Why outrage over CEO pay but not over public sector union pay?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

because some people think government jobs create wealth they are very confused individuals.

over 50% of workers in greece are in the public sector.
it's definitely working out great for them over there.

 

[Infohawk]

There is outrage about public sector pay and retirement packages. I'm fine with a Buffett tax but I also think it's not right that police officers are retiring with $100,000 pension plans for what is ultimately a public service / middle-class job.

 

[alkemyst]

In my city police and fire rescue make $100k-120k+ a year. IMHO that is ridiculous especially in light of the long waiting lists and no hiring. Plus we have a shortage because of no budget.

In 20 years they can retire at 50% of the peak year earnings.

 

[Lithium381]

In my city police and fire rescue make $100k-120k+ a year. IMHO that is ridiculous especially in light of the long waiting lists and no hiring. Plus we have a shortage because of no budget.

In 20 years they can retire at 50% of the peak year earnings.

and somehow they always get promoted two weeks before retirement...... funny how that works

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

In the case of the unions, they secured these agreements with contracts, which last I looked are legal agreements which both sides receive services or pay for work rendered.


Jim

around here, they're "secured" with strikes (or threats to).

 

[tm37]

These are two sperate issues.

1. CEO pay - while you may thing it is to high it is simply the market. there is a fear that if your executive team is not highly paid they will go where the pay is higher or the pay is higher due to paying to bring someone over. Would you change jobs for a 20% pay raise?

Union Pay - My issue is not with the level of compensation it is with the total lack of accountability that the system provides. Once a teacher reaches tenor it is nearly impossible to fire that person.

 

[IronWing]

It's so cute to watch the 99% wrestle over the last nut.

- the 1%

 

[WHAMPOM]

There is no outrage over CEO pay by the majority as it is a public company using investors' money in whatever way they see fit.

There is outrage over public sector pay as that is done with public funds (taxpayer dollars) and is significantly higher than what people with the skill set of many public employees should be making.

Fixed to show some congruence with reality. But still apples and oranges.

 

[Matt1970]

CEO pay isn't 'the issue'.

The issue is an absurd concentration of wealth, leading to the non-productive use of capital that denies opportunity to most Americans, that has the power to corrupt our political system and to extract wealth from everyone else, to turn the US into a plutocracy in a cycle of increasing concentration allowing even more concentration.

Do you work on being this stupid or does it just come naturally to you? How on God's Green Earth does someone making a lot of money deny you the opportunity to do the same?

 

[rchiu]

I'm just curious as to how this line of thinking works personally.

I think there are a ton of CEO's that are grossly overpaid based on what they provide, there is no doubt about that.

However, they negotiate that pay with PRIVATE companies and if that is what they are willing to pay them then so what? If the stockholders dislike the CEO or how much he is being paid they can always sell their stock and hit companies in the wallet where it hurts.

But the same people cry out to help the public sector workers. Granted they aren't making millions, but THE MAJORITY are also way overpaid and the money that is wasted on tens of thousands of union members getting over paid dwarfs the figure that a handful of CEO's are paid. They get benefits and wages far beyond what their skills and education should be paying them.

Futhermore, they negotiate these contracts with politicians who are spending PUBLIC money.


I have no problem with unions fighting in PRIVATE corporate America for what they feel that they deserved. That is between them and management.


Where I have a problem is when people are marching on Wall Street for how someone else wastes THEIR OWN money but they 100% support THEIR OWN TAXPAYER money being wasted in the same fashion.


Can anyone explain that to me?

Excellent post and you see right through the main problem of this occupywallst protest, which is a by-product of this admin's excessive demonization of top income earner to push their income re-distribution policies.

In the end, it's all politics. Handful of CEOs don't impact election outcome, so easy prey to make them sacrificial lamb to appease large population who are unhappy about the economic situation. Large number of unionized public workers whose salary and pension have direct impact to the current budget deficit problem, are important base for this admin. So even if their salary/benefit maybe out of wack, nobody dare to touch it.

Sad to see all the morons around US played by politicians and not knowing it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm just curious as to how this line of thinking works personally.

I think there are a ton of CEO's that are grossly overpaid based on what they provide, there is no doubt about that.

However, they negotiate that pay with PRIVATE companies and if that is what they are willing to pay them then so what? If the stockholders dislike the CEO or how much he is being paid they can always sell their stock and hit companies in the wallet where it hurts.

