Can someone help me out: In the article it is asserted:
After years of steady increases, the average compensation among the top executives in 2015 was down 15 percent from the 2014 figure of $22.6 million, according to the Equilar 200 Highest-Paid C.E.O. Rankings, conducted for The New York Times.
But in the print article the Equilar table of CEO pay has two additional rows, an average and median. The average about is $19.3 while is about 15% less than the $22.6, the table says it's a +4% over 2014.
After years of steady increases, the average compensation among the top executives in 2015 was down 15 percent from the 2014 figure of $22.6 million, according to the Equilar 200 Highest-Paid C.E.O. Rankings, conducted for The New York Times.
But in the print article the Equilar table of CEO pay has two additional rows, an average and median. The average about is $19.3 while is about 15% less than the $22.6, the table says it's a +4% over 2014.
2
Until we rediscover the principle first applied by Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, that a majority of the people have the power to limit the incomes and wealth of individuals and families in the interest of the entire public, we'll stay stuck in what amounts to a pre-revolutionary condition, arming ourselves in "self-defense" until a war breaks out.
2
There are probably many investors in these companies that believe the executive salary, bonus and other compensation are too high.
The problem if they hold stock in these companies, esp. ones that are doing well, is that the Boards and executives don't pay attention to stock holders, financial writers, protesters or anyone else. Compensation committees and advisers are afraid to recommend lower payments or they will lose their job or contract.
Boards to don't listen to stockholder proposals to cut pay and it is almost impossible to get rid of bad directors or those who vote for high compensation and put in more reasonable directors.
Stock holders don't want to press for boycotts of the company or company stock for fear the price will drop--and they lose their investment.
The problem if they hold stock in these companies, esp. ones that are doing well, is that the Boards and executives don't pay attention to stock holders, financial writers, protesters or anyone else. Compensation committees and advisers are afraid to recommend lower payments or they will lose their job or contract.
Boards to don't listen to stockholder proposals to cut pay and it is almost impossible to get rid of bad directors or those who vote for high compensation and put in more reasonable directors.
Stock holders don't want to press for boycotts of the company or company stock for fear the price will drop--and they lose their investment.
3
For anyone who buys from Masimo they should be made aware that 19 cents of every dollar they pay goes to the CEO Joe Kiani.
2
I wish writers about executive pay would refrain from using the word "earned". I contend that they do not earn these amounts though they are paid that much.
7
The pay is earned whether or not you think they worked for it. Executives are paid PRIVATE money from PRIVATE business. No one is depriving you. Irdac and company never bother to consider why some are hired at huge salaries while they are not.
Mark menser -- "The PRIVATE money from PRIVATE business" is obtained by charging customers for goods or services. When the CEO is grossly over paid the money is obtained by charging the customer an excessive amount. On those grounds I believe adverse comment is justified. See my comment on Masimo.
3
If my income dropped from $22.6 million to $19.3 million, I simply don't know what I would do. How would I take care of my family, not to mention my loss of self-esteem?
6
Several unexplained factors contribute to this. Since St. Ronnie the attitdes of the business community have changed and along with these changes changes in taxation, bankruptcy laws and others that favor coorporate largess.
The big loosers are the workers and the consumers. How can their be cometition when so many of these behemoths are merging?
As a captive consumer I know that i am not valued and am overcharged. Where do I have a choice in the marketplace say of telecommunication? I don't and a big unnamed company is ripping me and others off .My only choice is to quit being a consumer of thse products.
Also there is a movement amoung this CEO class to end taxes on coorporations. Mr. Cotes of Honeywell is in favor of this among others citing competition.
Changes will not come until the business community starts thinking more like a citizen in a community and abandons their single bottom line mentality.
The market god is revealing that the greatest efficiency of unfettered markets is the efficiency of how money flows upwards.
The big loosers are the workers and the consumers. How can their be cometition when so many of these behemoths are merging?
As a captive consumer I know that i am not valued and am overcharged. Where do I have a choice in the marketplace say of telecommunication? I don't and a big unnamed company is ripping me and others off .My only choice is to quit being a consumer of thse products.
Also there is a movement amoung this CEO class to end taxes on coorporations. Mr. Cotes of Honeywell is in favor of this among others citing competition.
Changes will not come until the business community starts thinking more like a citizen in a community and abandons their single bottom line mentality.
The market god is revealing that the greatest efficiency of unfettered markets is the efficiency of how money flows upwards.
3
What on earth do these people do with all their money? There aren't enough consumer goods on earth for them to buy. I know what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are doing philanthropically. What about the other mega-earners?
1
We worship the rich and famous, no matter how unscrupulous and/or vapid . I grew up in the 1950's and 60's and Im glad I did. We lived in a nice house tin the suburbs hat did not have air-conditioning and that was just fine with us and not unusual either. We didnt wear designer clothing in fact it was considered vulgar to do so. When I went to college in the city I took subways, buses or walked everywhere: taxis were out of the question on our limited budgets.
Now everyone with any means and especially the rich takes everything for granted and is never satisfied with what they have, always wanting more and more. The rich need to be taxed at a much higher rate and that money needs to be distributed to help the poor and middle class have decent housing and education so they can survive in America.
Now everyone with any means and especially the rich takes everything for granted and is never satisfied with what they have, always wanting more and more. The rich need to be taxed at a much higher rate and that money needs to be distributed to help the poor and middle class have decent housing and education so they can survive in America.
8
That's how I remember it, too, though for me there was tennis, which I couldn't play.
When will the people of America wake up ? Wake up and ACT ? The ball is in the court of the people now. People are given a chance . It's election time now. If it's thrown away , then don't blame the system if your children can't be sent to school or you and your family cannot afford to pay for your own precious health . Because , you failed to return the ball in your court . You failed to play the ball.
It's said that Hillary can get things done . Certainly she can . That's why the billionaire class is hoisteing her on her own petard , on her own over vaulting selfish ambition to become the first woman president of America . She has no other interest . Once she makes it, if ever, she would fall neatly into the hands of the Wall Street wolves who can have their will with her.
With Sanders or even for that matter with Trump , Wall Street is not confident of getting their way. At best they can remain as a stumbling block for the people not getting their way. But then , it would be at a great political risk for them in future, though in the short term they might succeed when both the house and the senate are with them for another two more years or so. But after that face- off time , they have no political hopes . You can't fool all the people for all the time., though in fooling some for some time you might succeed for a short term .
Choose wisely or else regret your choice which denies your children a bright future .
It's said that Hillary can get things done . Certainly she can . That's why the billionaire class is hoisteing her on her own petard , on her own over vaulting selfish ambition to become the first woman president of America . She has no other interest . Once she makes it, if ever, she would fall neatly into the hands of the Wall Street wolves who can have their will with her.
With Sanders or even for that matter with Trump , Wall Street is not confident of getting their way. At best they can remain as a stumbling block for the people not getting their way. But then , it would be at a great political risk for them in future, though in the short term they might succeed when both the house and the senate are with them for another two more years or so. But after that face- off time , they have no political hopes . You can't fool all the people for all the time., though in fooling some for some time you might succeed for a short term .
Choose wisely or else regret your choice which denies your children a bright future .
1
So, Zeitgeist, we have three people competing to be president:
(1) a revolutionary loner who wants total change NOW, after decades of avoiding any sustained team effort to build the crucial ground support.
(2) a narcissistic, erratic media star with a history of business fraud and failure, who thinks self-promotion and insults are all he needs to be a world leader.
(3) a tenacious, prqgmatic feminist liberal with vast policy knowledge and 50 years in Democratic politics, as campaign manager, party builder, First Lady, Senator and cabinet member, all under endless attack from GOP plutocrats who opposed her goals and ideals.
Now, of these three, who has put aside ambition to help another Democrat win the Presidency? Yep, #3. She helped Clinton and Obama too, after the primaries. Yet you single HER out for "vaulting selfish ambition." You assume HER motives and actions are uniquely malign.
Why would that be? Are the other two humble and unassuming? Or completely unselfish and uninterested in power? 100% honest and transparent? Of course not. But it's OK with you, because that's what our world likes and expects in men -- competition and leadership. A woman who seeks them, who does not bow out and let a less-qualified man take precedence, must surely be evil and selfish -- just as a black president, in many minds, could never have achieved that pinnacle honestly either.
(1) a revolutionary loner who wants total change NOW, after decades of avoiding any sustained team effort to build the crucial ground support.
(2) a narcissistic, erratic media star with a history of business fraud and failure, who thinks self-promotion and insults are all he needs to be a world leader.
(3) a tenacious, prqgmatic feminist liberal with vast policy knowledge and 50 years in Democratic politics, as campaign manager, party builder, First Lady, Senator and cabinet member, all under endless attack from GOP plutocrats who opposed her goals and ideals.
Now, of these three, who has put aside ambition to help another Democrat win the Presidency? Yep, #3. She helped Clinton and Obama too, after the primaries. Yet you single HER out for "vaulting selfish ambition." You assume HER motives and actions are uniquely malign.
Why would that be? Are the other two humble and unassuming? Or completely unselfish and uninterested in power? 100% honest and transparent? Of course not. But it's OK with you, because that's what our world likes and expects in men -- competition and leadership. A woman who seeks them, who does not bow out and let a less-qualified man take precedence, must surely be evil and selfish -- just as a black president, in many minds, could never have achieved that pinnacle honestly either.
4
Executive pay is obscene. These people are making enough that all could live well on one year of their pay. It seems that many executives and board members think the ability to lead a company is very limited. The truth is for every CEO there several in the company who could be the CEO. The truth is too many companies are skating with no changes, no new ideas and no new products.
CEO pay should go down 10 per cent a year for at least five years. During that time each company should produce long time goals that they use to pay executives and get rid of short time goals. No more than one of these goals should be about stockholders. Then pay CEO's for reaching goals and pay stockholders a fair but limited amount .
CEO pay should go down 10 per cent a year for at least five years. During that time each company should produce long time goals that they use to pay executives and get rid of short time goals. No more than one of these goals should be about stockholders. Then pay CEO's for reaching goals and pay stockholders a fair but limited amount .
2
Or might you set a tax based inversely on the number of people your company employs and how much your company pays them?
WREverdell
Great idea. That's the kind of thinking that's made Xerox, ITT,Amtrak and the DMV the models of efficiency and success they are today
Great idea. That's the kind of thinking that's made Xerox, ITT,Amtrak and the DMV the models of efficiency and success they are today
Why target corporations ? The real culprit is the government and their regulatory system . It's the job of the government to check these excesses of inequality. Only the government can do it if they have the political will for it.
Political will is softened with the massive funding the corporations have advanced to these shameless politicians , who stead of going to the people, go to these predators and become their slaves and made to obey their masters bidding. In a true democracy , the people " we the 99% " are the masters not the 1% billionaire class .
Government is derelict in their duties .politicians are pre- paid purchases of these business corporations . It's a wonder how the people are seduced to vote for these blatantly bought politicians who have openly taken millions from Wall Street , like our Wall Street babe Hillary ,for example. Whoever gets supported by Wall Street , the people must take an oath to themselves that they won't vote for that person .
Hence the ultimate responsibility for changing the system rests squarely on the shoulders of the people , not on the career politicians , not on the billionaire class.
If the people are blind to the facts, if the people are so easily seducable , if the people are willing to enjoy them getting raped then there is only one way . Leave them alone to enjoy.
