CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data, a nonprofit think-tank said on Wednesday.

In fact, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in 52 weeks, said the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The typical worker's compensation averaged just under $42,000 for the year, while the average CEO brought home almost $11 million, EPI said.

In recent years, compensation has been a hot issue with shareholders who have been bombarded with news stories about chief executives who are given multimillion dollar bonus and pay packages even if shares have declined.

For example, the chief executives of 11 of the largest companies were awarded a total of $865 million in pay in the last two years, even as they presided over a total loss of $640 billion in shareholder value, a recent study from governance firm the Corporate Library, found.

In 1965, U.S. CEOs at major companies earned 24 times a worker's pay. That ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000, according to EPI.

CEO pay is defined by the sum of salary, bonus, value of restricted stock at grant and other long-term incentives. Worker pay is hourly wage of production and nonsupervisory works, EPI said. "



Dant that there is a lot of money, No wonder we cant raise the minimum wage, Too worried about raising the maximum
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

Not with people like you and your minority party in congress coming in and inserting random sh!t into it, no.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

The labor market is pretty free for the most part unless you are an illegal or lack such skills you only qualify for the few jobs that actually pay min wage.

For the most part people are being paid above min wage due to the free market dictating the worth of their skillset and the lack of supply has decided this is what they should be paid.

CEO's are no different than the people on the bottom when they dictate terms of their salaries. The supply vs demand still exists. The only difference is the CEO is in much less supply than a production line worker. Thus they draw a larger salary for the work required.

If you dont like the salary paid to a CEO, I suggest you use another market to your advantage and buy their competitors product instead.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

The labor market is pretty free for the most part unless you are an illegal or lack such skills you only qualify for the few jobs that actually pay min wage.

For the most part people are being paid above min wage due to the free market dictating the worth of their skillset and the lack of supply has decided this is what they should be paid.

CEO's are no different than the people on the bottom when they dictate terms of their salaries. The supply vs demand still exists. The only difference is the CEO is in much less supply than a production line worker. Thus they draw a larger salary for the work required.

If you dont like the salary paid to a CEO, I suggest you use another market to your advantage and buy their competitors product instead.

You are assuming a few different things.

1. Free markets only work when competition and barriers to entry do not exist.

2. The compensation is set by the market

3. It can decrease


Answers

1. CEO compensation is not a free market. As consumers we cannot easily buy different products, especially with the megaconglomerates. Furthermore, since not all good candidates can become a CEO and the fraternaty culture exists, CEO's campaign for other CEOs.

Now, one would say that CEO's are elected by the shareholders. However, they are not. They are elected by board members, who are elected by shareholders. Now, considering the interlocking nature of boards in this country and the fact that large institutions vote proxy votes, it is no wonder that the good ole buddy system propegates itself.

Therefore, there is no free market, all players are colluding with eachother, eliminating free market competition and raising almost infinitely sized barriers to entry.


2. Compensation is NOT set by the market, it is set by the board's compensation comittee. Who elects the board members? Thats right, other board members, large institutions who sit on eachothers boards. Now, who is the chairman? Ohh, thats right, 76% of the time it is the CEO! Wow, the chairman of a non-free market elected board who presides over the compensation comittee is supposed to set their own pay in line with the market!?!?! Don't be naive.


3. CEO compensation rarely decreases. Why? Because what happens if a company does poorly is that they fire the CEO. Then, the next CEO who is suppsoed to save them comes in and gets paid more! It's a continually escalating factor. Toss stocks into it (new CEO gets lots of low strike price options because the stock is so low) and you get a multiplicative effect.


If CEO compensation were tied to corporate performance, then the CEO of a dog like Cendant wouldn't be making 20,000,000 per year PLUS stocks. The damn stock price stayed the same for almost 10 years, he destroyed crap-tons of investor wealth and then is breaking up the company in response!

No CEO is worth 262 employees. For the same amount of a CEO, you could hire 262 competent analysts that will do a crap-ton better than one dude.

