[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I find that very offensive Gracie. I do not begrudge those who have earned their wealth by providing a unique service or product and risk their money to succeed. I think the Morse family falls into that definition as they have earned their wealth because they provided a uniquely quality product and put their money to work to back up their belief that the product was outstanding. Not all wealthy people have earned their wealth in such a positive way. Do your research.

I'm always a bit leery of the "...I'm offended" rejoinder. What Gracie said is clearly at least part of the explanation (and I'm not saying this applies to you by the way). Let's face it ... envy is part of human nature. Not saying it's necessarily bad, and no doubt not good, but it exists. Public figures of various persuasions knows this and make a career of exploiting it.

[mickey100]

The problem with CEOs salaries is that oftentimes they are not set in a fair way, they are set by corporate boards rigged with their cronies. Former Attorney General Spitzer called it a rigged marketplace. Since the salaries are determined by close associates with an interest in seeing CEO salaries rise, there are no checks and balances. For example, in 1982, CEOs made 42 times what the average worker made. In 2003 it was 300 times the average worker. These salaries generally are not tied to any type of company performance. The CEO can expect their salary to rise even if their company performs poorly.

A better way, IMHO, is the way Whole Foods caps their CEO pay at a 14/1 ratio, rather than the 300/1 ratio mentioned above, and still is a very successful company. Someone has to pay for the inflated salaries of the many overpaid CEOs, and of course in the long run, it ends up being the consumer.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

If you view the total wealth he accumulated, I'm gonna take that as you're ok with Steve making a few gazillions dollars ... correct?

Yes I am OK with that because he made money for his publicly owned company and its stockholders and provided a product that people wanted. However, as this article written by bank chairman and CEO notes, there are CEO's that that make $79 million a year which has yet to make a profit. That is money which is being taken from the publicly owned stockholders and hurts their income. That is abusive.

Why Excessive CEO Pay Is Bad for the Economy - Bank Think Article - American Banker

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The problem with CEOs salaries is that oftentimes they are not set in a fair way, they are set by corporate boards rigged with their cronies. Former Attorney General Spitzer called it a rigged marketplace. Since the salaries are determined by close associates with an interest in seeing CEO salaries rise, there are no checks and balances. For example, in 1982, CEOs made 42 times what the average worker made. In 2003 it was 300 times the average worker. These salaries generally are not tied to any type of company performance. The CEO can expect their salary to rise even if their company performs poorly.

A better way, IMHO, is the way Whole Foods caps their CEO pay at a 14/1 ratio, rather than the 300/1 ratio mentioned above, and still is a very successful company. Someone has to pay for the inflated salaries of the many overpaid CEOs, and of course in the long run, it ends up being the consumer.

Concur! Another way to say it is a CEO's day worth more than a year of work of an employee to the company. Yes, if you can get the Board to agree.

[claricecolin]

I think that one thing being missed in this conversation is that many of the solid middle class jobs no longer exist. We have moved from manufacturing to service jobs. Service jobs do not pay the same. In over 20 years of retail management the last 10 there was a push for part time workers as to not have to offer benefits. Part time can work provided you have a set schedule and can then fit in a second job. My last 5 years we were not allowed to do that. Our part time people had to have open availability. That makes it rather hard to get another job. Things just are not as simple as they once were.

I am a strong believer in a great education. My career had nothing to do with my degree. Luckily my son has a good job in a field related to what his degree is in. However, not everyone is cut out for college. Nor is everyone cut out for a trade. I do feel that every person that is willing to work (I think that is the majority of able bodied adults) should make a wage they can live on. Will some live better than others? Of course and the majority accepts that. I think the frustration sets in as the under 30 college educated people are feeling that a middle class life is not attainable.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by claricecolin

I think that one thing being missed in this conversation is that many of the solid middle class jobs no longer exist. We have moved from manufacturing to service jobs. Service jobs do not pay the same. In over 20 years of retail management the last 10 there was a push for part time workers as to not have to offer benefits. Part time can work provided you have a set schedule and can then fit in a second job. My last 5 years we were not allowed to do that. Our part time people had to have open availability. That makes it rather hard to get another job. Things just are not as simple as they once were.