Political will is softened with the massive funding the corporations have advanced to these shameless politicians , who stead of going to the people, go to these predators and become their slaves and made to obey their masters bidding. In a true democracy , the people " we the 99% " are the masters not the 1% billionaire class .
Government is derelict in their duties .politicians are pre- paid purchases of these business corporations . It's a wonder how the people are seduced to vote for these blatantly bought politicians who have openly taken millions from Wall Street , like our Wall Street babe Hillary ,for example. Whoever gets supported by Wall Street , the people must take an oath to themselves that they won't vote for that person .
Hence the ultimate responsibility for changing the system rests squarely on the shoulders of the people , not on the career politicians , not on the billionaire class.
If the people are blind to the facts, if the people are so easily seducable , if the people are willing to enjoy them getting raped then there is only one way . Leave them alone to enjoy.
The government, alas, is us, though we have forgotten to think of it that way, and so blame our government instead of ourselves when the government gets bought by a favored few and the perverse incentives start working.
I question why we are so concerned about how much a CEO earns and don't question how and why most retiring politicians are multi millionaires. How exactly do they come by this money. Their salaries just aren't all that much. Look at Bill and Hillary. Our own gov't is squeezing us dry.
1
I lose faith in the American economy when CEOs are paid such inflated wages. Good-bye to the Middle Class.
1
19.3 is not a fall in wages but an obscenity. No one is worth that much a year.
5
As corporate boards and CEOs run out of tricks to pump up stock prices, it's inevitable that their compensation will stop skyrocketing. I can't wait. They have squeezed just about as much as they can out of the citizens of this country, I think.
3
The CEO pay should reasonably be set on reasonable parameters that must take into account the all environmets around the enterprise. As such should address the present and the future of the enterprise taken in its own and in its role in the economic and social dimension of the country it is operating in. To day the emterprise is mainly working for the year end results, as such many of the above considerations are missing. Of course there are exceptions but are just a few, not the norm.
2
The bloat in CEO compensation is rationalized as providing incentive to "maximize shareholder value." That is the heart of the problem. The CEO today has little incentive to maximize the long-term value of the company's product or services, nor its value to its customers or employees. Only the shareholders matter, which is why the average CEO compensation package, as you report, is 69% stock. This provides a skewed motivation for short-sighted strategies that artificially prop up stock prices in the near term while ignoring other business fundamentals and value to society.
5
Yeah, poor guys /gals. If they lost 5 percent, their losses are more than 90 percent of will make in a lifetime.
1
When total compensation for the CEO in a company drops below forty times the compensation of the lowest paid employee then that company will be approaching comparable worth for services received. Check numerous studies.
Oh, I hope that these CEOs don't lose too many millions! They must retain enough wealth to buy more irreplaceable art so they can store it away from the plebs' prying eyes! (See today's NYT Article, "Hidden behind a fence is a world-class stash of art.")
2
Cry me a river!
1
I am very much afraid this is at least one reason why Bernie is popular among the ugly, unwashed masses. I am also afraid the center will not hold and we will wake up one day and find the American dream was just a bad dream and there will be a second coming of the America revolution. I am afraid that a good many in Wall Street and government will find themselves shorter, not by a reduction in pay, but a reduction in height - by a head. No government is the history of the world has lasted, unchanged, more than a few hundred year- at most. Or maybe there is "Hope". Then again, perhaps, no, Obama proved we were fools to believe that. Or him.
2
I love the simpletons who forget that corporations are paying CEOs with THEIR OWN MONEY, not yours. I do not give a darn what a CEO ears. That is not my money. I also do not care how much a Corporation spends on furniture, drapes, art, or perks. Liberals like the Sanders'crowd are always carping about "greed", and something called "income inequality". Absent from their constant braying is any explanation " why" it is (a) any of their business how someone else chooses to spend money, or (b) they are somehow entitled to that money.
The AMERICAN approach is simple: If a CEO gets a million bucks a year, how can I get it too? The idea that I am somehow "cheated" if someone else makes money is moronic.
The AMERICAN approach is simple: If a CEO gets a million bucks a year, how can I get it too? The idea that I am somehow "cheated" if someone else makes money is moronic.
3
Simpletons? Perhaps you need a reminder that ALL corporations would not exist without customers and their money primarily made up the simpletons whom probably have not had a raise in their jobs in 25 yrs.
1
Deus02
OK, but then the simpletons have the choice of not to spend their money on products from companies they believe pay the CEO too much.But again, it's not the simpleton's money; the money belongs to the shareholders, who can spend it as they choose.
OK, but then the simpletons have the choice of not to spend their money on products from companies they believe pay the CEO too much.But again, it's not the simpleton's money; the money belongs to the shareholders, who can spend it as they choose.
Hey Mark, It is your money - where do you think that comes from- The magic money fairy? You obiousyly don't work or have never worked at a corporation and don't have a retirement account or have friends who have been downsized. Why were they downsized? To make more money for the corporation so they can pay their executives who for the most part are also major stockholders. The issue isn't that they make money its the obscene amount so stop with the Liberal bias. Conservatives lose jobs too.
3
well honestly, how much money can a person spend in his lifetime? You can only buy so many $8,000 shower curtains and $6,000 pair of jeans.
2
This is why we need to return to the progressive graduated tax rates we had before Reagan. As each million is added, the tax on that million should go up, until the top rate of 90% is reached. Again, it's not 90% of ALL the income -- the higher % applies ONLY to the amount in that bracket. The rates should apply to all forms of compensation or earnings, whether labor or capital. And C-Level execs and boards should be individually criminally responsible for crimes committed by their companies. Tax-deductible fines and legal costs create moral hazard and drive out those who try to compete honestly.
This system is not communist -- in reality, it preserves capitalism, the free market, democracy, and the society that forms their foundations. There is no security for wealth in any form if the state fails and falls. There should be no expense write-offs for political contributions or lobbying.
With these rates, there's no point in milking a company or industry dry, then moving on. It limits money sloshing around politics. It fosters long-term thinking and a wider view of "stakeholders" to include employees, communities, and even (gasp!) the nation and its future. It gives our elected government the resources and strength necessary to maintain the complex, interconnected society of the 21st century, and protect both people and business from predation.
This system is not communist -- in reality, it preserves capitalism, the free market, democracy, and the society that forms their foundations. There is no security for wealth in any form if the state fails and falls. There should be no expense write-offs for political contributions or lobbying.
With these rates, there's no point in milking a company or industry dry, then moving on. It limits money sloshing around politics. It fosters long-term thinking and a wider view of "stakeholders" to include employees, communities, and even (gasp!) the nation and its future. It gives our elected government the resources and strength necessary to maintain the complex, interconnected society of the 21st century, and protect both people and business from predation.
6
No, it didnt. "Pay" is not just salaries. Its the huge amount of options and stock grants and other behind the scenes pay they get. So nobody is buying this. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is drastically shrinking.
A requirement for every MBA ought to include a history course on the French and Soviet revolutions, and exactly what it means when an angry populace with nothing to lose starts thinking, "Those heads would look good in a basket..."
For contrast, they could study the 500-year success of the Roman Republic, whose infrastructure still stands and whose social contract permeates the world of today. Yes, a productive, commercial society that believed in public investment on a large scale, funded mainly by those with the most resources and therefore the biggest stake in the health, security and prosperity of the people and polity. No, it's not Marxist -- it's originally Republican!
The course could give the MBA's a sense of proportion too -- when the ancient Republican self-equipped defense force went into combat, those who could afford the best training & gear were at the front. Hanging back would forever disgrace their family. The wealthy got first vote -- we still use the word for it: prerogative -- but their public responsibilities were much heavier than today, and not just financial. The Romans had other faults and problems, but we're not halfway to their record longevity for a continuous representative government. Let's hope we can right ourselves and outlast them.
For contrast, they could study the 500-year success of the Roman Republic, whose infrastructure still stands and whose social contract permeates the world of today. Yes, a productive, commercial society that believed in public investment on a large scale, funded mainly by those with the most resources and therefore the biggest stake in the health, security and prosperity of the people and polity. No, it's not Marxist -- it's originally Republican!
The course could give the MBA's a sense of proportion too -- when the ancient Republican self-equipped defense force went into combat, those who could afford the best training & gear were at the front. Hanging back would forever disgrace their family. The wealthy got first vote -- we still use the word for it: prerogative -- but their public responsibilities were much heavier than today, and not just financial. The Romans had other faults and problems, but we're not halfway to their record longevity for a continuous representative government. Let's hope we can right ourselves and outlast them.
7
"mbat, those who could afford the best training & gear were at the front. Hanging back would forever disgrace their family. "
That is not my understanding. I read that the Romans used their worst troops or native auxiliaries in the front line and kept their best troops in reserve so that they could easily defeat the enemy soldiers remaining in battle.
That is not my understanding. I read that the Romans used their worst troops or native auxiliaries in the front line and kept their best troops in reserve so that they could easily defeat the enemy soldiers remaining in battle.
And when the ruling families lost their sense of public service and honor, and the growth of Empire had made them too rich to understand the majority of their fellow citizens, they began making war on each other. This is the story that used to be told in every American school about how the Romans lost their republic to a permanent dictatorship that we still call Caesarism. I'll be teaching my 6th-graders that this week.
1
That depends when you check the figures. When the Republic was founded in 509 BCE the patricians were at the front of a draft army of fellow citizens. When Scipio defeated Hannibal in 202, they were still in front, though commanders like Scipio tended to lead from behind, and it was Carthage that used mercenaries (who rebelled against them). But when Crassus fought Spartacus in 71 BCE the ruling class officers tended to be at the back. For Rome the use of mercenaries came much later, after the Republic had ended in 31 BCE.
2
People are starving and receiving poor quality education. The country's infrastructure is in shambles. Shall I go on?
The biggest argument against CEO grand larceny is the $30 million paid to Yahoo's Marissa Mayer. She has made one disastouously wrong decision after another ever since she was lured away from Google. Trying to fix Yahoo is like putting lipstick on a pig. At least other CEO's on this list enhanced shareholder value. All Mayer did was enhance her personal bank account.
The biggest argument against CEO grand larceny is the $30 million paid to Yahoo's Marissa Mayer. She has made one disastouously wrong decision after another ever since she was lured away from Google. Trying to fix Yahoo is like putting lipstick on a pig. At least other CEO's on this list enhanced shareholder value. All Mayer did was enhance her personal bank account.
1
"People are starving and receiving poor quality education. The country's infrastructure is in shambles"
A significant portion of the urban underclass do not value education and go so far as to attack those member who do for "acting white".
Perhaps the GOP would agree to infrastructure spending if the democrats would drop their demands that all such work must be done by union members who would then kickback most of their union dues to the democrats.
A significant portion of the urban underclass do not value education and go so far as to attack those member who do for "acting white".
Perhaps the GOP would agree to infrastructure spending if the democrats would drop their demands that all such work must be done by union members who would then kickback most of their union dues to the democrats.
1
Grand larceny involves the taking of money that is not yours. Contractual compensation is never grand larceny. As Canada Bill Jones famously said: "It is morally wrong to leave a fool in possession of his money."
1
It is the law that defines what money is "yours" and what's not. And the law is made in this country by a majority of the people in accordance with the Constitution. Libertarians should keep this crazy old idea in mind.
I think we should take up a collection for these overpaid charlatans. After all, without them, where would the middle class be?
They are "overpaid" when the paymaster says so...not us. Where do you libs get the idea it is any of your business how much a corporation chooses to pay a private employee out of its own private funds? I am more concerned with the federal government paying six-figure "bonuses" to bureaucrats. Now there is a theft of OUR money.