This is coming from a guy heavily immersed in corporate culture.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
1. I noted that is my "supply" comment.
2. Uh yes it is, CEO salaries are set by a market. How do you think boards come to a compensation package for CEO's? Just magically guess a number that aligns itself with the industry? And I would like to see how many CEO's are chairmen of the boards of their companies. If the owners of the companies dont like it, they should vote in a new chair.
3. Either do avg joe work jobs due to inflation and increased demand.

If CEO compensation were tied to corporate performance, then the CEO of a dog like Cendant wouldn't be making 20,000,000 per year PLUS stocks. The damn stock price stayed the same for almost 10 years, he destroyed crap-tons of investor wealth and then is breaking up the company in response!

Many packages are and you will note many of them make more off their stock options than they do with their "salary".

No CEO is worth 262 employees. For the same amount of a CEO, you could hire 262 competent analysts that will do a crap-ton better than one dude.

According to the board of directors many are. If they felt they could hire 262 analysts to do the job of one person they would have, but they havent, because hiring 262 analysts will likely not equal 1 CEO.


 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

Not with people like you and your minority party in congress coming in and inserting random sh!t into it, no.

Oh really, I am a contract employee that only earns money for every hour that I work. Been doing that going on 5 years now.

I have no "safetynet" of a salary except my self and my ability to earn money and provide for my OWN retirement, and my OWN insurance, and File my OWN taxes.

But its people like me that only get paid for the work that they do that destroy the american work ethic......NICE
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
If a CEO makes a profit for the company and his pay is justified by the amount of benefits occuring to that company, we would have no right to complain. We cannot compare different jobs scales to each other. Going by the logic, an entrpreneur would not be entitled to the profits of his company.

However, if a CEO collects bonuses while the company is going for a loss, then the man should be fired alongwith the people who hired him.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Higher CEO salaries don't mean higher returns for shareholders. These boards are just wasting shareholder money. Especially with these severance packages, these CEOs can just do nothing for a while, get kicked out and still end up with millions of shareholder money.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: Braznor
If a CEO makes a profit for the company and his pay is justified by the amount of benefits occuring to that company, we would have no right to complain. We cannot compare different jobs scales to each other. Going by the logic, an entrpreneur would not be entitled to the profits of his company.

However, if a CEO collects bonuses while the company is going for a loss, then the man should be fired alongwith the people who hired him.


Bad Analogy. Job scales have nothing to do with taking profits from a company such as in your Entrpreneur example.

Its funny that most Small buisness Entrepreneurs dont pay themselves excessive salaries that bankrupt their companies

This article is here to show the historic mega growth for CEO salaries compared to the average worker salary.

And with this growth in ceo salary to high levels, when a company is in trouble its rarely the Ceo compensation package that is cut to save the company money, rather the employee jobs that are cut.

 

sonoma1993

Diamond Member
May 31, 2004
3,414
21
81
1 ceo can screw many employees out of jobs. enron for example. This supermarket I'm a vendor at. The ceo's of that company want each department to only having like 1 or 2 employees working each shift. And cutting back on the amount of hours they can work too. This store has a very busy grocery section. There is no way having 1 or 2 employees per shift will be able to keep up with all the customers. While these stores have to cut back, these Ceo's are lineing their pocket with more money and giving $20k to $50k bonuses to the stores directors.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
CEO's are worse than spoiled athletes..

They should all be forced to work one day a week in the environments they create
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,448
3,874
136
Originally posted by: dahunan
CEO's are worse than spoiled athletes..

They should all be forced to work one day a week in the environments they create

I can see it now..

"The Simple Life: CEOs"

 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
Yea shall not disparage Capitalism, for it is our unofficial religion.
IOW, there are winners and losers. The losers should STFU!

[/sarcasm]
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: dahunan
CEO's are worse than spoiled athletes..

They should all be forced to work one day a week in the environments they create

I can see it now..

