New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Cicero]

This thread sucks...sorry I started it.

[queequeger]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Whereas the top man once made 14 times more money than his average employee, today, that number is in the hundreds - approaching 1000 times more money. There is no justification for that disparity. The free market system broke down when top management salaries has no relationship to free market forces. An elite simply bids up each other's salaries with no regard to value.

The lastest number I've seen is 365.

If you look at the top executives in the Fortune 500 companies, they averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, which is 365 times the pay of the average American worker.

[lookout123]

how is the CEO's pay relevant to what the average american's pay? the only relevant category to compare a CEO's pay with is the category filled with people that can step in and do the CEO's job.

FWIW, i agree that the pay disparity is obscene, but if a CEO can convince a board he is worth something, I don't blame the CEO for taking it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

how is the CEO's pay relevant to what the average american's pay? the only relevant category to compare a CEO's pay with is the category filled with people that can step in and do the CEO's job.

FWIW, i agree that the pay disparity is obscene, but if a CEO can convince a board he is worth something, I don't blame the CEO for taking it.

It's relevant in this way: the disparity is obscene.

Another relevance is that you can't run a successful business without both indians and chiefs.

[lookout123]

Another relevance is that you can't run a successful business without both indians and chiefs.

true. but if i can replace an indian with someone off the street without a lot of fuss, then that indian is going to demand a much lower wage than the chief.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

true. but if i can replace an indian with someone off the street without a lot of fuss, then that indian is going to demand a much lower wage than the chief.

But one three-hundred-sixty-fifth?

Originally Posted by tw

There is no justification for that disparity. The free market system broke down when top management salaries has no relationship to free market forces. An elite simply bids up each other's salaries with no regard to value.

I have to agree with tw here. The value is not in proportion to the compensation.

[lookout123]

i agree with you, it isn't. but it doesn't have to be. if every grocery store raises the price of the product you need to make your favorite recipe to $20/can, you have two options. pay $20 for the can, regardless of what you think it is worth, or go without.

this is no different. if you can find someone well qualified for the top job that will work for less then hire them. if you can't, quit complaining that the market has decided they are worth that amount.

[Undertoad]

I really don't care what other people make. I can only figure out my own situation: if they pay me enough to do a job, I will do it; if they don't, I will not.

What the CEO gets paid is so much rumor to me. I don't care. I think he's a good one. The previous one, from what I hear, nearly killed the company. I'll go ahead and guess this one is worth more. I hope he is paid more. It's worth it if he improves the company.

As tw notes, he is responsible for 85% of any problem that comes up. So his actions and decisions will affect many more people than mine. In fact he has the ability to grow a $10M company (that's a guess) into a $20M company. If he can do that, I think he should be paid a great deal. Of course a smart board would do that with bonuses and would avoid an incentive package that grants the CEO any kind of golden parachute, unless he's hired specifically to manage a downcycle or something.

[DanaC]

As tw notes, he is responsible for 85% of any problem that comes up. So his actions and decisions will affect many more people than mine.

One difference is that, if you fuck up you'll get fired. If he fucks up he'll get quietly shuftied off the scene with a golden handshake to keep him warm. Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.

[lookout123]

with a golden handshake to keep him warm

is that a step or down from a golden shower?

[DanaC]

Depends on your particular predilections :P

[jinx]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.

Do you feel the same way about doctors?

[Undertoad]

At all jobs I've ever worked, the CEO is just as likely to lose his/her job as I am. I've outlasted a few, actually.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

One difference is that, if you fuck up you'll get fired. If he fucks up he'll get quietly shuftied off the scene with a golden handshake to keep him warm. Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.

In the companies I've worked for, it has been the opposite. Regular employees are put on probation, demoted, moved to another department... but I've seen, let's see--three different CEO's get fired from various places, and in two cases I felt they were taking the hit for things that were partly, but not entirely, their fault.