But the same people cry out to help the public sector workers. Granted they aren't making millions, but THE MAJORITY are also way overpaid and the money that is wasted on tens of thousands of union members getting over paid dwarfs the figure that a handful of CEO's are paid. They get benefits and wages far beyond what their skills and education should be paying them.

It's simple. They aren't nearly as overpaid as executives. There's a big difference between compensation of $40,000/year and $40 million/year. Also, many people recognize that those evil greedy unionized employees are a core component of this nation's middle class.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, because we need to make sure that everyone competent takes a private sector job instead. That way we ensure that government performs worse, and we can then point to government incompetence as a reason to get rid of government programs.

Do you really think it's going to be that hard to find someone who's competent for a more reasonable amount of compensation such as $250,000/year?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

These are two sperate issues.

1. CEO pay - while you may thing it is to high it is simply the market. there is a fear that if your executive team is not highly paid they will go where the pay is higher or the pay is higher due to paying to bring someone over. Would you change jobs for a 20% pay raise?

The problem is the irresponsible Boards of Directors who think that these guys are the equivalent of athletic superstars and who are willing to offer them gobs of money. Maybe if they were more concerned about hiring a good value and less concerned with Harvard/Yale pedigrees they could reign it in.

 

[rchiu]

The problem is the irresponsible Boards of Directors who think that these guys are the equivalent of athletic superstars and who are willing to offer them gobs of money. Maybe if they were more concerned about hiring a good value and less concerned with Harvard/Yale pedigrees they could reign it in.

Stop this evil BoD and CEO conflict of interest already. If the American system is so corrupted, why is there more top US companies in the Fortune Global 500 companies than any other countries? If all CEO in US companies are hired based on relationship and not capability, why is America economy the #1 in the world?

Let's see one country with limited CEO salary and absolutely zero CEO/BoD relationship that works better than the US. Come on, show us.

 

[bfdd]

I think our elected officials pay needs to come down too and they shouldn't get to vote on their own raises either.

 

[pauldun170]

(quietly enters room)
Its just no right bout these CEOs makin all this money.
How dare a CEO make millions of dollars at a BILLION dollar company.
That money should go to mail room people or that guy in the corner complaining about the stapler...or something.

Like these guys
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/top100/49005606.html
How dare those huge companies pay their CEO's huge salaries.

Come on...
Stephen B Burke makes 17m a year ...THE OUTRAGE!!!
Comcast is just a little company. That 17m a year should be used on cloning unicorn testicles not CEO pay.

As for unions...I'm still looking for realistic cases to point out since for every case of some union guy (who happened to work tons of overtime and has decades on the job and is in a senior position) pulling in 6 figures, there is another case where a union guy is barely making enough for standard of living in the area he lives.
But yeah...
down with all that sort of thing

(quietly walks out of room...pondering on whether to do a another mini review without pics)

 

[paul878]

I think the outrage over CEO paid is that even if the CEO failed the company, he or she still walks away will tens of millions. Once you get into the CEO club you get paid HUGE regardless of their performance.

 

[Siddhartha]

I'm just curious as to how this line of thinking works personally.

I think there are a ton of CEO's that are grossly overpaid based on what they provide, there is no doubt about that.

However, they negotiate that pay with PRIVATE companies and if that is what they are willing to pay them then so what? If the stockholders dislike the CEO or how much he is being paid they can always sell their stock and hit companies in the wallet where it hurts.

But the same people cry out to help the public sector workers. Granted they aren't making millions, but THE MAJORITY are also way overpaid and the money that is wasted on tens of thousands of union members getting over paid dwarfs the figure that a handful of CEO's are paid. They get benefits and wages far beyond what their skills and education should be paying them.

Futhermore, they negotiate these contracts with politicians who are spending PUBLIC money.


I have no problem with unions fighting in PRIVATE corporate America for what they feel that they deserved. That is between them and management.


Where I have a problem is when people are marching on Wall Street for how someone else wastes THEIR OWN money but they 100% support THEIR OWN TAXPAYER money being wasted in the same fashion.


Can anyone explain that to me?

I think you are talking apples and oranges here. I personally do not have trouble with teachers, police, firemen, etc earning a decent wage package. I can see the value of their contribution and have benefitted from their services.

I do not have a problem with CEO's pay either.

I think the problem or one of the problems people do have with CEO salaries stems from the promise that was made thirty years ago by Mr Reagan that cutting taxes of the wealthiest would raise anyone's boat or something like that. Over the last thirty years, the rich have gotten richer and everyone else have not done as well.