1
Teddy Roosevelt (not to mention Franklin) must not be in your history books. "Private" enterprise (enterprise not owned by the public) was regulated and taxed to beat the band back then. Did your family make out in the Gilded Age (1870-1900) and get downsized by the inheritance tax (1906) and the income tax (1913)? Or was your family among the majority that worked for peanuts for private enterprises like Carnegie Steel and welcomed the new labor laws like Workman's Compensation that protected their jobs and lives?
Bonuses to federal bureaucrats? Against the Civil Service laws of the late 18th century? When? Enlighten me.
Bonuses to federal bureaucrats? Against the Civil Service laws of the late 18th century? When? Enlighten me.
In response to the title, I have two words: Not enough.
Despite what CEO's, fellow senior management colleagues and board members state - almost all are replaceable. Compensation seldom bears any correlation to business performance. And even if it did, why is money the only measure of one's competence or talent? You can't put a price tag on character - and, lord knows, without being a Pollyanna, our society would be far better if there are measures other than money to have us all aspire to achieve in life.
Despite what CEO's, fellow senior management colleagues and board members state - almost all are replaceable. Compensation seldom bears any correlation to business performance. And even if it did, why is money the only measure of one's competence or talent? You can't put a price tag on character - and, lord knows, without being a Pollyanna, our society would be far better if there are measures other than money to have us all aspire to achieve in life.
4
No CEO of a public company deserves to get paid these obscene compensations. Compensation of CEO of public companies should not exceed 500k-1m.
Public companies CEO compensations should be held to stringent rules.
The $15.00 minimum wage should be applied to public company.
These CEOs are pumps arrogant guys who are not GODs and failed many companies should not be entitled to golden parachute package.
Let's be real. This is legalized corruption. Criminals! Like the many politicians.
If you are the CEO of a private company you can do whatever compensation you wish.
Public companies CEO compensations should be held to stringent rules.
The $15.00 minimum wage should be applied to public company.
These CEOs are pumps arrogant guys who are not GODs and failed many companies should not be entitled to golden parachute package.
Let's be real. This is legalized corruption. Criminals! Like the many politicians.
If you are the CEO of a private company you can do whatever compensation you wish.
The argument that is routinely trotted out is that "you get what you pay for" and the immense compensation packages of these executives is worth the value they bring to their companies.
But when I look at the companion article to this piece, listing the top 200 companies for executive pay, I see ZERO correlation between CEO pay and the performance of the company.
We've got Expedia at the top with the highest pay AND really excellent returns. But then in positions 2 and 3 we have CBS and Viacom, who have grossly under-performed the market while their CEOs get paid ridiculous sums.
I'd like to see somebody at the NY Times do a detailed study of whether there is truly any relationship between CEO pay and performance.
It looks to me like there isn't. I suspect that pay is based on company politics and the skill of the executives at promoting themselves rather than promoting value for shareholders.
But when I look at the companion article to this piece, listing the top 200 companies for executive pay, I see ZERO correlation between CEO pay and the performance of the company.
We've got Expedia at the top with the highest pay AND really excellent returns. But then in positions 2 and 3 we have CBS and Viacom, who have grossly under-performed the market while their CEOs get paid ridiculous sums.
I'd like to see somebody at the NY Times do a detailed study of whether there is truly any relationship between CEO pay and performance.
It looks to me like there isn't. I suspect that pay is based on company politics and the skill of the executives at promoting themselves rather than promoting value for shareholders.
1
OMG
My heart bleeds for them!
How can they make ends meet on 20 mil/year?
We have millions, yes millions, honest,hard-working men/women who raise families on less then 50k/year.
Have they no shame?
My heart bleeds for them!
How can they make ends meet on 20 mil/year?
We have millions, yes millions, honest,hard-working men/women who raise families on less then 50k/year.
Have they no shame?
3
This analysis has been made from the perspective of the employee and not from the perspective of the shareholder, the managers ultimate employer. The shareholder view is highly relevant given that American 401k and Defined Benefit pension fund savings of the typical worker depend on the success of corporate managers much as Cavaliers fans depend on Lebron James for success and not the ticket vendor.
In order to tell if a CEO is overcompensated from a shareholder perspective we need more data. A CEO's compensation should be measured relative to what he or she will have the greatest control over. While there is no perfect answer, the financial metric that the CEO exerts the greatest control over will be earnings (preferably long term earnings). I have yet to see a media analysis comparing earnings to CEO compensation. There are going to be some glaring differences.
For example, Leslie Moonves and Mark Hurd of CBS and Oracle, respectively, were paid over $50 million last year. In the case of Hurd this equals a little less than .4% of corporate earnings while Moonves earned somewhat less than 4% of total income.
It is fairly easy to argue that Hurd, if he is doing his job well, should be able to improve earnings by .4% and could from a shareholders perspective be worth the money. Improving earnings by 4% is a much higher hurdle. Looking at CBS's recent earnings performance you could make a strong case that Moonves should see lower levels of compensation.
In order to tell if a CEO is overcompensated from a shareholder perspective we need more data. A CEO's compensation should be measured relative to what he or she will have the greatest control over. While there is no perfect answer, the financial metric that the CEO exerts the greatest control over will be earnings (preferably long term earnings). I have yet to see a media analysis comparing earnings to CEO compensation. There are going to be some glaring differences.
For example, Leslie Moonves and Mark Hurd of CBS and Oracle, respectively, were paid over $50 million last year. In the case of Hurd this equals a little less than .4% of corporate earnings while Moonves earned somewhat less than 4% of total income.
It is fairly easy to argue that Hurd, if he is doing his job well, should be able to improve earnings by .4% and could from a shareholders perspective be worth the money. Improving earnings by 4% is a much higher hurdle. Looking at CBS's recent earnings performance you could make a strong case that Moonves should see lower levels of compensation.
1
Pretty good analysis, but what one should conclude from it needs to be based on the public interest, not the shareholders' interest or even the interest of the public pension funds'.
Steve Jobs made a fortune for investors and took $1 a year salary and stock options, later he was given personal use of a corporate jet. That is far better than the thieves that take a fortune while crashing the company.
What I also find disturbing is the recent practice of CEOs of not for profit hospitals getting massive salaries. The President of the United States makes $400,000 a year, why should a hospital CEO get twice that?
What I also find disturbing is the recent practice of CEOs of not for profit hospitals getting massive salaries. The President of the United States makes $400,000 a year, why should a hospital CEO get twice that?
5
While the wages of the average American worker stagnate, these people rake it in. And if they fail, they get a golden parachute worth millions just for signing a confidentiality agreement. We pay most of the taxes while they skim the cream.
1
Executive pay is not a competitive market. Its the Old boys club at its best. When Board members become liable for excessive compensation, pay will come down. Any of these "leaders' could be replaced by someone of equal or better talent and vision for a base $1 million and a nominal incentive/benefits package.
2
Oh my god. Their wages fell. One years salary enough for a lifetime. Well, somebody's gotta pay those ridiculous prices for that real estate that's advertised in the nytimes.
Wow. Some of these poor schlubs made a million or less than last year. So heartbreaking. We deify the wrong people. Steve Jobs, his Chinese workers had suicide nets.. Very considerate of him. So if you make a ton of dough, you are magically exempt from morality and ethics. And are praised even though you're a lousy, selfish human being.
We need to keep it in mind that Ayn Rand was wrong: Selfishness is not a virtue. (And the public interest requires us to discourage selfishness by both law and custom.)
I love how smart, attractive and noble these CEOs are. How good and worthy. So much more intelligent and superior in every way our capitalist culture defines as "winning". Wonderful. Successful. Yes, they are obviously better than the rest of us and more deserving. Oh, let us praise them.
10
They are so myopic that the few who figure out that An isn't really praising them here are going to demand legal protection against reputation-destroyers.
It is seldom mentioned that the average pay of all CEOs of publicly-held companies is $165,000. Only a tiny number of CEOs at huge companies receive outsize paychecks.
The 200 CEOs discussed in this article constitute constitute .0001227% of the work force. They are simply not statistically significant.
If stockholders are annoyed with this. they should dump the stocks. But they are evidently satisfied. Nobody else has any reason to care. You take the $20 million a guy makes, and divide if up among 200,000 workers at the company, and every gets a $100 raise.
The 200 CEOs discussed in this article constitute constitute .0001227% of the work force. They are simply not statistically significant.
If stockholders are annoyed with this. they should dump the stocks. But they are evidently satisfied. Nobody else has any reason to care. You take the $20 million a guy makes, and divide if up among 200,000 workers at the company, and every gets a $100 raise.
3
References to the number of CEOs to our overall workforce is precisely the problem. I doubt with severe skepticism that 165k is the average CEO pay of all publicly traded companies. The better metric is that the average pay for all Fortune 500 companies was 13.8mm or 204 times the average median worker pay of 77k of the millions of people employed by these companies. (2014)
Societies go though a wretched generational turn when our institutions are weak. Our wealth gap in the US is more akin to what you see in the third world. The 2008 financial crisis was the start with the following central bank policies only furthering the income gap issues. I believe the millennials will be the most important generation to realign our country politically over the next 10 years. Those in charge since Clinton have really only overseen the slide into crisis.
Societies go though a wretched generational turn when our institutions are weak. Our wealth gap in the US is more akin to what you see in the third world. The 2008 financial crisis was the start with the following central bank policies only furthering the income gap issues. I believe the millennials will be the most important generation to realign our country politically over the next 10 years. Those in charge since Clinton have really only overseen the slide into crisis.
Actually that number reported by the BLS is the average salary of CEOs overall not publically traded companies. This number would inude many small businesses that don't even make in a year what these CEOs in this article make. The median salary of S&P 500 companies for CEOs is around 10 million which is much more relevant.
1
In attempting to aid a correction to everyone else, quite obviously you do not understand the fact that you forgot about super-voting-shares. You forgot about how proxy votes work. As well you forget about the corrosoive affects of elitism.
If you can't fix it in the boardroom -- and these results prove you can't -- you can always fix it with income tax. No one needs $1 billion in personal income every year, but an additional 14% tax on just the top 25 hedge fund managers would completely pay for the administration's emergency request to prevent the spread of Zika.
16
In other words, there is no rhyme or reason for the preposterous compensation these people get.
Income is down? I am sure these executives will not repeat that mistake by cutting wages for everyone else to pad and get their own compensations back on track.
No one can convince me that any of these individuals can't be outsourced to an equivalent "genius" for 1/50 of the cost.
Income is down? I am sure these executives will not repeat that mistake by cutting wages for everyone else to pad and get their own compensations back on track.
No one can convince me that any of these individuals can't be outsourced to an equivalent "genius" for 1/50 of the cost.
21
Indeed. "Genius" is a label best reserved for Einstein, as Physicist Richard Feinman put it. These CEOs are very ordinary and predictable, revered only because they know how to play the game and some luck. I know a few and some are just dreadful, insecure unhappy people. They are in a bubble of unimaginable entitlement and are not this country's leaders.
“Nobody wants to be in the bottom half,” Mr. Daly said. “So over time, the average compensation in any group goes up.”
I am reminded of Garrison Keillor's closing statement:
"Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
If everyone wants to be above average, the only solution is to keep moving the relevant metrics - be it strength or beauty or wealth - higher and higher. This is an explosive situation that has no self-correcting push back. And that is why we need regulations to reign them in.
