CEO: Worker Pay Ratio Shoots Up to 431:1

know1

my2hands wrote:

no need for regret? and it wasnt immature? you were saying how you felt... but i think sometimes the article speaks for itself, and this one definitely does speak for itself... the funny thing is i have debated many times on here about CEO compensation and there are people making $25,000 that think it is just fine? they defend them to the death, while i think it is obvious that WE are being fucking robbed by these assholes of OUR wealth... that always blows me away...

Do I think CEO pay is probably out of proportion - Yes.

Do I think CEOs should be paid many, many, many, many times more than other employees - Yes

Do I think it's unfair - No, because their pay is decided by the company and their determination of the CEOs worth.

Do I think "WE are being <> robbed by these <>" - absolutely not. WE can work elsewhere if we do not like it. It may not be perfect or fair, but it's definitely not robbery.

Bu$chlager

my2hands wrote:

if you havent noticed, the gap between rich and poor is growing... it wasnt always THIS bad...

i take your comments as support for this GREED, let joe do all the work while mr. CEO takes all the $

i say that is fucking bullshit...PERIOD

I didn't say it wasn't growing. I meant to acknowledge that fact.

I just took your post to mean that the solution is a "revolution" where we American's take back "Our wealth."

This sounded like blatant across the board even (or close to even) wealth distribution. I was just pointing out that it was never like this, and I certaintly hope it never is. If I didn't quite get your drift, then my bad.

But if your saying that Joe schmo should drive the same car as his company's CEO, well, that just makes about as much sense as Communism.

- Dan

my2hands

soulsinging wrote:

i add to plenty of discussions around here. are you going to start a revolution? or are you just giong to sit here and bitch about it?

i am not going to discuss this any further and contubute to the non-stop fucking bitchin gon this web site about other posters...it is fucking childish

BrinkofForever

BUSH-lager wrote:

The country has always been run as a capatalist state. There has never been an "America's Wealth" that we all share, as you seem to want. So, I don't know what you're trying to take back?

I mean, if you want to complain about the gap between the rich and poor, okay fine. But that's not what I'm hearing here. If you want a revolution for evenly distributed wealth, I wouldn't hold your breath. At least not here.

- Dan

If you take into the account the tax credits and subsidies that most large corporations receive from the goverment..coupled along with tax shelters and offshore business practices, then I would say YES they are taking AMERICA's (i.e. you, me..the taxpayers) wealth. It's hilarious that righties will gripe up and down about the sad state of social welfare in this country, but turn a blind eye to the corportate welfare that is alive and well..all in the name of unabashed, unrestrained Capitalism.

know1

mammasan wrote:

I'm not going to debate wether a CEO deserves the salary they receive or not but I do find it troubling that the salary gap between a CEO and the people who actually carry the company is so wide. I will use the agency I work at as an example. We have layed off roughly half of our staff due to budget cuts. We recently won a very significant piece of business which will undoubtably bring a nice bonus to our President, I over heard him stating that the new business win just saved his end of year bonus, meanwhile there is discussion about even more lay-offs. While people are lossing their jobs he gets rewarded for new business he had no hand in acquiring simply because he is the head of this office. I worked tireless hours on this project, and not to toot my own horn, but it was my creative work that won the client over, yet my name is on the short list of possible people to be released.

So quit and become the president of a company.

mammasan

know1 wrote:

So quit and become the president of a company.

Sure I'll just walk into Saatchi & Saatchi hand them my resume and ask to be their president. I'm sure I'll get the job no problem. Shit bro if it was that easy don't you think I would be CEO of my own agency right now. Don't you think I've tried to start my own business. It's not that easy in the industry I'm in. I have done well for myself moved up the ladder, really don't have any ambition to be the President or CEO of an agency I was just pointing out how the average worker even someone in management like myself gets treated compared to the President.

know1

mammasan wrote:

Sure I'll just walk into Saatchi & Saatchi hand them my resume and ask to be their president. I'm sure I'll get the job no problem. Shit bro if it was that easy don't you think I would be CEO of my own agency right now. Don't you think I've tried to start my own business. It's not that easy in the industry I'm in. I have done well for myself moved up the ladder, really don't have any ambition to be the President or CEO of an agency I was just pointing out how the average worker even someone in management like myself gets treated compared to the President.

Exactly. And if it's really not easy, then perhaps your president is reaping rewards for accomplishing this task that you admit is not easy and it really doesn't have much to do with the exact project that you were awarded.

It's odd to complain about it being unfair in one breath, but admit that it's not easy in the other.

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

i am not going to discuss this any further and contubute to the non-stop fucking bitchin gon this web site about other posters...it is fucking childish

this from the guy who says "thanks for adding to the discussion as usual? any thoughts on the topic at hand? or are you just going to bitch?" i can see you're very opposed to belittling other posters. pot meet the kettle. way to dodge my question though.

my thoughts?

it's sickening, but i dont see there's anything to do about it. communism is ineffective. perhaps a proportionality limit, but who decides what the limit is and once you get there where's the incentive to excel? then there's the part of me that thinks this is all a moot point becos these CEO's will be no better off than joe worker once china calls in its debts and truly gets off the ground. america is so top heavy it will fold like a bad poker hand.

mammasan

know1 wrote:

Exactly. And if it's really not easy, then perhaps your president is reaping rewards for accomplishing this task that you admit is not easy and it really doesn't have much to do with the exact project that you were awarded.