I am a strong believer in a great education. My career had nothing to do with my degree. Luckily my son has a good job in a field related to what his degree is in. However, not everyone is cut out for college. Nor is everyone cut out for a trade. I do feel that every person that is willing to work (I think that is the majority of able bodied adults) should make a wage they can live on. Will some live better than others? Of course and the majority accepts that. I think the frustration sets in as the under 30 college educated people are feeling that a middle class life is not attainable.

I agree. They do everything they're supposed to do - get a college education, good grades, but can't land a job that pays enough. And many are saddled with student loans they need to pay off. It's a shame.

[perrjojo]

So CEOs are paid unfairly? How should they be paid? Who gets to decide? What is the success or failure of a company worth? Not being argumentative, just wondering what people think.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Pointer

[/U]

Yes!!! Why does one work if not to provide Food , Shelter and Clothing???

I don't think that Walmart provides good jobs at all. CEO's in this country are paid so much more then in another countries and that takes from the hourly wage earners. Study after study has shown that when you take care of the employee you get better loyalty and output and in the end costs the company less.
Proctor and Gamble is one company who believes this and provides good jobs. When a job doesn't cover the basic's then you get disgruntled, depressed "why bother" employee's who get sick.

I guess I should have been more specific. Should employers provide food clothing and shelter over and above what they pay in wages?

Why do we expect employers to provide health care coverage over and above what they pay in wages? Why is that their responsibility?

Many or most employers are paying for health care over and above salaries. Why not just pay everyone a little more and allow the to buy their own health insurance.

And the idea that huge CEO salaries are taking away from the hourly wages of the lowest paid employees is a myth. Companies where the CEO is making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars generally have millions of employees. If you were to cut the CEOs salary by 80% and give that to the millions of employees, it would be a mere pittance to each one.

As an example, if a company with one million employees pays their CEO $100 million and you cut him back to $20 million you would distribute $80 million among one million employees. If you distribute it evenly, which is highly unlikely, they'd get $80.00 per year each.
What's more likely is that upper management would get a bit more then middle management and supervisors would get a bit less then that and the people at the bottom of the pay scale would get the least.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I guess I should have been more specific. Should employers provide food clothing and shelter over and above what they pay in wages?

Why do we expect employers to provide health care coverage over and above what they pay in wages? Why is that their responsibility?

Many or most employers are paying for health care over and above salaries. Why not just pay everyone a little more and allow the to buy their own health insurance.

And the idea that huge CEO salaries are taking away from the hourly wages of the lowest paid employees is a myth. Companies where the CEO is making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars generally have millions of employees. If you were to cut the CEOs salary by 80% and give that to the millions of employees, it would be a mere pittance to each one.

As an example, if a company with one million employees pays their CEO $100 million and you cut him back to $20 million you would distribute $80 million among one million employees. If you distribute it evenly, which is highly unlikely, they'd get $80.00 per year each.
What's more likely is that upper management would get a bit more then middle management and supervisors would get a bit less then that and the people at the bottom of the pay scale would get the least.

Not even close doc.
Top five CEO compensation according to Forbes:
John Hammergrer, McKesson. $139m. 42,800 EEs
Ralph Lauren, Ralph Lauren. $66.6m. , 23,000 EEs
MichaelFascitelli, Vornado Realty. $64.4m, 4,369 EEs
Richard Kinder, Kinder Morgan, 60.9m, 11,080 EEs
George Paz, Express Scripts, 51.5m, 30,000 EEs

One company in the world with more than a million employees, Wal Mart. Next largest US Postal Service with 826,000 employees.

[JBarracks]

Will and Ariel Durant, brilliant people. I've been reading 'The Story of Civilization' for a couple of years, now up to book six. For anyone that's curious as to how civilization arrived at what it is today. Insightful!

[JBarracks]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

The best book I have ever read, and still enjoy rereading now and then, is Will & Ariel Durant's "The Lessons of History." Here are several quotes from their classic which pertain to this topic and should offer us all something to think about.