I am reminded of Garrison Keillor's closing statement:
"Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
If everyone wants to be above average, the only solution is to keep moving the relevant metrics - be it strength or beauty or wealth - higher and higher. This is an explosive situation that has no self-correcting push back. And that is why we need regulations to reign them in.
13
I'll volunteer to be in the bottom half, and I'm a hard worker, too. I'm just not a narcissistic sociopath, so I wouldn't fit in....
"Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Although this is generally considered to be a joke, it is quite possible for all of the children in one town to be well above the state or national average.
Although this is generally considered to be a joke, it is quite possible for all of the children in one town to be well above the state or national average.
1
Totally agree! They need to be "reined in" like a runaway horse, which is where that expression came from. I find it apt -- they are not kings over the state, they are citizens subject to law, like everyone else.
Trump is seeking to find a way to justify his theft when elected. He will select Madoff the VP spot and when elected will grant him official forgiveness. Madoff will then structure an international fund which will make them both the richest people on Earth.
This plan is being kept under wraps until the convention.
Don't laugh. Remember when Trump was never going to win?
He did and will!
Rev. Ike said it all, "God wants you to be rich. Here is how you become rich. Pass all your valuables tome at the front of the church. Now see how fast God made me rich. Now go out and get your own."
This plan is being kept under wraps until the convention.
Don't laugh. Remember when Trump was never going to win?
He did and will!
Rev. Ike said it all, "God wants you to be rich. Here is how you become rich. Pass all your valuables tome at the front of the church. Now see how fast God made me rich. Now go out and get your own."
7
It will eventually trickle down, right?
Right?
Right?
12
How many (luxury) cars can one person drive at one time? How many boats can they sail? How many planes can they fly? Or helicopters? How many filet mignon steaks and lobsters can one person eat in a lifetime, if they had that meal for breakfast, lunch and dinner each and every day? With caviar for mid-morning, mid-afternoon and late night snacks. How many mansion roofs does it take to protect one person from the elements?
There is an aphorism in Alcoholics Anonymous: One drink is too many; a thousand are not enough.
There is an aphorism in Alcoholics Anonymous: One drink is too many; a thousand are not enough.
12
These people may or may not spend lots of money. Most of them just invest the bulk of their fortunes in stocks and bonds.
1
Oracle's Larry Ellison would be one to ask.
3
From which, of course, they receive more money to buy more stocks and bonds ad infinitum. It is Monopoly with real real estate. But there is no Jail, thus no need for the Get Out Free card; Go is seemingly every other square; and all the Community Chest and Chance cards work in your favor.
No one, absolutely no one, deserves this much money/compensation.
This is sickening and just plain wrong.
Let them earn what they will, but we need to tax any and all income above 10 million at 99% (ah, the pre-Reagan days).
This is sickening and just plain wrong.
Let them earn what they will, but we need to tax any and all income above 10 million at 99% (ah, the pre-Reagan days).
14
blankfein (goldman sachs ) , dimon ( citibank) each make $ 70 mill per year
5
no, they don't. you have overstated each of their paychecks by 300%
Yes, but please keep in mind that we are not counting career criminals here, just average CEO's.
Oh no corporate CEO pay fell! I'm sure congress will want to step in and issue Champaign stamps! Poor CEOs they've had a cut on pay.
1
Poor babies, they'll obviously starve to death.
1
"On a case-by-case basis, large executive pay packages are easy to understand. Big companies employ thousands of people and generate billions in sales. Competition for top executive talent is intense, especially in today’s global marketplace. From that perspective, Mr. Kaplan said: “In this day and age, I don’t think they’re particularly overpaid.” "
Really! Talk about self justification! Both as a shareholder and mid-level employee for a large corporation, I disagree. When looking at company performance as measure by various metrics, it is not hard to find instances where compensation does not match the reality.
Further, while CEOs may bring a certain skill set and vision to a company, more often than not a company's (continuing) success may be traced back to the work and ideas of others, and, often to the collective action of groups and teams of employees.
In short, an argument may be made that most CEOs are not as gifted as they may believe they are or their "chummy" boards think. They are more interchangeable or replaceable than they would have us believe. Therefore, the market is not as competitive, as those that profit from it what us to continue to think.
One thing that CEOs do have a great ability to do is destroy wealth quickly, think of GM, Bear Streans, Lehman, HP, BP, and Yahoo, to name few companies that have not been done well by the actions of their CEOs.
That top talent should be well compensated, but always with consideration to the true value added.
Really! Talk about self justification! Both as a shareholder and mid-level employee for a large corporation, I disagree. When looking at company performance as measure by various metrics, it is not hard to find instances where compensation does not match the reality.
Further, while CEOs may bring a certain skill set and vision to a company, more often than not a company's (continuing) success may be traced back to the work and ideas of others, and, often to the collective action of groups and teams of employees.
In short, an argument may be made that most CEOs are not as gifted as they may believe they are or their "chummy" boards think. They are more interchangeable or replaceable than they would have us believe. Therefore, the market is not as competitive, as those that profit from it what us to continue to think.
One thing that CEOs do have a great ability to do is destroy wealth quickly, think of GM, Bear Streans, Lehman, HP, BP, and Yahoo, to name few companies that have not been done well by the actions of their CEOs.
That top talent should be well compensated, but always with consideration to the true value added.
5
It is sad when we have CEO's making tens of millions of dollars and they have the nerve to tell their employees they can not increase their pay or provide them with better benefits because "it is not in the budget". And pundits try and determine why the middle class keeps shrinking. You have to blind or stupid not to see the reason.
14
Not Far Enough!
2
Big deal, their pay fell a mere $19 million. Yahoooooooo, and yet millions of American voters yearn for the return of Republican virtues via this self aroused and self promoting boob who only promise endless wars, financial crises which only sap the middle class. What is next, the complete abolishment of the federal inheritance tax which will perpetuate the power of the super rich and control of this country for hundreds of years. Did anyone ever read the history of England and France and revolutions which followed the overthrow of the royal families. It never ceases to amaze me how the middle class continually falls for the hot buttons the super rich and their stooges toss out like scrapes of leftovers to the masses.
6
Another report about how the rich are getter richer --just at a slightly, very slightly, less staggering rate.
A salary of $10 million translates to $4,800…an HOUR--or $76,800 a month. Just imagine the humiliating subsistence lifestyle on that wage...when your CEO pals are bringing in $20 and $30 million ($9600 and $14,400 an hour).
I sure hope things turn around for these beleaguered citizens.
A salary of $10 million translates to $4,800…an HOUR--or $76,800 a month. Just imagine the humiliating subsistence lifestyle on that wage...when your CEO pals are bringing in $20 and $30 million ($9600 and $14,400 an hour).
I sure hope things turn around for these beleaguered citizens.
6
If you think about it paying someone this much money is taking money from some other place it should or at least could be.
It has to come from somewhere; which is usually the lowered wages of skilled & unskilled labor or just exporting those jobs (to a place where a weeks pay for one person will hire 50 people for a month) or from the tax rolls both by getting breaks and exporting the jobs, or who knows what else I don’t remember enough right now but the vast wealth that has been steered into the pockets of a few, the wealth we all have a right to benefit from because it comes from our resources and our infrastructure supports it, used to pay for making this nation “great” and the rich were still rich and CEO’s et al still had the biggest house etcetera.
The point is that money these men and women are making if it were in its right place would be doing the “invisible hand” stuff con men like Alan Greenspan told us about to excuse changing our system so that it could be this corrupt again, instead of what it is doing which is corrupting societies all over the world.
It has to come from somewhere; which is usually the lowered wages of skilled & unskilled labor or just exporting those jobs (to a place where a weeks pay for one person will hire 50 people for a month) or from the tax rolls both by getting breaks and exporting the jobs, or who knows what else I don’t remember enough right now but the vast wealth that has been steered into the pockets of a few, the wealth we all have a right to benefit from because it comes from our resources and our infrastructure supports it, used to pay for making this nation “great” and the rich were still rich and CEO’s et al still had the biggest house etcetera.
The point is that money these men and women are making if it were in its right place would be doing the “invisible hand” stuff con men like Alan Greenspan told us about to excuse changing our system so that it could be this corrupt again, instead of what it is doing which is corrupting societies all over the world.
5
I've asked this question on many a story about CEO compensation over the years and it seems that no one wants to answer it, so I'll try again:
What exactly does a CEO actually DO to earn their compensation? Even if a CEO worked 24/7 at $19.3 million per year this means they are paid $2170 per hour, $1.6 million per month. I can't imagine that any CEO "works" hard enough to earn such compensation. I bet that if Wells Fargos's chief executive didn't show up for "work" for a whole year, the company would operate quite well without him. No one would miss him or his "work."
What exactly does a CEO actually DO to earn their compensation? Even if a CEO worked 24/7 at $19.3 million per year this means they are paid $2170 per hour, $1.6 million per month. I can't imagine that any CEO "works" hard enough to earn such compensation. I bet that if Wells Fargos's chief executive didn't show up for "work" for a whole year, the company would operate quite well without him. No one would miss him or his "work."
11
They are responsible for making decisions that may make or lose the stockholders billions of dollars.
Let's take Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase. I think it is fair to say that he is not a nice guy, but he is a hard-nosed businessman. It was Dimon who decided to avoid sub-prime mortgages and not buy dicey SIVs during the 2006-8 runup to the crash. As a result, instead of facing ruin, JPM was profitable in every quarter of 2008 and 2009. They were able to acquire Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual for small money because they were the only bank that was financially strong.
How valuable is a guy like that? It's the difference between making tens of billions in profits, and going broke like Wachovia and Lehman.
Let's take Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase. I think it is fair to say that he is not a nice guy, but he is a hard-nosed businessman. It was Dimon who decided to avoid sub-prime mortgages and not buy dicey SIVs during the 2006-8 runup to the crash. As a result, instead of facing ruin, JPM was profitable in every quarter of 2008 and 2009. They were able to acquire Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual for small money because they were the only bank that was financially strong.
How valuable is a guy like that? It's the difference between making tens of billions in profits, and going broke like Wachovia and Lehman.
1
And how much did CEOs who didn't make such good decisions get paid?
And yet, how much did the heads of Wachovia and Lehman earn for driving the comapny into the ground? I'm certain I could have done it for much less! Fifty years ago, companies found competent leadership without paying them hundreds of times what employees earned. I presume they worked for the same reasons all employees do -- if the job is good, you'd rather keep it than have someone else get it. The idea that lower-level employees can only be motivated by sticks while CEO's need lots of carrots to be induced to work effectively at all doesn't make much sense. It's an interpretation designed to justify the present out-of-balance system.
2
I side with those who feel that 350X the pay of the average worker is out of line. Perhaps even way out of line. However, this inequity pales next to the fact that capital gains income receives "special treatment" compared to earned income. Many lose sight of the fact (or are entirely unaware), that the 1%, and more significantly the .1% earn most or all of their income through investment--not "labor". It's hard to imagine a better example of (undeserved) privilege. Why exactly is investment income valued more highly than income produced by labor? Please--let's not drag out the tired argument that taxing capital gains is undesirable because it disincentives investment and puts a damper on "job creation". Perhaps there was a time when there was a tiny smidgen of truth in that argument. Now that capital investment in productive (that is to say--not speculative) endeavors is a thing of the past, now that job creation has been replaced by "minimizing human resource costs" (in plain English, firing people, reducing salaries and benefits, and outsourcing) hoarding is the game being played by individuals and corporations alike. The "disincentivizing investment" argument is a fairy tale--a fairy tale with no happy ending.
