Wage Inequality Compared to CEOs

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
090915-BMUS-PayRise2.png
 
the former. :lol: typically I hate that blog b/c of how poorly it reflects my chosen profession (i.e., I don't buy into academic activism), but there are some gems in there from time to time.

EDIT: A few quick looks seem to show WM's public filings have total CEO compensation for H Lee Scott floating b/w $29/31 million in 2007 and 2008. But only $1.5m was salary. So this is neither the total nor salary, unless the salary increased 6-fold in one year's time. Woah!
 
I generally like it, I've been reading it for a few months now. The comments are fun pretty much when you would expect them to be.

Of course I'm not a sociologist, trying for the social psyc...trying....

And weird that it seems so off. I hope they had some kind of criteria for it.

EDIT: Looks like they use a different measure for stock options, so that's probably the difference for all of them.
 
I get the RSS feed. Whenever I see a headline that indicates gender or sexuality will be the issue, then I immediately delete it b/c I know it's just sociologically-informed commentary that seems to think of itself as well-thought out scientific proof of patriarchy and hegemony. A lot of their gender stuff is just nonsense.

I'll have to look up chart porn.
 
I only know of chart porn because of socimages (which was where they got this particular chart). I don't look at it too often. Charts are fun though.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, but.....free market capitalism is the way to go![/QUOTE]
This isn't free market capitalism. Not when you have companies like Goldman Saches giving out 16.7 billion in bonuses, off the money they made from the bailouts, manipulating the markets, and general scammery.
Under its policy of setting aside almost half of its revenue to pay its staff, the firm has built up a compensation fund of $16.7bn for the year to date – including $5.35bn set aside in the last quarter.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that their CEO, Lloyd Blankfield makes much more than those other CEOs too.
 
Yeah.

On a related note, I think this article from the washington post is intended to be serious. It printed with no parody labeling so I think so. I can't tell for sure.

"5 myths about Wall Street pay days"

Here are the supposed myths:
1. The Wall Street bonus culture led to the financial crisis.
2. Wall Street is totally indifferent to Main Street.
3. With the job market like it is, Wall Street doesn't need to pay huge bonuses to retain key people.
4. Wall Street will never restrict its own pay.
5. Wall Street pay is so out of line, only the government can fix it.

Full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102302414.html
 
Because there are lots of problems from having too much income inequality in a society--CEO salaries are just the most flagrant example.

And even more so when you have companies like Ford that have been tanking for years yet still paying out record salaries or bonuses, and failed companies that were bailed out already doing so again etc.

Executive salaries should be largely tied to company profits. Set them at some max of company profits and give them full incentive to improve the company to boost their salary, and a big disincentive to taking risks that can hurt profits (i.e. taking on too much bad debt in a financial institution etc.).
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Why don't we all work hard and aspire to be CEOs instead of lamenting their exhorbitant pay? Just a thought...[/QUOTE]

Horatio Alger lives!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because there are lots of problems from having too much income inequality in a society--CEO salaries are just the most flagrant example.[/quote]
There are sports players and media personalities that make just as much as these CEOs. Should the government assign them a maximum salery too?
And even more so when you have companies like Ford that have been tanking for years yet still paying out record salaries or bonuses, and failed companies that were bailed out already doing so again etc.
Click to expand...
If we had real capitalism in this country, and not this bullshit corporatism that we have now, this would not be a problem. Companies would not be paying their CEOs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, because they made bilions off bailouts, because there would be not bailouts. Without government backing these companies, failing companies would not be able to pay their CEO 8 digits, because they would not have the capital to do this.