The middle and working classes are questioning the results of the Reagan Era. I do not think responses* of the people who have benefitted from it will be enough.

*Only liberals, socialist, communist, etc would question the Reagan Era.
Hey the reason you are not rich is because you are lazy, unlucky, and or stupid.
We have to cut education, medicare, and other services that benefit you to cover the shortfall from the tax cuts for the wealthiest.

 

[tm37]

I think the outrage over CEO paid is that even if the CEO failed the company, he or she still walks away will tens of millions. Once you get into the CEO club you get paid HUGE regardless of their performance.

Understand that when they were hired in order to get them to change jobs (that they were apparently very good at) they have asked for, and received a promise that they will get paid something should they change.

Let's say you make 80K and I offer you 100K But if you fail (and it is not out of the realm of possibility) you could be gone in 6 months. You can stay at the 80K essentially forever. It is difficult to trade that security when you look at something you may not be able to fix.

As someone who has had to make these choices I completely understand.

 

[Matt1970]

I think the outrage over CEO paid is that even if the CEO failed the company, he or she still walks away will tens of millions. Once you get into the CEO club you get paid HUGE regardless of their performance.

That's just the thing. A lot of people won't even take those jobs without guaranteed pay.

 

[Anarchist420]

Public sector positions shouldn't even exist. Things like the Department of Education hurt us and I'd rather be taxed so the money could be thrown in the sea than be taxed to spend it on things that are worse rather than useless.

 

[Anarchist420]

CEO pay isn't 'the issue'.

The issue is an absurd concentration of wealth, leading to the non-productive use of capital that denies opportunity to most Americans, that has the power to corrupt our political system and to extract wealth from everyone else, to turn the US into a plutocracy in a cycle of increasing concentration allowing even more concentration.

CEO compensation is just one symptom of the issue that sticks out.

The top 1% have more than doubled their share of income from 10% to 24%. The top 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom half of America (150 million).

Concentrated ownership is parasitical, draining from America. Distributed ownership is broad prosperity.

As the economy has more than doubled since Reagan took office, every penny after inflation has gone to the top 20%, and that's very concentrated to the top part of 1%.

Higher union wages are indicative of the wealth being more distributed to the public, they increase the share for union and non-union people. Hence, a lack of outrage.

Having a problem copying the chart, but look at this chart for why the outrage:

http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/07/20/the-best-inequality-graph-updated/

Government is the reason why we have super concentrated wealth. I would be fine if wealth was this concentrated without government, but that's not the case, and that could probably never be the case because the government creates inequality. Reagan didn't really cut taxes, and the banking regulations came into effect around the time Reagan took office. Raygun also resurrected the MIC. That will cause a lot of inequalities in wealth.

 

[HeXen]

when i see people lose their jobs as CEO and Executives pay increases...well that would piss anyone off, especially if your one of those who lost their job.

But i think most anyone who is having a hard time finding work or getting enough per hour to pay the bills, your likely to rage a bit when you see people with wealth making bad decisions or cutting peoples jobs..etc.

As far as union pay, well not all union workers make that much, but without them i think the middle class sector would shrink highly in numbers. we have enough poor folks as it is. i'm sure its easier for the rich to stay rich than for middleclass to stay middleclass.

 

[alkemyst]

People cry about CEO pay and I can agree that in some cases it's insane especially if a government bailout was needed at the same time.

However, there are a few public positions that are insane as well. Our firefighters and police are pulling in an average of $105-120k per year due to no controls on overtime. This is sad because we are understaffed and have long waiting lists of those that want to sign on.

You also have union guys that could easily be replaced by a robot making $150k...IMHO this is the biggest rape we have going...many live in the lowest cost of living areas and simply blow their whole nut on trucks, motorcycles, boats and trailers.

Those two cases above trump CEO pay.

Then you have the issue with government downsizing...that should be a good thing. Take a $500k department and right-size it to $100k...the problem at least in my area where they just did a story on this is: Those departments end up shrinking and the 'workers' quickly getting additional compensation to make up for the 'extra work' they have to do. Sadly there shouldn't be 'extra work' since the department was right-sized, but instead a real work load for a person to manage. That $100k ends up back at $300-400k quickly and ends up with tax payers paying more for now a less-efficient service.

We have to trim the fat, but I don't really see that as attacking C class workers...they are too much a minority.

 

[Zebo]

Public sector union is probably 10-50% too high CEO pay is about 1000% too high compared to their foreign counterparts, even worse compared to Japanese or Korean CEOs.