19
The statistics of the top .1% are distorted because many of them are small businessmen selling a business they spent a lifetime building up. If you sell your auto dealership or McDonald's franchises for $10 million, then that is a capital gain and you are in the top .1% - for one year only.
The CEO pay is taxed as ordinary income. They pay 39.8% Federal income tax, plus 3.8% Medicare. It is very difficult to dodge these taxes.
The CEO pay is taxed as ordinary income. They pay 39.8% Federal income tax, plus 3.8% Medicare. It is very difficult to dodge these taxes.
2
In slightly simplistic terms, taxes on dividends are significantly lower than taxes on earned income. In other words, the government rewards me for making money by not working, rather than making money by working.
For a little more detailed explanation, this page on the Wells Fargo website has a good summary. (I am not trying to promote WF. It's just a convenient link.)
https://www.wellsfargoadvisors.com/tax-center/dividend-income-tax.htm
For a little more detailed explanation, this page on the Wells Fargo website has a good summary. (I am not trying to promote WF. It's just a convenient link.)
https://www.wellsfargoadvisors.com/tax-center/dividend-income-tax.htm
Jonathan, can you please provide us with some support for your claims? What fraction of all C-Level executive pay is taxed as salary rather than capital gains?
Besides, a graduated set of higher brackets only means that part of the income is taxed at the higher rate -- not all of it, by any stretch. Why not tax each million taxed at a higher rate than the nmillion below it?
The problem, after all, is not mainly one-time events, straight salaries, or "small" businesses, but executives paid astronomic sums in tax-privileged forms, year after year, by huge companies which themselves pay little or no federal corporate tax but have outsized voice in government. No one can be secure in wealth or business without a stable government, legal system and citizenry. Who has better resources or a higher stake than those with the most wealth and business?
And that's not a philosophy I learned from Karl Marx but from the ancient Republic of Rome, which started tiny like we did and lasted five hundred years using that principle. The more you take out, the more you are expected to put back in. If they went to war, the richest equipped the army -- and rode into battle at the front of it. Something to think about...
Besides, a graduated set of higher brackets only means that part of the income is taxed at the higher rate -- not all of it, by any stretch. Why not tax each million taxed at a higher rate than the nmillion below it?
The problem, after all, is not mainly one-time events, straight salaries, or "small" businesses, but executives paid astronomic sums in tax-privileged forms, year after year, by huge companies which themselves pay little or no federal corporate tax but have outsized voice in government. No one can be secure in wealth or business without a stable government, legal system and citizenry. Who has better resources or a higher stake than those with the most wealth and business?
And that's not a philosophy I learned from Karl Marx but from the ancient Republic of Rome, which started tiny like we did and lasted five hundred years using that principle. The more you take out, the more you are expected to put back in. If they went to war, the richest equipped the army -- and rode into battle at the front of it. Something to think about...
There is no trickle-down.
The money is being consolidated and hoarded while the middle class is forced to pick up the tab for the poor, the disabled, and the sick.
These men and women will die very rich, but they will still die. And their greed will be their legacy.
The money is being consolidated and hoarded while the middle class is forced to pick up the tab for the poor, the disabled, and the sick.
These men and women will die very rich, but they will still die. And their greed will be their legacy.
36
Of course there is trickle down...unless you do not get a paycheck where you work. Your problem is you want more money for less work under some bizarre concept of "fairness".
If Verizon's executive got nothing instead of $20M, each of the almost 200,000 Verizon employees would get $100 more. Taking all of the high executive levels into account might make it $1000? So there's not that much to spread around. Presumably stockholders, or their stand-ins, are not too concerned either! Not to worry, though: Bernie will change the tax code so your rate goes up with the ratio of your pay to your employees' pay.
1
Yes you demonstrate how numbers work. If only you'd also mention how much good that money would do if it were sent to where ever it belongs. It is aside from having come out of wages probably tax money they have managed to withhold or get back in tax breaks they never needed.
8
$1,000 would make a significant difference in many people's lives. So, yes, it should be spread around.
So let's look at how much they're paying in taxes, particularly capital-gains tax, shall we? Then tell me the system is fair.
You're also forgetting the importance of symbolism. What happens when people feel stiffed by the economy? What happens when all the productivity gains of the last 30 years go to the CEO class? Bernie and Trump happen, that's what. And possibly pitchforks.
You're also forgetting the importance of symbolism. What happens when people feel stiffed by the economy? What happens when all the productivity gains of the last 30 years go to the CEO class? Bernie and Trump happen, that's what. And possibly pitchforks.
This is a dire situation. We need to cut their taxes quickly.
18
"Starting her campaign last year, Mrs. Clinton contrasted working Americans with chief executives. “Families have fought their way back from tough economic times," yes, Hillary you might want to climb down out of that tower.
5
There's a lot of comments from the apologists for corporate management greed about the amount of money paid athletes and why isn't there a fuss made about that to. One doesn't have to agree with the wages entertainers (& sport is entertainment) are paid to point out the difference between the two classes of wealth. The one, entertainers, make their money from the freely given proceeds of those who consume entertainment. Nothing is compelled and while there is better use for some of that wealth it doesn't require impoverishing anyone else to acquire it. The second is acquired by generally abusive employment practices or outsourcing, short term stock manipulation and the complacency of incestuously compromised corporate boards. Then there's the politically corrupt influence pedaling that affect both parties (not equally) and finally in the case of the financial industry CEO's & their enablers there's the 2008 financial crash and housing bubble. In the case of these individuals making their wealth is all about compulsion, there's a reason that studies have found a high rate of sociopath like behavior in upper management ranks. The fascinating thing is that neither of these overcompensated groups actually need the mind boggling wealth they skim from the economy, it's just a ego trip to them, a very expensive game of keeping up with the Jones, or it's about power as in the Koch Brothers use of wealth to influence politicians and fund "think tanks". It's an obscene injustice.
18
A mere 19,187 million millions is owed by the US. Imagine if it wasn't denominated in greenbacks, the empire would be 'disengaged' from world forums already.
3
"...of the top 350 American companies by sales made just 30 times what average workers in their industries did in 1978. By 1989, chiefs were making 59 times what their average workers made; by 2000, they were making 383 times what the average workers made."
And during the 11 years when CEO pay became so astronomical, Bill Clinton was President during 8 of them.
And during the 11 years when CEO pay became so astronomical, Bill Clinton was President during 8 of them.
6
The Times, in a never ending quest to shore up its digital revenue has decided to go strictly upscale, in its perspective, endorsements and reporting. These "reasonably" compensated men are its advertiser's target audience, not the rest of us mooks who pay $15 a month.
9
I would really like someone (preferably with a straight face) to explain to me what it is that these people do that make them worth their compensation. Did they invent some new useful technology or medicine? Did they create thousands of jobs?
My hunch is that this is nothing more than financial manipulation with little actual "product" being produced, more "gaming of the system".
To the average working schlep like myself, this kind of pay in unconscionable. No wonder people are so angry. They feel cheated of their piece of the pie.
My hunch is that this is nothing more than financial manipulation with little actual "product" being produced, more "gaming of the system".
To the average working schlep like myself, this kind of pay in unconscionable. No wonder people are so angry. They feel cheated of their piece of the pie.
10
it's not your pie. It's the shareholder's pie. And they can do with it what they please. If you don't like what you are being paid, then quit. If the shareholders think the ceo is getting paid too much, they will reduce his salary or fire him.
This is not a public problem. Why should the government be involved in this?
This is not a public problem. Why should the government be involved in this?
1
As a small shareholder, I doubt I can do much. The larger the company the more its large shareholders demand that stock increase in (sales) value, so dividends go down, employment goes down, and ceo compensation changes more and more to shares of stock. Best I can do as a shareholder is keep voting against the executive compensation plan, but of course it's one share one vote. With government, it's still one person, one vote, which is what makes me a D(d)emocrat. I have to recommend that.
How much money do you need! Really!
15
Isn't the free enterprise system grand?
4
So, for the first time since 2012 no company awarded its chief more than $100 million in annual pay? (what were the $$$$$$$$$$$$ bonuses?). Not bad for those who destroyed USA economy and claim workers are "paid too much" while they keep firing ("downsizing" sounds PRETTIER!) every worker than can and
are rewarded with more mega-millions from boards of directors who live in high-up penthouses where the air is too thin. NONE of these big-bucksters should be paid more than 5x of what the janitor gets.
are rewarded with more mega-millions from boards of directors who live in high-up penthouses where the air is too thin. NONE of these big-bucksters should be paid more than 5x of what the janitor gets.
14
In a word: obscene.
19
I think you could find a lot of really good CEO candidates out there who would gladly take any of their jobs for $1 million a year. Pump that extra $20-$100 million every year into R&D, marketing, and pay and benefits to hire and keep the best employees. You know......what CEO's used to do before the 1980's and the Reagan "Greed is Good" era.
32
Sad.
Used to be profits were shared. They were used to reward [all] staff, improve systems/equipment and make acquisitions - to make the company MORE profitable in the future.
I still work for a company like that. Owner shares all the profit with staff in December. This is also how we pay no income tax - in December we buy what we need for the following year - then calculate our year end profit....it all ends up being run through our final payroll as bonuses.
PS. This is the ONLY reason a company should pay no tax.
Used to be profits were shared. They were used to reward [all] staff, improve systems/equipment and make acquisitions - to make the company MORE profitable in the future.
I still work for a company like that. Owner shares all the profit with staff in December. This is also how we pay no income tax - in December we buy what we need for the following year - then calculate our year end profit....it all ends up being run through our final payroll as bonuses.
PS. This is the ONLY reason a company should pay no tax.
17
Add these salaries up and divide by the number of Americans out of work. Millions of our chronically unemployed could earn a salary of more than $50,000 a year for what we pay 200 of these pompous paper pushers. Transformative my derriere. Obscene is more like it. And they want to carp about the $70,000 a year an experienced teacher makes. It makes my blood boil when I consider the backbreaking work some of my students and their parents do for eight or nine bucks an hour. And don't get me started on how many of these CEO's call themselves devout Christians. Uh-huh. Right. Show me the philanthropy. Where is it? Where are the towns like Joplin Missouri, still damaged after a devastating tornado, that could be rebuilt by these robber barons? Why are parts of New Orleans still ravaged and abandoned when these folks could step up to the plate and help rebuild? Nope. That's where they expect OUR tax dollars to do the job via FEMA and other federal programs. Oh Fitzgerald had it right; the rich are different. What I wonder is how they sleep at night.
32
How could those philanthropists give the money to rebuild New Orleans when Harvard, Stanford, and Yale have buildings to be built and they can demand their donation comes with the added bonus of having a building or entire school named after them? What is a donation worth if you can't get some free PR and your name prominently embossed for all-time (or at least for the next few generations).
4
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how much they actually paid in taxes?
13
I don't have a problem with people earning alot of money if it is legal. When I see my neighbor, I'm not wondering how much money he makes. If you have stocks in a company that is not doing so well on the stock market, no one is stopping you from either selling the stock or putting in a vote for a new CEO at the next opportunity. The CEO salary is determined by the board of directors who likely own the greatest shares of the company so it is mostly a democratic way of determining what is appropriate compensation.
1
I can't imagine why any thinking person wouldn't find this level of compensation absolutely obscene, given the average worker wages, legal or not.
