[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Try this again.

CEOs Earn Nearly 300 Times What Their Workers Make | ThinkProgress

Ed - Am so glad to see that someone highlighted this topic. Every time it is brought up I have to ask some questions:
1.] What SHOULD that ratio of CEO to worker be?
2.] Why should it be as suggested?
3.] What basis did you use to determine what that ratio should be?
To date, no one has been able to come up with logical, factual, non-emotional information to answer to those questions.

As this author pointed out, "EPI’s data measure CEO compensation at the 350 biggest American public companies in a given year..." I have to ask - 'Why' and 'Why not use a sampling of CEO compensation from a variety of economic levels all the way down to the lowest paid?

I feel the questions to be appropriate, especially when the worker salary statistic is derived from "...the annual pay for workers in a given industry,..." Well. how screwy is that? Certainly not comparing apples and apples there? Why are such surveys not measuring compensation levels in a variety of industries? Such surveys suffer from a serious credibility problem.

Does anyone know that since CEO compensation analysis is coming from the biggest companies that the employee compensation analysis is coming from employees in the same industries that the CEOs manage?

And then there is the statement, "...executives are rigging pay in their favor." It fails to take into account those CEO salaries that are established by corporate boards and approved at annual stockholder meetings. I spent the first half of my career working in the field of corporate compensation and cannot recall ANY CEO who set their own salary! Of course, back in those dark ages, both employee and executive compensation was established using salary survey information that was both conducted by the corp and was published by leading compensation authorities.