Executive salaries should be largely tied to company profits.
Click to expand...
I agree with this
Set them at some max of company profits and give them full incentive to improve the company to boost their salary, and a big disincentive to taking risks that can hurt profits (i.e. taking on too much bad debt in a financial institution etc.).
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this. The market takes care of itself. A company that is paying it's executives too much would be putting itself at a competative disadvantage, in a truly free market situation. Government should not be stepping in with wage controls.
[quote name='mykevermin']Mandate 7-to-1 policies, really.[/QUOTE]

Mandate? Really?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']There are sports players and media personalities that make just as much as these CEOs. Should the government assign them a maximum salery too?[/QUOTE]

That's an even worse example - my tax dollars subsidize sports salaries through goverment financing of stadiums, not to mention the sports that are allowed to make an end-run around the anti-trust laws. I don't even like watching sports, I'd like my tax dollars back.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']If we had real capitalism in this country, and not this bullshit corporatism that we have now, this would not be a problem. Companies would not be paying their CEOs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, because they made bilions off bailouts, because there would be not bailouts. Without government backing these companies, failing companies would not be able to pay their CEO 8 digits, because they would not have the capital to do this.[/QUOTE]

What is "real capitalism". Do you mean laissez-faire capitalism, or are you on a libertarian fantasy kick.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I agree with this

I don't agree with this. The market takes care of itself. A company that is paying it's executives too much would be putting itself at a competative disadvantage, in a truly free market situation. Government should not be stepping in with wage controls.[/QUOTE]

The invisible hand of the market. LOL!

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Mandate? Really?[/QUOTE]

That is pretty drastic and as a practical matter I think foreign countries would eat us alive. On the other hand I think that in the end setting at least some limit is the only moral thing to do, it's not so radical, after all it nicely bookends already existing policies such as minimum-wage. I'm just not sure 7 is the magic number.
 
Inequality is the biggest non-issue in politics. I can't believe so many pansies on the left get worked up over people making lots of money. Boo frakkin hoo. Unless the money is being confiscated from you at the point of a gun, you have no right to complain. Mind your own business you tyrannical little shits.
 
Are the salaries ridiculous? Sure, but I don't care what a CEO makes as long as it isn't driving the company into the ground at the expense of other workers. If the company itself institutes a policy about upper management salaries I have no problem with that. In fact, that is a good gesture in the economic climate to make to the grunts in a company.

If the government wants to make rules or laws about compensation limits across the board I have a HUGE problem with that. Government has no place doing that at all, with the possible exception of it being a requirement for accepting bailout funds. Even then I don't like that, but at least that is reasonable since there should be accountability for that money. Of course, the government expecting transparency and accountability of anyone is about as absurd as anything I can think of.

I don't care how ridiculous a salary is, it is a dangerous precedent to set for the government to place limits on salaries on anything other than other government entities.
 
Show business and athletes all get paid a lot to, why stop at CEO's? As long as companies are not paying them with taxpayer money they have every right to make those sums of money. Otherwise don't buy a movie ticket or go to a game. Hell let's go after lottery winners or people who invented something, let's take away from people with creativity, ambition and talent! Can they redistribute those things along with the money they make?
 
So here's my question. Any time I've asked about CEO salary in the last years, I've been told that the reason they make the redonkulous bucks is because they return solid value for shareholders. Clearly that's not happening anymore. So where are the shareholder revolts against paying them premium rates without premium returns? I mean, their pay *IS* tied to the market, right? And someone worth 9 figures a year would have seen this coming and positioned their company to strongly return value even in down years, right?
 
[quote name='camoor']
What is "real capitalism". Do you mean laissez-faire capitalism, or are you on a libertarian fantasy kick.[/quote]
A system where there are no Too Big To Fails, no government sponsorship of private enterprise (aka corporate welfare). It's not a system with no regulations, as that can cause problems when you have the greedy bastards from Wall Street trying to make money off every scam they can think of. It's also one where there is actual competition, not the one or two major companies that tend to dominate most industries. (Wasn't it great when there were game stores other than Gamestop? Like Funcoland, EB Games, and others?)
The invisible hand of the market. LOL!
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, the market actually works. Like, when you pay your CEO hundreds of millions for running your company into the ground, it tends to fail. Then, when a company fails, new companies pop up to fill that hole.
[quote name='mykevermin']Where's your outrage over Robert Nardelli and his work at Home Depot and Chrysler, then?[/QUOTE]
I don't have any. If a company is dumb enough to hire someone who is that terrible of CEO, then, whatever happens, happens.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It's also one where there is actual competition, not the one or two major companies that tend to dominate most industries. (Wasn't it great when there were game stores other than Gamestop? Like Funcoland, EB Games, and others?)[/QUOTE]

The fact that you consistently fail to realize that this is the natural conslusion of the free-market capitalism you espouse is why I no longer waste my time responding to your posts.
 