8
to nyer,
"The CEO salary is determined by the board of directors who likely own the greatest shares of the company so it is mostly a democratic way of determining what is appropriate compensation."
You obviously have no clue about who makes up the board of directors.
Prospective directors are invited by the company (the board and the CEO) to join the board, they get paid about $250K for attending a few meetings every year.
They don't have to own any shares and they usually don't own many.
They are usually grateful for the opportunity to make a few bucks and therefore vote for the most outrageous CEO salary proposals, as they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
They are all part of a very exclusive club and believe they deserve everything they get.
How much do you think I would get paid if my peers and acquaintances voted on my salary, knowing that they would be setting the scale for themselves as well?
"The CEO salary is determined by the board of directors who likely own the greatest shares of the company so it is mostly a democratic way of determining what is appropriate compensation."
You obviously have no clue about who makes up the board of directors.
Prospective directors are invited by the company (the board and the CEO) to join the board, they get paid about $250K for attending a few meetings every year.
They don't have to own any shares and they usually don't own many.
They are usually grateful for the opportunity to make a few bucks and therefore vote for the most outrageous CEO salary proposals, as they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
They are all part of a very exclusive club and believe they deserve everything they get.
How much do you think I would get paid if my peers and acquaintances voted on my salary, knowing that they would be setting the scale for themselves as well?
7
In many companies, CEOs place their friends on the board. Please also note that more than half of Americans own no stock.
2
CEO's in this country are not paid according to the added productivity which they cause their firms to have. CEO salaries are a unique kind of market place where the seller presents and imaginary image of success and great wealth coming from hiring them and the Boards of Directors decide to buy that image. There is no expectation that any CEO will actually produce what he/she has sold the Board because it's the image that they buy, not the performance. It works because nearly all the Board members are CEOs or likely to be CEOs.
10
People complain about the growing wealth gap between the 1% and the rest.
Some look for very esoteric reasons like, for example, the extremely low interest rates which make the investments of the extremely wealthy even more profitable.
Those reasons miss the mark by a wide margin. The real reason is that when you and your friends dictate the rules of the game, you are allowed to take all the marbles.
CEOs bring their friends and peers into their boards and pay them richly, to the tune of $250K or so, for attending a few meetings a year with no real responsibility.
How do you think those "friends" will vote when the CEO pay come up for review?
Most CEOs are just average, I do not understand why they have to be rewarded like geniuses.
Worst of all, I do not understand why they get those golden parachutes, worth many millions of dollars, when their only accomplishment has been to lay off thousands of people while awarding them only a couple of weeks worth of severance.
Anybody remember Carli?
Some look for very esoteric reasons like, for example, the extremely low interest rates which make the investments of the extremely wealthy even more profitable.
Those reasons miss the mark by a wide margin. The real reason is that when you and your friends dictate the rules of the game, you are allowed to take all the marbles.
CEOs bring their friends and peers into their boards and pay them richly, to the tune of $250K or so, for attending a few meetings a year with no real responsibility.
How do you think those "friends" will vote when the CEO pay come up for review?
Most CEOs are just average, I do not understand why they have to be rewarded like geniuses.
Worst of all, I do not understand why they get those golden parachutes, worth many millions of dollars, when their only accomplishment has been to lay off thousands of people while awarding them only a couple of weeks worth of severance.
Anybody remember Carli?
25
Many of these "geniuses" are rewarded and run their companies into the ground. Take Mayer and Hurd as examples - they successfully mismanaged Yahoo and HP, with no adverse consequences to their own bottom line. Both are reviled and hated by employees, but loved and respected by their fellow bottom-seekers. Who can blame the employees for their low morale and poor work ethic? Heck, if these people can feed at the trough like pigs, I'd be inclined to slow down my work for the upper-middle class income they'd pay me!
11
My heart goes out to these poor CEO types, now having to economize on their mansions and yachts and servants, not to speak of their Rolls Royces and Jets and helicopters, their off-shore investments, and stuff I can't even envision.
Why they'll have to cut back on bespoke suits, shirts, ties, handmade shoes, Swiss gold watches, expensive pens for monogrammed pockets, season tickets to this and that. And goodness knows what else.
The degree of downward drift here is mind boggling.
Private pre-schools, nannies, college trust funds, every other type of trust fund - all potentially at risk, if this trend continues.
Then there's the Botox treatments, the hair transplants, face lifts, massages, finger and toe treatments, eye-lifts, face lifts.
Don't forget the country club fees!
All at risk!
Imagine the horror...
Why they'll have to cut back on bespoke suits, shirts, ties, handmade shoes, Swiss gold watches, expensive pens for monogrammed pockets, season tickets to this and that. And goodness knows what else.
The degree of downward drift here is mind boggling.
Private pre-schools, nannies, college trust funds, every other type of trust fund - all potentially at risk, if this trend continues.
Then there's the Botox treatments, the hair transplants, face lifts, massages, finger and toe treatments, eye-lifts, face lifts.
Don't forget the country club fees!
All at risk!
Imagine the horror...
15
Next comes the visit to the food bank.
The only solution to this problem is to reinstate punitive federal income tax rates for the highest brackets, say 70-90% in excess of $10 million, whether received as ordinary income, stock grants, or otherwise.
24
Trump supporters think that illegal immigrants are stealing the wealth of this country and keeping the working class people from advancing economically. However, I think it's obvious that all the new wealth generated in this country is being stolen by corporate executives. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any moral bound to their greed, while at the same time they advocate against raising the minimum wage.
31
I work for a company of one to the CEOs on this list. He received a huge 20 million dollar bonus the same year we switched to a new health care plan that increased the deductibles and co-pays. Whether it is true or not, it felt like his bonus was made by the employees paying for it through our health care.
I'm curious. How many of these C.E.O.s also have a full health care plan for them and their families, no large co-pays and deductibles that their employees have to pay but is only a tiny fraction of their pay?
How many of these business geniuses will still receive a pension although their employees are placed into a 401k plan that subject to the whims of Wall Street?
I'm curious. How many of these C.E.O.s also have a full health care plan for them and their families, no large co-pays and deductibles that their employees have to pay but is only a tiny fraction of their pay?
How many of these business geniuses will still receive a pension although their employees are placed into a 401k plan that subject to the whims of Wall Street?
30
Just like our dear Congressional representative; retirement and health benefits for life.
2
Two thoughts:
Let stockholders [who are presumably the owners of the corporation] have a BINDING vote on CEO compensation.
Maybe the marginal tax rate on incomes about one million should be increased.
Let stockholders [who are presumably the owners of the corporation] have a BINDING vote on CEO compensation.
Maybe the marginal tax rate on incomes about one million should be increased.
16
The top 100 paid athletes earn on average $29.5 million a year (according to Forbes). NYT never writes about that or suggests it is outrageous. Is it because athletes are more important for our economy than the people who actually manage it?
Athletes and actors rise and fall based on talent and performance.
CEOs rise and fall based solely on connections.
CEOs rise and fall based solely on connections.
22
No. Both are outrageous.
5
"Both are outrageous."
So why the constant gripes about one but never the other?
So why the constant gripes about one but never the other?
1
Gee, that's really too bad. Nineteen mill doesn't come cheap.
On the bright side, their kids can drive drunk, kill several people in the process, flee the country, and get a mere slap on the wrist for it all.
So cheer up, wealthy corporatists. We're all rooting for you. It is our purpose in life, after all.
On the bright side, their kids can drive drunk, kill several people in the process, flee the country, and get a mere slap on the wrist for it all.
So cheer up, wealthy corporatists. We're all rooting for you. It is our purpose in life, after all.
16
Over paid, under worked losers, each and every one of them.
17
I work for Wells Fargo. I love Wells as they are a great company to work for. This said, I see the irony that our CEO did not get a raise this year; I got 2%.
3
Object to excessive executive compensation? Boycott these companies.
11
I'd like to see a filter on the CEO's who's pay increased while their company's stock or revenues when down, and these sorted by greatest to least disparity.
I'd like to see the impact of sex on those figures.
More than anything--I want to know what each of them paid in taxes.
I'd like to see the impact of sex on those figures.
More than anything--I want to know what each of them paid in taxes.
19
that and a nickle will get you on the subway......
2
What isn't talked about so much is that if CEO pay is through the roof, then most upper level mgmt compensation is also absurdly high. But this sheds too much light on the class war and policies promoting the upward redistribution of wealth, so the Times stays mum.
13
Why should I care?
I earn enough to get by and put some aside for savings.
I turned down raises on a regular basis. That is the carrot companies use. I asked for time which is more valuable than anything else.
I earn enough to get by and put some aside for savings.
I turned down raises on a regular basis. That is the carrot companies use. I asked for time which is more valuable than anything else.
1
When your job is eliminated, outsourced or given to a younger employee who works for less, then you'll care. You'll care a lot.
15
It's this "I got mine" attitude that limits our ability to actually do anything about the cast income inequality in our nation. Try thinking about others.
I think the problem is more the attitude of those who say, "I want yours."
"Has executive pay finally peaked?"
Executive pay will continue to rise until executive pay equals 100% of corporate expenses....or until an revolution intervenes.
Executive pay will continue to rise until executive pay equals 100% of corporate expenses....or until an revolution intervenes.
10
Adding injury to insult, much of this compensation is in the form of deferred stock which is not taxed like ordinary income. Many of these people pay a net tax rate lower than that of many of their employees. The insult is to our moral sensibilities. The injury is to the common weal.
14
Mitt Romney.
These people actually do something, and have accountabilities for employee management, asset management, sales, profitability, and returns on equity.
The biggest "blood suckers" in the current economy are professional athletes. They have part time jobs with virtually no accountabilities whatsoever. Where is that list?
Try adding the compensation of the highest paid 200 C.E.O.'s and compare that total to the highest paid professional athletes. Something is incredibly wrong here!
The biggest "blood suckers" in the current economy are professional athletes. They have part time jobs with virtually no accountabilities whatsoever. Where is that list?
Try adding the compensation of the highest paid 200 C.E.O.'s and compare that total to the highest paid professional athletes. Something is incredibly wrong here!
1
Had you actually read the article, you'd know that the compensation of CEOs has little to do with merit. Athletic ability seems closely tied to merit, generally.
4
However smart, ambitious and successful they may be, and however glowing and intense their self regard, nobody is worth 20 million dollars per year. I'm fairly certain not one of these CEOs would regard themselves as overpaid. I'm also confident that their employees who were denied raises, denied medical insurance, or who were otherwise chronically exploited would regard these CEO compensation packages as absurdly inflated, with little or no connection to what their demonstrable economic value is. It is a true moral outrage, and must not be allowed to continue.
34
OK, an executive comes in and is "transformative." What does that mean? I keep reading these stories and the executives are praised for doing something special that no one else could do for less money. But what are these things? And why isn't the news media finding out what it is? If one of my student reporters came in with a story saying that the person transformed the place, that reporter would be back on the story to find out what it was, how it was done and what the detailed results were.
So, how about it? Tell us. Tell us in detail so that we all can understand.
They are serving the shareholders by raising profitability in the short term at the expense of everything else? Who are these shareholders? It isn't the retired schoolteacher who has a few hundred shares. It isn't the person who has a mutual fund. Those shareholders are seeing almost no individual benefit.
The shareholders who are benefiting are those who hold thousands or tens of thousands of shares themselves.
So, executives are getting a lot of money in order to make sure that the people who put them into their jobs make even more.
