus. our own state wont allow price wars by
law so there is no lower or any real capitalism. they only go about one to two
cents different than the others. the price of cooledge is so high could go up in
ten years to 25,000 a year. so why not give big bosses more money than most
companies ever get to.
@Chris B - You assume that the increased value is only derived by the efforts
and work of a CEO, which in factually wrong, the organization as a whole are the
creators of the "value".
This is captialism and America's obsession with weatlh and status. It will
take the reemergence of unions and the support of the people to swing things
back. Most CEO's are not smarter than many in our society. They just have
more ambition and lower ethics than the average person.
mcdugall,You clearly have no idea what I assume. My position is
laid our clearly with no insinuation what so ever that only the CEO adds
value.In fact, I made it quite clear that if my CEO adds 1000 times
the value compared to the work that I do, he should be paid 1000 times what I
make. I make it quite clear I add value, just as other "lower"
employees do.Want to try that one again?
This just makes me want to puke...
It is upsetting to see CEOs make millions while workers under them barely get
by. However, I am not so upset that I think the government should step in and
enforce pay limits. If those with the money (shareholders and board members)
want to pay a CEO that much then they should be able to. It's their money.
This may be tough to stomach, but many CEOs may very well be worth
what they make. Business owners are smart with their money. If they think they
can get a good ROI by paying a highly sought after individual millions of
dollars to be their CEO, they will do it.
It's toughing (and hard work) telling other people what to do.
What I notice is that the corporate big shots want it both ways. Their implicit
claim is to be SO smart and capable as to be worth millions, but then they also
want to say that "economic uncertainty", whatever that means, keeps them
from actually investing in NEW things which could boost demand and jobs. Either
way, they're paid top dollar.
There are very few transformative CEOs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jack Welch,
and others. Therefore, and in my opinion, I don't think they are worth
even close to those amounts. Generally speaking, I do not think they are 271
times more valuable than many employees in their organization. It is a very
selfish way to look at how their organization functions. There is a
large underlying problem with these executive salary trends: income inequality.
From my observation, those who are entry-level and up several rungs on the
leadership ladder are not reaping the rising stock market. The rising stock
market is a mirage to many of the successful companies' employees. They
are lucky if they get a raise that covers inflation. Thus, the
wealth transfers from executives to executives and rarely trickles down to many
Americans who struggle to pay rent, medical bills, school, food, and prepare for
their retirement. I believe this is a major flaw of capitalism.
Chris B - I agree with you one hundred percent. (As a BYU fan that
is a painful thing to type!) It always amuses me to read the
posters decrying the wages of CEOs as if there are stakeholders out there just
looking for some individual that they can dump millions of dollars on just
because. They get their wages because they add value. If they add $15 an hour
value to the mix then they will probably be compensated at some point below that
value. Also, those that think that the profits should go to the
workers (which in reality they do...partially) would be pretty disappointed with
the outcomes due to the economy of scale. Nabors CEO taking a 60 million dollar
salary cut and divided up among a greater than 25K employee base, would yield a
very disappointing return of less than $2400 a year.
This country will only prosper when companies value their employees. The talk of
redistribution and the %1 will end once companies stop looking only at the short
term, so the executives gain stock options, and instead invest in their people.
Then there are those CEO's like the ones at Hostess that run their company
into the ground but right after they got a pay raise and a golden parachute. I
won't even go into Enron.There will be a time when the people
will get fed up. But before that happens I'm for capitalism but what I
call responsible capitalism. It is the idea that profits can be made, managers
do make a bit more than workers but workers get a fair wage and benefits. My
example of this would be In and Out Burger and Costco vs. McDonald's and
Wal-Mart. If we can't get to responsible capitalism fast, the system will
break down completely and it won't be pretty...
A few years ago I was approached by door to door salesmen wanting to replace my
windows. Although the windows were similar, the installation cost was
considerably higher for one than the other.My first inclination was
to go for the low price leader. But subsequent research revealed that the low
price leader used low skill employees who were hungry enough to put up with the
low wages. His non existent customer service and the poor quality of the
installation are well known in the industry.The other company spends
a great deal of time training new installers, always pairs them up with a mentor
to teach the mechanics of quality installation. Equally important is to learn
the importance of personal and customer satisfaction. They pay their highly
trained installers more to keep them from taking their skills elsewhere and
because they add more value to the company than a low skill crew would.The high value company installs a lot more windows, makes a lot more money,
and pays the CEO more because his leadership is highly valued. He doesn't
work any harder than his installers, but he is in high demand.
As long as they deal in honest business practices, I have no problem with
CEO'S making a fortune. Currently reading "The Mormon Way of Doing
Business", about CEO's from the church. Those guys work very hard! I
agree with Chris B "Only a lazy person would blame their own financial
situation on that of a rich person".
A company can function for a while without a CEO, but let the people who
actually make the widgets stop making widgets for a while and see how well the
OK -- I'll play Republican here for a minute, and agree that if a CEO
earns $10 million for doing a good job - that's fine, ButWhat about those who run them into the ground and STILL walked away with
$Millions!I think every CEO who's company lost money during the
recession, should be forced to pay every cent back onto America's
economy.You can't have your cake and eat it too!But that
is precisely what CEO capitialists have going for them, that the rest of
us do not.
@LDS lib,I'll start demanding a rich CEO pay back his 10
million if he didn't perform well when you start demanding the person who
makes $30,000 pay back all his/her money if he/she didn't perform wellPot meet kettle
Before you anti-CEO people post any more, lets look at the data from all CEOs,
not just the super stars.The average for all CEOs for total
compensation is $370,000/yr. That is it. This article is like comparing Tom
Cruz's income to anybody on the cast at the Desert Star.The
average CEO is not making millions each year. Yes they do well, but as long as
they are successful the employees still have jobs and the investors (owners) do
LDS Liberal:Are you also going to demand that highly paid actors
have to pay back their millions when their blockbuster movie flops at the box
office?Should highly paid athletes have to pay back their salaries
if they fail to take their team through the playoffs?Should authors
and musicians have to give it all back if their books and albums don't sell
well (assuming the publisher or label gave them money up front)?Why
does the left only cry about outrageous salaries from corporate CEOs and no one
capitalist,Well said!However, there is no reason to only
include well paid people in this mandatory payback plan.LDS lib
wants people to be forced to give back the money they were given if they
didn't perform like they were paid to do. She says that she's ok with
people making a lot if they did indeed do a good job then the high wages are
fine. So lets make it equal for everyone - from now on anyone who
doesn't perform as they were supposed to has to give back all the money
Baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams actually gave back some of his salary once
because he felt he didn't deserve it. But that was long ago with a
generation that was a bit tougher than what we have now generally....