"The Simple Life: CEOs"


Job Swap

1st episode...........Rupert Murdock switches roles with a salon.com intern
 

fitzov

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2004
2,477
0
0
I keep looking in the local paper for CEO and CFO positions, but I never see them.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

The labor market is pretty free for the most part unless you are an illegal or lack such skills you only qualify for the few jobs that actually pay min wage.

For the most part people are being paid above min wage due to the free market dictating the worth of their skillset and the lack of supply has decided this is what they should be paid.

CEO's are no different than the people on the bottom when they dictate terms of their salaries. The supply vs demand still exists. The only difference is the CEO is in much less supply than a production line worker. Thus they draw a larger salary for the work required.

If you dont like the salary paid to a CEO, I suggest you use another market to your advantage and buy their competitors product instead.

You are assuming a few different things.

1. Free markets only work when competition and barriers to entry do not exist.

2. The compensation is set by the market

3. It can decrease


Answers

1. CEO compensation is not a free market. As consumers we cannot easily buy different products, especially with the megaconglomerates. Furthermore, since not all good candidates can become a CEO and the fraternaty culture exists, CEO's campaign for other CEOs.

Now, one would say that CEO's are elected by the shareholders. However, they are not. They are elected by board members, who are elected by shareholders. Now, considering the interlocking nature of boards in this country and the fact that large institutions vote proxy votes, it is no wonder that the good ole buddy system propegates itself.

Therefore, there is no free market, all players are colluding with eachother, eliminating free market competition and raising almost infinitely sized barriers to entry.


2. Compensation is NOT set by the market, it is set by the board's compensation comittee. Who elects the board members? Thats right, other board members, large institutions who sit on eachothers boards. Now, who is the chairman? Ohh, thats right, 76% of the time it is the CEO! Wow, the chairman of a non-free market elected board who presides over the compensation comittee is supposed to set their own pay in line with the market!?!?! Don't be naive.


3. CEO compensation rarely decreases. Why? Because what happens if a company does poorly is that they fire the CEO. Then, the next CEO who is suppsoed to save them comes in and gets paid more! It's a continually escalating factor. Toss stocks into it (new CEO gets lots of low strike price options because the stock is so low) and you get a multiplicative effect.


If CEO compensation were tied to corporate performance, then the CEO of a dog like Cendant wouldn't be making 20,000,000 per year PLUS stocks. The damn stock price stayed the same for almost 10 years, he destroyed crap-tons of investor wealth and then is breaking up the company in response!

No CEO is worth 262 employees. For the same amount of a CEO, you could hire 262 competent analysts that will do a crap-ton better than one dude.

This is coming from a guy heavily immersed in corporate culture.

That is an excellent summary. The free market is fantasy.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Genx87
1. I noted that is my "supply" comment.
2. Uh yes it is, CEO salaries are set by a market. How do you think boards come to a compensation package for CEO's? Just magically guess a number that aligns itself with the industry? And I would like to see how many CEO's are chairmen of the boards of their companies. If the owners of the companies dont like it, they should vote in a new chair.
3. Either do avg joe work jobs due to inflation and increased demand.

Many packages are and you will note many of them make more off their stock options than they do with their "salary".

According to the board of directors many are. If they felt they could hire 262 analysts to do the job of one person they would have, but they havent, because hiring 262 analysts will likely not equal 1 CEO.

I'll go through this slowly.

1. CEO's can be found pretty easily. However, the good ole boy networks don't really work that way. It is not an issue of supply/demand that sets prices, it's an issue of "you scratch my back I will scratch yours".

2. I do not have the number now, but studies have shown that upwards of 75% of CEOs are also chairmen. You see it all of the time. ONly in the past 3 years or so have you seen a seperation of those positions, but even then only at companies with extremely high ethical standards.

Salaries are set by the board. However, the board is elected by proxy voted shares which are controlled by large institutions where many times CEO's are buddies with the CEO's of those companies. Thus, you get interlocking boards. That's not even counting the fact that many times the board members sit on eachother's boards, further creating interlocking boards.