It's the same everywhere. "We need to pay this much to get the best possible person." And it is always an administrator. They never pay a lot of money to get the best possible clerk, machinist, janitor, food service worker, etc.,.
But perhaps they are getting an equivalent benefit from being "transformed." Me, I'd like to see those guys getting the cash.
So, how about it? Tell us. Tell us in detail so that we all can understand.
They are serving the shareholders by raising profitability in the short term at the expense of everything else? Who are these shareholders? It isn't the retired schoolteacher who has a few hundred shares. It isn't the person who has a mutual fund. Those shareholders are seeing almost no individual benefit.
The shareholders who are benefiting are those who hold thousands or tens of thousands of shares themselves.
So, executives are getting a lot of money in order to make sure that the people who put them into their jobs make even more.
It's the same everywhere. "We need to pay this much to get the best possible person." And it is always an administrator. They never pay a lot of money to get the best possible clerk, machinist, janitor, food service worker, etc.,.
But perhaps they are getting an equivalent benefit from being "transformed." Me, I'd like to see those guys getting the cash.
9
Bernie Sanders: "When the C.E.O. of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages and cut health benefits — that’s the kind of corporate greed we need to get rid of in America.”
He is exactly right -- and this article just highlights the incredible inequality that, if not corrected, will eventually bring America down.
As the article states, "A bank teller at Wells Fargo making that average wage ($36,875 a year) would have to work more than half a millennium, until 2539, to earn what that company’s chief executive ... earned last year."
Hillary Clinton's protestations, however, come across as somewhat disingenuous. After all, she and Bill did earn $28 million in speaking fees from exactly these same companies in 2013 alone. It's hard to imagine that she would really try to rock the boat in any meaningful way.
He is exactly right -- and this article just highlights the incredible inequality that, if not corrected, will eventually bring America down.
As the article states, "A bank teller at Wells Fargo making that average wage ($36,875 a year) would have to work more than half a millennium, until 2539, to earn what that company’s chief executive ... earned last year."
Hillary Clinton's protestations, however, come across as somewhat disingenuous. After all, she and Bill did earn $28 million in speaking fees from exactly these same companies in 2013 alone. It's hard to imagine that she would really try to rock the boat in any meaningful way.
47
It's entirely disturbing that somehow a concept of forced egalitarianism is taking hold in America.
Nobody has the right to say that another person, "makes too much." We don't penalize people for being successes in this country. If the companies and their shareholders etc., are willing to pay these compensation levels, then that's their decision. Maybe people could have an issue with corporate governance but there's no need for Bernie and his ilk to say that everything is unfair.
This is a back of envelope calculation but Wells Fargo pays approximately a $1.50 yearly dividend. They have something like 5 billion shares of stock outstanding. Not all that stock gets the same dividend treatment, but the point is that Wells Fargo has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to its shareholders. And in this wonderful country of ours, anyone can become a shareholder.
Bernie has brainwashed people into thinking that forced egalitarianism = "good". That's not what this country is about. There are definitely some abuses in capitalism that need to be addressed but coercive redistribution via the government is not the answer.
Nobody has the right to say that another person, "makes too much." We don't penalize people for being successes in this country. If the companies and their shareholders etc., are willing to pay these compensation levels, then that's their decision. Maybe people could have an issue with corporate governance but there's no need for Bernie and his ilk to say that everything is unfair.
This is a back of envelope calculation but Wells Fargo pays approximately a $1.50 yearly dividend. They have something like 5 billion shares of stock outstanding. Not all that stock gets the same dividend treatment, but the point is that Wells Fargo has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to its shareholders. And in this wonderful country of ours, anyone can become a shareholder.
Bernie has brainwashed people into thinking that forced egalitarianism = "good". That's not what this country is about. There are definitely some abuses in capitalism that need to be addressed but coercive redistribution via the government is not the answer.
2
It's not just about CEO compensation -- it's about how the system is being games so that people and corporations can avoid paying their fair share. Mitt Romney the Republican presidential nominee, for instance, admitted that he paid only 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2011 and he's not an anomalie.
3
Expat -- So Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, born to fortunes,were disingenuous, and did not rock the boat in any meaningful way? Generalizing about the wealthy by looking at their money rather than what they do with their lives and money is about as fair as judging poor people solely by their lack of money. Empathy, social conscience and wisdom -- and the lack of them -- are widely distributed.
I agree we need a lot more and higher tax brackets for the top tiers of income, but that is different from asserting that money itself determines the character or quality of a person. If you won the lottery today, would all the ideals that informed your life up to now be nullified by your bank account?
I agree we need a lot more and higher tax brackets for the top tiers of income, but that is different from asserting that money itself determines the character or quality of a person. If you won the lottery today, would all the ideals that informed your life up to now be nullified by your bank account?
2
Executive pay should be linked to the pay of the lowest third of their workforce, including "contractors", "part time", "temporary workers" and all of the other tricks they pull to keep employee pay as low as possible.
Republicans are fond of assuring us that wealth trickles down, and Democrats mouth platitudes like "a rising tide lifts all boats." Meanwhile, both parties are busy framing legislation that keeps the nation's wealth comfortably centralized in the hands of the 1%. Like the bank robber Willie Sutton, it makes it so much easier to solicit bribes when you know where the money is.
These people are making millions and millions every year while ducking taxes and shifting the social costs of their employees and communities onto those of us who pay our fair share. If they use American markets, American courts and the public infrastructure of America, they are dependent upon, not inherently superior to, the rest of us.
Their compensation should be made to reflect that reality.
Republicans are fond of assuring us that wealth trickles down, and Democrats mouth platitudes like "a rising tide lifts all boats." Meanwhile, both parties are busy framing legislation that keeps the nation's wealth comfortably centralized in the hands of the 1%. Like the bank robber Willie Sutton, it makes it so much easier to solicit bribes when you know where the money is.
These people are making millions and millions every year while ducking taxes and shifting the social costs of their employees and communities onto those of us who pay our fair share. If they use American markets, American courts and the public infrastructure of America, they are dependent upon, not inherently superior to, the rest of us.
Their compensation should be made to reflect that reality.
17
I firmly believe that there is a correct amount of compensation for a job. Anything more than that does not improve the job and if that pay keeps going up anyway it makes corruption of that job more likely and at some point it guarantees it. All of the mentioned salaries are in guaranteed corruption territory.
I happen to look at the most critical aspect of our society, the news reporter/journalist come infotainment specialist.
The biggest problem that has lead America to fall into the problems it has today is the corruption of journalism via the salaries they paid them.
It started with pay increases that were real good. Then they started having the journalists branch out into “interviews” and “feel good” stuff and like the frog in the pot slowly slowly as their wages went up & the debt they incurred followed in full expectation of more raises they were doing less and less real journalism and more and more pandering to “what the people want” and idea they helped to promote as if it were a legitimate thing to raise the peoples desires up to a place equal to rational reasoned decision making.
And here we are.
There is a lot more nuance and complexity than I can manage even with more than 1500 characters. But look to the people we see daily for the source of the failure to stop this corruption of our economy, they were corrupted first and I would bet most of them don’t even know it. .
I happen to look at the most critical aspect of our society, the news reporter/journalist come infotainment specialist.
The biggest problem that has lead America to fall into the problems it has today is the corruption of journalism via the salaries they paid them.
It started with pay increases that were real good. Then they started having the journalists branch out into “interviews” and “feel good” stuff and like the frog in the pot slowly slowly as their wages went up & the debt they incurred followed in full expectation of more raises they were doing less and less real journalism and more and more pandering to “what the people want” and idea they helped to promote as if it were a legitimate thing to raise the peoples desires up to a place equal to rational reasoned decision making.
And here we are.
There is a lot more nuance and complexity than I can manage even with more than 1500 characters. But look to the people we see daily for the source of the failure to stop this corruption of our economy, they were corrupted first and I would bet most of them don’t even know it. .
3
Top 25 hedge fund managers earned $13bn in 2015 – more than some nations
Top earners, Kenneth Griffin and James Simons, made $1.7bn each despite ‘hedge fund killing field’ on Wall Street where many companies lost billions or closed
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/hedge-fund-managers-sal...
Top earners, Kenneth Griffin and James Simons, made $1.7bn each despite ‘hedge fund killing field’ on Wall Street where many companies lost billions or closed
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/hedge-fund-managers-sal...
12
I have less of a problem with the 13 billion they made than I do with the fact that their effective tax rate was probably lower than that of a median wage worker.
4
"For decades, Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting.... The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. ... They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills...and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. 'We are here,' they scream, 'to cut your taxes.” Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?
36
Vote for me ... because I will work hard to create a max salary of an absolute total of $1M, summing all remuneration for any job, anywhere. This is tied to an absolute minimum wage of $15/hr for every single worker over 21, $12 between 18 and 21, and $9 for less than 18. Then, at age 64, salaries will drop instead of rise with COLA type increases.
Congressional salaries will drop like bags of cement. Any money given to campaigns: taxed at 50%, with all such revenue distributed to new candidates. Interest rates held to a max of 3% for every single thing in the nation. College loans that are used for actual college expenses: zero %. Anything else: 3%. 1% [1/3 of the interest] of any loan is re-directed into federal coffers.
The entire system of 'growth economics' will be dismantled, as it is a cancer on the entire world. No one will create wealth from "growth". Wealth will come from quality work that does not target the Earth in either the short term or the long term.
ps. this goes for actors, musicians, and hotel flipping con-men as well.
Congressional salaries will drop like bags of cement. Any money given to campaigns: taxed at 50%, with all such revenue distributed to new candidates. Interest rates held to a max of 3% for every single thing in the nation. College loans that are used for actual college expenses: zero %. Anything else: 3%. 1% [1/3 of the interest] of any loan is re-directed into federal coffers.
The entire system of 'growth economics' will be dismantled, as it is a cancer on the entire world. No one will create wealth from "growth". Wealth will come from quality work that does not target the Earth in either the short term or the long term.
ps. this goes for actors, musicians, and hotel flipping con-men as well.
19
You got my vote, but where have you been? There may be a position for you in a Bernie Sanders administration and with what is happening to Hillary right now, that is beginning to look more and more like a possibility.
2
It would be enlightening to know what the lowest-paid employees in the empires of these CEOs are paid. Let's look at the gaps.
27
Those CEOs had to lay off a lot of people and use corporate cash or debt to buy back a lot of stock to "earn" those exorbitant pay packages
37
From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.
The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.
CEO compensation grew strongly throughout the 1980s but exploded in the 1990s and peaked in 2000 at around $20 million, an increase of more than 200 percent just from 1995 and 1,271 percent from 1978. This latter increase even exceeded the growth of the booming stock market—513 percent for the S&P 500 and 439 percent for the Dow. In stark contrast to both the stock market and CEO compensation, private-sector worker compensation increased just 1.4 percent over the same period.
The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.
CEO compensation grew strongly throughout the 1980s but exploded in the 1990s and peaked in 2000 at around $20 million, an increase of more than 200 percent just from 1995 and 1,271 percent from 1978. This latter increase even exceeded the growth of the booming stock market—513 percent for the S&P 500 and 439 percent for the Dow. In stark contrast to both the stock market and CEO compensation, private-sector worker compensation increased just 1.4 percent over the same period.
19
Well golly, I'm sure they deserve every penny of it, and the power that comes with money, as they are the same thing. I'm sure, like the robber barons of old, they will throw us crumbs when they are on their deathbeds.