Exactly. Free market capitalism--or anything close to it--leads to monopolies. Hence why we had all the anti-trust laws become necessity shortly after the industrial revolution.

If you allow free markets on the few strong corporations will survive as they'll buy up all the competition.

The government bailing out companies has much less impact on creating monopolies than going to the other extreme and letting the market run rampant.

Hell the bailouts where needed BECAUSE the markets were too free and unregulated and that allowed huge monopolies in the financial sector that led to companies growing to large to be allowed to fail without creating another major depression since so much of the nations wealth was tied up in so few huge banking firms.

Pure capitalism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. The answer is somewhere in the middle and finding the right amount of regulation that minimizes stifling growth, but also prevents monopolies and doesn't allow to much wealth to get tied up in too few companies. And in particular tight regulations are needed on the "too big to fails" too keep them from taking too much risk etc. On that later, at least steps are being made to put more regulations on how much risky debt huge firms can take on etc. It will be interesting to see where that goes.


But yeah, the failure to grasp that, among other things has had him on my ignore list for quite a while.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']The fact that you consistently fail to realize that this is the natural conslusion of the free-market capitalism you espouse is why I no longer waste my time responding to your posts.[/QUOTE]
Of all the reasons, you pick that one.

Anyways this thread doesn't just make me know I'm poor. It makes me feel it. Good show.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Inequality is the biggest non-issue in politics. I can't believe so many pansies on the left get worked up over people making lots of money. Boo frakkin hoo. Unless the money is being confiscated from you at the point of a gun, you have no right to complain. Mind your own business you tyrannical little shits.[/QUOTE]

Meh.

We have had a "discussion" on income inequality before, you didn't know doodly squat then and I doubt time has done much to change that.

Guile:
If the government wants to make rules or laws about compensation limits across the board I have a HUGE problem with that. Government has no place doing that at all, with the possible exception of it being a requirement for accepting bailout funds. Even then I don't like that, but at least that is reasonable since there should be accountability for that money. Of course, the government expecting transparency and accountability of anyone is about as absurd as anything I can think of.
Click to expand...

I know your favorite kool-aid flavor is Rand but you can be reasonable at times. The above just makes you look like a corporate boot licker however.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Meh. We have had a "discussion" on income inequality before, you didn't know doodly squat then and I doubt time has done much to change that.
[/QUOTE]

lols..If by "doodly squat", you mean conceding the moral high ground to a parasitic philosophy that punishes success and rewards failure, then no I didn't. There's no room for crybabies in real the world msut. Lay down your sociology books and drop your socialist crutches for a while and try being a man.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']lols..If by "doodly squat", you mean conceding the moral high ground to a parasitic philosophy that punishes success and rewards failure, then no I didn't.[/quote]

No.

By doodly squat I meant you know nothing, as in zip, zilch or nada.

There's no room for crybabies in real the world msut. Lay down your sociology books and drop your socialist crutches for a while and try being a man.
Click to expand...

You are unintentionally hilarious.
 
The people who are fine with the system don't just have their heads buried in the sand - they've managed to crack their thick skulls right on through concrete, under water, surrounded by piranhas and sharks, while volcanic lava speeds its way toward their miserable - but still "alive" - bodies.

So, you know. Bravo to that and all.
 
[quote name='Strell']The people who are fine with the system don't just have their heads buried in the sand - they've managed to crack their thick skulls right on through concrete, under water, surrounded by piranhas and sharks, while volcanic lava speeds its way toward their miserable - but still "alive" - bodies.