It's odd to complain about it being unfair in one breath, but admit that it's not easy in the other.

I'm not saying his job is easy and that he doesn't deserve what he gets, but if the agency is in trouble finacially, instead of handing out bonuses to the top tier, why not put that money back into the agency to retain some of it's people.

farfromglorified

If you don't like what a CEO makes, stop paying him or her. A CEO doesn't steal your money. You give it to them when you buy what their company sells. You don't need a fucking revolution to get your wealth back. You just need to stop giving it away.

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

So quit and become the president of a company.

This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?

Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.

farfromglorified

If you don't like what "Joe Worker" gets paid, start paying him. "Joe Worker" shouldn't steal your money. You give it to him when you buy his labor. You don't need a fucking revolution to give your wealth to "Joe Worker". You just need to hire him.

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it.

Except for those who actually do it.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

Except for those who actually do it.

I meant that it is not a workable solution across the board. For one thing, many people are not capable of running a company due to their temperament, intelligence, etc. Also, as I mentioned, it would be a sad waste of many people's abilities to be doing CEO work when they're more ideally suited for something else. And of course if we all decided to follow your advice, there would be nothing to be president of.

mammasan

hippiemom wrote:

This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?

Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.

Thank you. You said it a lot better than I did, but that is the point I was trying to get across. I don't care that the President of my agency make more than me. He probably puts up with a lot more shit than I do so he deserves it. I also have no desire to be the president of any agency or even my own because as hippiemom said it would take away from what I am good at and that is concepting and designing. My problem is the inequality in treatment. The agency is suffering some hardship so why should he be rewarded while the rest of us are facing lay-offs. He is just as responsible for the well being of the agency as we are, if not more. There is a hiring freeze, freelance freeze, pay raise freeze but the top tier still manages to get a bonus. If the agency was doing well I would careless if he received a million dollar bonus as long as I had a job and was being compensated for it, but that is not the case.

BrinkofForever

Here's a thought for you to chew on. I agree with the respondant that said that said corporation has the inheirent right to pay their CEO whatever they wish. After all, it's up to the stockholders to do what they feel will best grow the company.

However.

My problem is this. The people involved in the day to day decisions in our Government..this includes the President, V.P, their Cabinet, and Congress... Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to be in bed with Big Business in this country. When policy is constantly being written that undermines the spirit of competition, the result is invariably going to be negative when it comes to the worker, the consumer and the taxpayer. It seems like every major industry is in contant consolidation. Take for example the insurance industry. Thanks to consolidation, there are maybe five major health insurers in the U.S. What that means for consumers is less choices, increased health care costs and more disregard by the insurers for their customers and their employees in general. I am increasingly convinced that what is being created in this country is nothing less than a new subclass of white collar prolitariat, who's lives and ability to increase their own wealth are more and more subject to the abuse of their dollar driven empoyers.
My girlfriend works for a major, United Health. Last week, her department fired three people...meanwhile they have hired 20 interns from OSU to do the job my girlfriend does at 10K less a year. They fire three people, not for performance issues, but because upper managment needed to free up 120K-130K in salary to pay for these interns whom can't even perform 1/2 the job function that their salaried writers do. So it comes down to bottom line. Cut heads, keep in budget, make money. To add insult to injury, UHC's CEO is bringing in roughly 500M salary and stock options. It's incredible that these three writers have their financial lives turned on-end for what?

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

I meant that it is not a workable solution across the board.

Ok. But "the board" also doesn't want to be president or CEO.

For one thing, many people are not capable of running a company due to their temperament, intelligence, etc.

Certainly.

Also, as I mentioned, it would be a sad waste of many people's abilities to be doing CEO work when they're more ideally suited for something else.

Sure.

And of course if we all decided to follow your advice, there would be nothing to be president of.

Except yourself. Except your business. Except your life. But that's no good.

We all have to be president of each other for something to work, apparently.

know1

mammasan wrote:

I'm not saying his job is easy and that he doesn't deserve what he gets, but if the agency is in trouble finacially, instead of handing out bonuses to the top tier, why not put that money back into the agency to retain some of it's people.

That's the company's decision. I'm not defending whether it's right or wrong, just defending the company's right to make it.

You implied that whether the president receives the bonus is not up to him or her, so there must be someone(s) else making the decision.

know1

hippiemom wrote:

This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?

Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.

I totally agree that everyone has contributed. The crux is the value of each contribution. The general consensus is that the upper management's contribution is worth more. That's just how it works right now.

know1

mammasan wrote:

Thank you. You said it a lot better than I did, but that is the point I was trying to get across. I don't care that the President of my agency make more than me. He probably puts up with a lot more shit than I do so he deserves it. I also have no desire to be the president of any agency or even my own because as hippiemom said it would take away from what I am good at and that is concepting and designing. My problem is the inequality in treatment. The agency is suffering some hardship so why should he be rewarded while the rest of us are facing lay-offs. He is just as responsible for the well being of the agency as we are, if not more. There is a hiring freeze, freelance freeze, pay raise freeze but the top tier still manages to get a bonus. If the agency was doing well I would careless if he received a million dollar bonus as long as I had a job and was being compensated for it, but that is not the case.

Then I misunderstood you and agree with you on a lot of the points.

The problem is, the bonus is a decision to be made by the management of a company who have earned the right to make that decision. Management makes many bad decisions, but they do have the right to make them.