I'm half inclined to lecture on the concept of diminishing marginal utility, but won't bother. I am reminded of both the French Revolution and a tee shirt a friend wore in my youth. The shirt featured a skull and in place of crossed bones were a knife and fork. In script below it was "Eat the Rich".
Go Bernie, it's you or the pitchfork.
I'm half inclined to lecture on the concept of diminishing marginal utility, but won't bother. I am reminded of both the French Revolution and a tee shirt a friend wore in my youth. The shirt featured a skull and in place of crossed bones were a knife and fork. In script below it was "Eat the Rich".
Go Bernie, it's you or the pitchfork.
49
Turn out for Democrats in local, state and off-year elections, and get everyone else you know to do that. Then you won't need a pitchfork. Ever think about running for office? Participation is power. Withdrawl, symbolic votes and pichforks are defeat. Ideas in the minds of millions are are bigger and longer-lived than any one candidate.
1
Echoing other readers in other comments sections: it's time to enact a maximum wage law. And we need a strong govenment to do it. The Republican strategy of drowning government in the bathtub is not simply foucused on cutting spending to keep taxes low for everyone, as they claim. As they weaken our institutions, our government becomes unable to enforce laws that are on the books, or enact new ones to protect people from the theft of our wealth by a small group of greedy men.
17
Make me dictator, everyone of these people would be out of a job. Not sure why we don't have the pitchforks out already.
38
"Make me dictator, everyone of these people would be out of a job."
Who would run all these companies then? You?
Who would run all these companies then? You?
2
Yes, I would, for a fair wage. I can tell you, all the things the CEO's do to look busy, and try to remain relevant, are unnecessary. All of the metrics and hedge funding, none of that is necessary. Neither is marketing. Good product at a good price will make your product successful. No one wants to buy a product that fuels a CEO's wealth. So get rid of that guy. Yes, send any requests for a CEO position to this address. Get ready for profits!
When you look at the numbers (accompanying story) there is still little relationship between executive pay and executive performance. All the executives have an excuse, of course, but the bottom line is that almost anyone in the top three tiers of management could do as well, and several could probably do better. Getting to the head of the board room table requires more than managerial ability, but once there managerial ability doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for holding the job.
What I find most curious is how far down the list the heads of the really successful companies are. Companies that have been profitable for decades seem to be able to attract and retain competent, soft-spoken managerial talent without overburdening the shareholders. Perhaps there's a message there for investors.
What I find most curious is how far down the list the heads of the really successful companies are. Companies that have been profitable for decades seem to be able to attract and retain competent, soft-spoken managerial talent without overburdening the shareholders. Perhaps there's a message there for investors.
14
I don't know whether to laugh or cry to think that $19 million+ annually is somehow inadequate. And yet, now that President Obama has made full-time workers up to the $47,000 range eligible for overtime, Republicans accuse him of breaking the bank!
74
This is an extremely well rounded and researched article by David Gelles documenting CEO larceny and wage theft.
"According to BLS data compiled by the AFL-CIO, the average worker in the USA who doesn’t have management responsibility earns $36,875 a year. By that measure, the average chief executive makes 523 times the average worker salary."
"Defenders of executive pay cite factors like those (technology, stock vesting, etc.) as evidence that seemingly astronomical CEO rewards really don’t add up to that much money."
Huh ?
If tens of millions in compensation don't add up to 'that much money' for CEOs, what exactly does the average American wage add up to ?
The real fact is that there NO rational or competitive basis for American CEO pay, and that's why defenders of CEO come off as psychopathic or mentally ill.
The evidence for America CEO pay psychopathy is in every other country in the world, where public CEO:worker pay ratios are notably lower.
In Switzerland, the country with the second largest CEO-to-worker pay gap, CEOs make 148 times the average worker.
In Germany, 147:1
In Spain, 127:1
France 104:1
UK 84:1
Japan 67:1
Denmark 48:1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-betwe...
The United States of CEO worker-wage-theft has no criminal equal anywhere in the civilized world.
As Heather Slavkin Corzo of the AFL-CIO said “Moral outrage is the right term...it’s reprehensible."
"According to BLS data compiled by the AFL-CIO, the average worker in the USA who doesn’t have management responsibility earns $36,875 a year. By that measure, the average chief executive makes 523 times the average worker salary."
"Defenders of executive pay cite factors like those (technology, stock vesting, etc.) as evidence that seemingly astronomical CEO rewards really don’t add up to that much money."
Huh ?
If tens of millions in compensation don't add up to 'that much money' for CEOs, what exactly does the average American wage add up to ?
The real fact is that there NO rational or competitive basis for American CEO pay, and that's why defenders of CEO come off as psychopathic or mentally ill.
The evidence for America CEO pay psychopathy is in every other country in the world, where public CEO:worker pay ratios are notably lower.
In Switzerland, the country with the second largest CEO-to-worker pay gap, CEOs make 148 times the average worker.
In Germany, 147:1
In Spain, 127:1
France 104:1
UK 84:1
Japan 67:1
Denmark 48:1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-betwe...
The United States of CEO worker-wage-theft has no criminal equal anywhere in the civilized world.
As Heather Slavkin Corzo of the AFL-CIO said “Moral outrage is the right term...it’s reprehensible."
148
"According to BLS data compiled by the AFL-CIO, the average worker in the USA who doesn’t have management responsibility earns $36,875 a year. By that measure, the average chief executive makes 523 times the average worker salary."
The average CEO doesn't make $19 million a year. The top 200 do. The top 200 employees make way more that that. Just the top 200 athletes (all employees) make more than that.
It's called cheap propaganda. The reality is that top 1% in any field do and will always make way more than the average in the same field. Is that really difficult to understand? The average salary of McDonald's "manager" is $42,930, not much more than the cited $36,875 average for non-menagerial employees in the US.
This whole issue is just a testament on how stupid the average person is.
The average CEO doesn't make $19 million a year. The top 200 do. The top 200 employees make way more that that. Just the top 200 athletes (all employees) make more than that.
It's called cheap propaganda. The reality is that top 1% in any field do and will always make way more than the average in the same field. Is that really difficult to understand? The average salary of McDonald's "manager" is $42,930, not much more than the cited $36,875 average for non-menagerial employees in the US.
This whole issue is just a testament on how stupid the average person is.
2
IPI,
"The average salary of McDonald's "manager" is $42,930, not much more than the cited $36,875 average for non-menagerial employees in the US.
This whole issue is just a testament on how stupid the average person is."
And comparing the average salary of a McDonald's manager to the average salary for all "non-menagerial" (sic) employees in the entire United States, which have nothing to do with McDonald's, is what exactly?
Not irrelevant and stupid. Nah couldn't be.
"The average salary of McDonald's "manager" is $42,930, not much more than the cited $36,875 average for non-menagerial employees in the US.
This whole issue is just a testament on how stupid the average person is."
And comparing the average salary of a McDonald's manager to the average salary for all "non-menagerial" (sic) employees in the entire United States, which have nothing to do with McDonald's, is what exactly?
Not irrelevant and stupid. Nah couldn't be.
2
Based on the flimsy formulation of your contrived argument and your failure to grasp the cultural underpinnings of the issue, you seem at best to be a very average person.
3
Thanks for gathering all that data. It was very interesting to peruse the list of 200. Here's one thing that jumped out at me.
In 2015 the S&P500 dropped by 2%. That list of companies showed some that had amazingly high returns, some with extremely poor returns, and a lot hovering around 0%. The company returns did not appear to have any correlation whatsoever to CEO compensation. i.e. there were high return companies at the bottom of the CEO payscale and losing companies at the top, and vice versa.
It seems they key to getting a high compensation package is how well you can play the game, not how well you do for your shareholders.
A more detailed study of the correlation or lack of it between CEO compensation and company performance would be very welcome.
In 2015 the S&P500 dropped by 2%. That list of companies showed some that had amazingly high returns, some with extremely poor returns, and a lot hovering around 0%. The company returns did not appear to have any correlation whatsoever to CEO compensation. i.e. there were high return companies at the bottom of the CEO payscale and losing companies at the top, and vice versa.
It seems they key to getting a high compensation package is how well you can play the game, not how well you do for your shareholders.
A more detailed study of the correlation or lack of it between CEO compensation and company performance would be very welcome.
29
What's really impressive? A CEO or other executive who is comfortable with earning an amount of money that is not a pointless and boundless scoreboard, not indicative of a lack of interest in any particular industrial competence, not completely detached from real-world limitations of any given individual.
A truly impressive salary? $500K, with a bonus ceiling of 100%. IIndex against the COLA the rest of us live with.
Anything more is indicative of a voracious and insatiable pathology, not a sign of virtue.
A truly impressive salary? $500K, with a bonus ceiling of 100%. IIndex against the COLA the rest of us live with.
Anything more is indicative of a voracious and insatiable pathology, not a sign of virtue.
96
Nice club.
And the rest of us pay.
And the rest of us pay.
49
You'll not be invited to join
2
Bummer.
I'll have to take my tea in the ladies lounge.
I'll have to take my tea in the ladies lounge.
1
After looking at the photos of these CEOs, I have to ask: Diversity Much?
18
"After looking at the photos of these CEOs, I have to ask: Diversity Much?"
Have you looked pictures of player in an NBA All Star game? Diversity Much? They are all multimillionaires too.
Have you looked pictures of player in an NBA All Star game? Diversity Much? They are all multimillionaires too.
6
Don't worry; their pay is outrageous, too!
1
It's amusing that this CEO pay article appears on the same day as the musings over billionaire Peter Thiel's outsize and covert influence in the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case and, by extension, the media.
A defining feature of America's exhausting obsession with "freedom" is a fear of power over the citizenry... first by kings, then (as now) by government. But we seem to have rendered ourselves fearless over the rise of a billionaire class. Like it's a good thing?
All societies are engineered. Billionaires don't amass by virtue of access to "freedom." No fear of oligarchs, nothing to see here.
A defining feature of America's exhausting obsession with "freedom" is a fear of power over the citizenry... first by kings, then (as now) by government. But we seem to have rendered ourselves fearless over the rise of a billionaire class. Like it's a good thing?
All societies are engineered. Billionaires don't amass by virtue of access to "freedom." No fear of oligarchs, nothing to see here.
24
At something like 300X the avg worker this is not exactly comforting news.
CEOs who try to spread gains around is a bit more exciting though pretty rare.
CEOs who try to spread gains around is a bit more exciting though pretty rare.
6
Memo to the 99% of Republicans who would never vote Democratic, because Democrats play Robin Hood and take from the rich and give it to the poor. Boo Hoo! Republicans in Senate and House fought hard to prevent Social Security and Medicare from existing and continue to fight funds for education. Look how that's turned out.
49
These figures are always silly and I don't think it's a good idea to pay much attention to *reported* CEO salaries. With the amount of tax-hiding top executives do, we can never really know how much they're raking in. $19 million sure sounds like a lot to us normal folks, but believe it or not it's only the tip of the crooked iceberg.
68
That's the last trip I will ever book through Expedia.
83
This is simply embarrassing!
25
. . . . . . Nahhh!!
Impossible! They might have found a way to make more without having to report it or leaving no paper trail.
8
Many of them lost billions of dollars with horrible deals, algorithm, betting wrongly...how are they held responsible?
If the company does poorly, they still draw fat checks worth millions. It goes against any business principles.
Compensations for CEO must be performance based and capped!
These pigs not smarter, neither they work more hours than others. They just working the system and the system allows it!
Legalized corruption!