So, you know. Bravo to that and all.[/QUOTE]

That's one way to characterize it. Another way is misguided idealism: those who agree in principle that people should be able to make as much money as they can (in an honest fashion) and that the government has no business telling CEOs or anyone else how much they should be paid, as that is between employer and employee.

This is a sentiment I also agree with in principle. However, there are some real-life facts that complicate this matter quite a bit, and lead to the chart shown in the OP. Mostly these facts have to do with who actually votes in huge pay and benefits packages for CEOs, not to mention the despicable "golden parachutes" to help out those poor guys who managed to get fired for incompetence. Once you realize that boards of companies, often stacked with loyalists to the CEO, vote these things for themselves, it's much easier to see them as an undemocratic, slanted, opaque organization rather than a transparent one responding to market forces. In other words, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

Presently that leads us to a need for a solution to this serious problem. Even without the ridiculous TARP situation, CEO pay has gotten well out of hand due to what I described in the previous paragraph. I believe myke advocates a "maximum wage" set by the government. I am against such draconian measures, although I do see where he's coming from. We've got to do something to inject enough transparency and responsiveness into the system that it can't be gamed so easily.
 
Again, I think a wage tied to being a certain max % of the companies profit is the way to go. It's not a max fixed salary, so companies that do really well can still pay their execs more.

And it reduces having absurd salaries when a company is losing money etc. And it gives a ton of incentive to make decisions in the best interest of the company as increasing profit is increasing the executives pay in a clear and direct fashion.

What the % could/should be is the key question, and I don't have an answer for that.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']lols..If by "doodly squat", you mean conceding the moral high ground to a parasitic philosophy that punishes success and rewards failure, then no I didn't. There's no room for crybabies in real the world msut. Lay down your sociology books and drop your socialist crutches for a while and try being a man.[/QUOTE]

We have a system that rewards failure. Do you have any sort of ideas on how that can be changed, or can you just not understand that?
 
To be fair, the 7-to-1 isn't my beloved ideal. It's just something Ben and Jerry did for awhile.

Whatever the ideal metric is, I do support a maximum wage. Fully.
 
If we are limiting how much CEO's can make, why not limit how much the government can tax, or how many perks the average politician can make. Because the problem isn't with a rich CEO who's being paid with company profits, it's with politicians and government who make poor decisions regarding taxpayers money and politicians who take lobbyist's gifts in exchange for votes.

Honestly, if a company is successful enough to pay their CEO's that much then how is that worse than what the government wastes in taxpayer money. I mean seriously? CEO's salary doesn't affect anyone like a big wasteful government who is causing inflation and raising the national debt. Stop distracting yourselves with this and worry about the fact that inflation is so bad that most of us will be unable to afford things and save the way our parents did.

If you really are for caps on what people can make, you will destroy creativity and drive those people somewhere else where they can make it. How is that ever a good idea? Business's will take there companies out of here. Unless you are against Capitalism, which seems to be the case with many of this board, you should be giving incentives and fostering entrepreneurs to create companies and be originaters because then we all have jobs and prosper. Watch how quickly those larger companies split, and take their jobs with them, to countries where they are entitled to there profits and don't have to rationalize or share it with a wasteful government. I swear, this board is turning into The People's CAG, the cold war ended, what 20 years ago, and we got a new clueless ignorant generation on here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why you tie the cap to a % of the companies profit.

That encourages creativity and innovation as if the company can make great profits the executive takes home more bank. And if they lose money, their salary drops (or disappears)--rather than keep making millions even when the company is losing money as is the norm currently (see Ford etc.).
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Because the problem isn't with a rich CEO who's being paid with company profits, it's with politicians and government who make poor decisions regarding taxpayers money and politicians who take lobbyist's gifts in exchange for votes.[/quote]

Or with CEOs who are being paid enormous salaries and enormous bonuses when their companies take losses, or accept billions of dollars in government money.