A free market works only when there is low barriers to entry and no collusion in the market. In CEO compensation, with *VERY* high barriers to entry and a huge amount of collusion (interlocking boards), you get rampant abuse. Look at Jack Welch, he didn't even create GE's highest profits, but he got the biggest rewards of *ANY* CEO in GE history and he was *NOT* the best. This corruption is rampant.

The Cendant CEO is a perfect example. The guy destroyed *MUCH* more shareholder wealth than he ever created, yet he has gotten what? more than 300million out of the company! Let me repeat that. He has done NOTHING GOOD for the company, he has only sucked and now his company is being ripped apart, yet he gets paid tens of millions. WHY? Because his butt buddies on the board fix his salary.

Do you really think that in a free market any regular employee can lose billions for their company and then *STILL* keep their job? Heck no! It's only because the boards do not represent shareholder interests.

If 262 business or financial analysts suddenly left a company and 262 positions needed to be filled immediately, do you think it would be easy to do that AND keep the company runnings?

If 1 CEO leaves a company, will day-to-day operations keep going? CEO's can be found and replaced, but at an ever ratcheting cost.

You say that you should either climb or be stuck. I somewhat agree. However, the biggest problem with that equation is assuming that the people above are responsible enough.


Let me remind you again. Free markets and supply and demand are *ONLY* operative in a market without colluding and monopolistic effects. CEO's, interlocking boards, and shareholder weakness due to buddy system proxy voting, eliminates free-market valuation.

why was microsoft hammered? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want and let the shareholders take care of them? Shouldn't they be able to charge whatever they want for windows and control who can enter or exit the market?

CEO monopolistic tendancies is only what microsoft did to the market, except it's done to every damn company in this country, which is much worse than the rest of the world.


Finally, I am no raving hippie. I have my MBA, work in a fortune 100 company as a finance manager and almost have earned my CFA. I am a realist and I acknowledge that something is screwed up. YOu better wake up before the royalty steal everything.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: fitzov
I keep looking in the local paper for CEO and CFO positions, but I never see them.

CFO positions I have seen, quite a bit actually. However, CEO? Thats really getting into the "Good ole boy" network.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: fitzov
I keep looking in the local paper for CEO and CFO positions, but I never see them.
CFO positions I have seen, quite a bit actually. However, CEO? Thats really getting into the "Good ole boy" network.
Actually they usually work their way from the ground up and cannot be parachuted in on a whim. The ones who move to another company either are specialists and were one in a billion who could fill that position. It takes a special breed to fill the shoes of a CEO, and their pay distinctly proves this simple fact. Are CEO's overpaid? I want to say yes, but the market proves me wrong, i mean it is up to the board of directors to evaluate that, and these guys are stingy...they are not the type to throw money at anything without just cause.

From what I've seen in the news...the CEO of large companies, the ones who earn the most are usually the first ones out the door, even if no fault of their own. Sometimes their development teams build a faulty product, and they cannot micro manage their tallent; sometimes a union will dig in and prevent innovation and change from occuring. These people take the hit and usually get much bad press for things beyond their control. Their compensation is much like a sports player where they are one in a million and have an extremely short career, typically.

Personally I am a big fan of pay per performance...something liberals agree with, unless it has to do with a union environment...then it's just horrible to allow incompetent people get exposed, oh the horror!! Accountability!!
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Its Funny how my College profs for Finance and Macro Economics both said that Free Markets are a "pipe dream" and "exist in fantasy land"

Granted I did go to that flaming liberal intstitution called Kent State...........
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: smashp
Its Funny how my College profs for Finance and Macro Economics both said that Free Markets are a "pipe dream" and "exist in fantasy land"

Granted I did go to that flaming liberal intstitution called Kent State...........
Yeah because too many people believe in a nanny state where we can never be free. I understand there can be no free market...It's a damn shame in my opinion. This is much like communism being a pipe dream as it requires a complete change in human nature and beliefs. At least free markets are human nature...building the society people want.