---

“Since practical ability differs from person to person, the majority of such abilities, in nearly all societies, is gathered in a minority of men. The concentration of wealth is a natural result of this concentration of ability, and regularly recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the laws. Despotism may for a time retard the concentration; democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it.”
…
“In progressive societies the concentration may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”
…
“We conclude that the concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable, and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution”
…
“The mechanics of capitalism have proven to the most effective system:
Capitalist gathers the savings of the people, finances the mechanizations of industry, and distributes the goods according to demand (not government decree).”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will and Ariel Durant, brilliant people. I've been reading 'The Story of Civilization' for a couple of years, now up to book six. For anyone that's curious as to how civilization arrived at what it is today. Insightful!

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Not even close doc.
Top five CEO compensation according to Forbes:
John Hammergrer, McKesson. $139m. 42,800 EEs
Ralph Lauren, Ralph Lauren. $66.6m. , 23,000 EEs
MichaelFascitelli, Vornado Realty. $64.4m, 4,369 EEs
Richard Kinder, Kinder Morgan, 60.9m, 11,080 EEs
George Paz, Express Scripts, 51.5m, 30,000 EEs

One company in the world with more than a million employees, Wal Mart. Next largest US Postal Service with 826,000 employees.

Thanks for digging up the facts.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Not even close doc.
Top five CEO compensation according to Forbes:
John Hammergrer, McKesson. $139m. 42,800 EEs
Ralph Lauren, Ralph Lauren. $66.6m. , 23,000 EEs
MichaelFascitelli, Vornado Realty. $64.4m, 4,369 EEs
Richard Kinder, Kinder Morgan, 60.9m, 11,080 EEs
George Paz, Express Scripts, 51.5m, 30,000 EEs

One company in the world with more than a million employees, Wal Mart. Next largest US Postal Service with 826,000 employees.

OK, take your first example. Take away 80% of that CEOs income and distribute it evenly among the employees and it about $2600 per employee. Not a bad increase for minimum wage earners but not life changing. It's about $1.30 per hour increase for a forty hour a week worker.

And again consider that that money is not going to be distributed evenly. The people closest to the top would get more and the people on the bottom would get less. If Vornado Reality has increased it's profits by a billion dollars under Fascitelli then he's worth every penny that they pay him.

Bt the bottom line is that taking from the rich and giving to the poor will not solve any problems. The wealthy in this country are not the problem.

If you want to argue about the other examples that you have posted please show evidence that the people involved are not worth what they are getting paid.

Although I agree that many of these CEOs make more than their worth and their compensation should be tied to the performance of the companies reducing their salaries does not change anything.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

OK, take your first example. Take away 80% of that CEOs income and distribute it evenly among the employees and it about $2600 per employee. Not a bad increase for minimum wage earners but not life changing. It's about $1.30 per hour increase for a forty hour a week worker.

And again consider that that money is not going to be distributed evenly. The people closest to the top would get more and the people on the bottom would get less. If Vornado Reality has increased it's profits by a billion dollars under Fascitelli then he's worth every penny that they pay him.

Bt the bottom line is that taking from the rich and giving to the poor will not solve any problems. The wealthy in this country are not the problem.

If you want to argue about the other examples that you have posted please show evidence that the people involved are not worth what they are getting paid.

Although I agree that many of these CEOs make more than their worth and their compensation should be tied to the performance of the companies reducing their salaries does not change anything.

Please show me where I stated or implied that any of these CEOs were not worth what they are getting paid. I was simply pointing out that the statement you made that most of the companies with highly paid CEOs had a million or more employees was wildly eggagerated. If you are going to use arithmetic to prove your point you need to get the numbers at least close to correct.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

OK, take your first example. Take away 80% of that CEOs income and distribute it evenly among the employees and it about $2600 per employee. Not a bad increase for minimum wage earners but not life changing. It's about $1.30 per hour increase for a forty hour a week .

At the risk of being nit picky, an increase of $1.30 an hour comes out to something like 17 a 18% increase. That's peanuts to us, but to someone who makes minimum wage, that's huge! Just sayin...