Honestly, if a company is successful enough to pay their CEO's that much then how is that worse than what the government wastes in taxpayer money. I mean seriously? CEO's salary doesn't affect anyone like a big wasteful government who is causing inflation and raising the national debt. Stop distracting yourselves with this and worry about the fact that inflation is so bad that most of us will be unable to afford things and save the way our parents did.
Click to expand...

You evidently don't understand what terms like "inflation," "mean household income," "wage inequality," "wealth inequality," and "proportionate changes in earnings" mean. You've said a lot of things above, but you state them as if they're true in and of themselves. "Stop distracting yourselves," you say. You say this as if the income a CEO makes can't go to the laborers, as if it is *unnatural* for laborers to earn a wage for their work. That's the peculiar dissonance that I don't get about free market conservatives: the incredulity is not in the tens of millions being earned by the elite top .05% of this nation - the incredulity is in the suggestion that someone else could reasonably be paid with that money as well.

If you really are for caps on what people can make, you will destroy creativity and drive those people somewhere else where they can make it. How is that ever a good idea? Business's will take there companies out of here. Unless you are against Capitalism, which seems to be the case with many of this board, you should be giving incentives and fostering entrepreneurs to create companies and be originaters because then we all have jobs and prosper. Watch how quickly those larger companies split, and take their jobs with them, to countries where they are entitled to there profits and don't have to rationalize or share it with a wasteful government. I swear, this board is turning into The People's CAG, the cold war ended, what 20 years ago, and we got a new clueless ignorant generation on here.
Click to expand...

I first heard this anticommunist screed when I was in 4th grade. It's another pile of bullshit that's demonstrably untrue. Go look out your window. Go look on myspace. Go look all over the internet. Go walk into people's basements, their garages. People innovate, people create, people use their time just FINE without the profit motive. There's some weird-ass fan fiction out there: star wars side stories, gi joe smut fiction, star trek conventions, cosplay weirdos - and those are just within *our* general demographic (by and large, we are all middle class white male gamers).

The notion that people will sit like jello molds, docile yet jiggly, if you "take away the profit motive," is purely theoretical and is as void of empirical evidence to support it as everything else is that you've said.

Now, I've typed a lot, and I know you won't entertain, even for a moment, the fact that you'll sit and think about the creative endeavors that people engage in with no motive other than satisfaction, and you'll think "well, ok. maybe people will still do stuff." then you'll put it right out of your head because of the threat it poses to your worldview. Then you won't respond to this thread, or any vs forum thread, until you are given the opportunity to post another philosophically empty assault on reasonable intellectualism.
 
I paint game fanart on canvases with acrylics. I also am drawing a tiny tribute to the concept of El Hoardo. Oh! And photoshop things a lot.

No CEO had to dip their balls on my forehead to get me to do that. Or pay a wage slave to do it either! Imagine that.
 
Someday, I'll be one of the elite. I am Howard Roark, brilliant and held back by them.

We need the wage incentive, cause without it, I'd keep my brilliance to myself. And then where would you be? Huh? Where?
 
[quote name='Quillion']Someday, I'll be one of the elite. I am Howard Roark, brilliant and held back by them.

We need the wage incentive, cause without it, I'd keep my brilliance to myself. And then where would you be? Huh? Where?[/QUOTE]

How can you be Howard Roark? I'm Howard Roark.
 
Just started reading "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston, so no I am not feeling particularly charitable to the uber rich.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How can you be Howard Roark? I'm Howard Roark.[/QUOTE]
If you're Howard Roark, then who is John Galt?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']If you're Howard Roark, then who is John Galt?[/QUOTE]

I can't be John Galt. I can't convince my wife to let my son cry himself to sleep.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Just started reading "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston, so no I am not feeling particularly charitable to the uber rich.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I don't see how any rational adult could support the corporatism in America after reading a few books.

And jputahraptor, don't worry Myke missed the joke but I got what you're doing. It's Halloween and you're posting as the ghost of Joe McCarthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top