Overmod,
I am replying to your post above, which for some reason, I am unable to quote since the "add quote" function is formatted in a strange way.
But anyway, to answer your question asking why I did not say I left something out of the original context, I think you are looking at something other than the orginial context post. In that, I left nothing out. I said this:
Thanks JPS1
What would you conclude about this statement from the following link?:
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
“Importantly, rising CEO pay does not reflect rising value of skills, but rather CEOs’ use of their power to set their own pay. And this growing power at the top has been driving the growth of inequality in our country.”
As you can see, I quoted something from a link posted by Mr. Hebdo, and asked JPS1 what he thought of it.
The issue of leaving something out of context is with Lithonia Operator copying my orginal post and leaving out the context of me asking JPS1 what he thought of the views I quoted in my orginal post. L.O. omitting the context of me posing a question to JPS1 leaves the false impression that I merely posted a link and a statement with no explation of why I posted the statement or who said it.
That is the reason I made this reply to L.O.:
Overmod Euclid If you look at the context that you failed to quote, you can see that I did not post the quoted point saying that I agreed with it. I just cited it to ask JPS1 what he thought of it. The fact is that I completely disagree with it. Why, then, did you not so state explicitly that you disagreed with it in the original context? NOTE: I have deleted the balance of what I originally wrote in this post, as I see the original appears to have been redacted so my objections are largely solved. Note that Brian screwed up the original TOS when he wrote the sticky with
Euclid If you look at the context that you failed to quote, you can see that I did not post the quoted point saying that I agreed with it. I just cited it to ask JPS1 what he thought of it. The fact is that I completely disagree with it.
Why, then, did you not so state explicitly that you disagreed with it in the original context?
NOTE: I have deleted the balance of what I originally wrote in this post, as I see the original appears to have been redacted so my objections are largely solved.
Note that Brian screwed up the original TOS when he wrote the sticky with
Well, I did reply to your post as you can see at the top of this page. The reason I did not state that I disagreed with the statement from the link is that I wanted to show it to JPS1 first and ask him what he thinks of it. That is what I said I was doing. I was not posting it to exlain it. I was showing it to someone else and asking for his reaction to it. And I think I made that 100% clear in my post.
Also: The reason I was asking JPS1 about the quote about CEOs setting their own pay is that he had just previously posted a detailed explanation of how the pay is set for CEOs.
Anyway, I think freight is continuing to slump.
EuclidI am replying to your post above, which for some reason, I am unable to quote since the "add quote" function is formatted in a strange way.
That post has been extensively redacted, as upon review of your prior post I see there is no issue with it now. You may have had problems with quoting it because it was actively being revised at the time.
I have no effective objection to the post as it is now constituted, although I do think it would be 'better' to state directly if you, yourself agree or disagree with a piece of material you quote, rather than just throwing it up for discussion.
EuclidWell, I did reply to your post as you can see at the top of this page. The reason I did not state that I disagreed with the statement from the link is that I wanted to show it to JPS1 first and ask him what he thinks of it. That is what I said I was doing. I was not posting it to exlain it. I was showing it to someone else and asking for his reaction to it. And I think I made that 100% clear in my post.
That's fine.
I do wonder, though, whether if you want someone's private opinion before others 'chime in', you should PM the matter to the person involved before making a general post. Just a thought, certainly not a 'requirement'.
On the previous page, after posing that question to JPS1, I did actually continue my thoughts about that statement from the link about rising inequality.
Maybe in a few sentences someone could explain how you measure inequality of income while factoring in the corresponding inequality of the value of work performed for income. Inequality of income seems to be cited as an injustice, but certainly that cannot mean that there can only be justice if all working people are paid the same wage.
In fact, I don’t see how you can draw conclusions about inequality in comparing the average wages of different types of jobs. If you could do that, you might find that a bricklayer is being overpaid while a CEO is being underpaid. And yet most of the grievance about inequality seems to point to higher wage earners being paid too much.
So maybe we could just get a couple sentences about what the general issue that is intended to be resolved by this massively complex calculation of inequality. If we could wave a magic wand, what would society look like if there were no objectionable inequality?
OvermodI do wonder, though, whether if you want someone's private opinion before others 'chime in', you should PM the matter to the person involved before making a general post. Just a thought, certainly not a 'requirement'.
I understand, however, I was not seeking a private opinion. I was simply addressing a question to one particular person. And the question stands as a complete message to which any other person with an interst in it is free to chime right in with an answer or comment of their own. I have my own opinions about the question, but I chose not to state them at that time. It is no different than any other case of simply addressing someone with a question, such as me saying:
"Overmod,
What do you think the reason is for..."
I think the inequality stems from the fact that executive compensation at major companies has took off while compensation for the average worker at those companies has more or less stagnated over the last 20 or 30 years. I believe it's because many types of work are valued less today then years ago. Many have bought into the notion that if your job doesn't require a 4 year degree or is blue collar, that job is valueless. Even many of those holding those types of jobs have come around to that line of thinking, too. When many think certain jobs are beneath them, or their children, it's easy to devalue work.
I remember watching the local TV news many years ago. One of the anchors was reading a report done by the State of Iowa on jobs that were being outsourced to other countries. The reporter gave a visible sigh of relief when she said it was only blue collar jobs (at that time) being outsourced.
I'm sure the executives and shareholders of International Acme Brick and Paving Company (if there was such a company) feel they pay their bricklayers too much and their executives not enough.
Jeff
jeffhergertI think the inequality stems from the fact that executive compensation at major companies has took off while compensation for the average worker at those companies has more or less stagnated over the last 20 or 30 years. I believe it's because many types of work are valued less today then years ago. Many have bought into the notion that if your job doesn't require a 4 year degree or is blue collar, that job is valueless. Even many of those holding those types of jobs have come around to that line of thinking, too. When many think certain jobs are beneath them, or their children, it's easy to devalue work. I remember watching the local TV news many years ago. One of the anchors was reading a report done by the State of Iowa on jobs that were being outsourced to other countries. The reporter gave a visible sigh of relief when she said it was only blue collar jobs (at that time) being outsourced. I'm sure the executives and shareholders of International Acme Brick and Paving Company (if there was such a company) feel they pay their bricklayers too much and their executives not enough. Jeff
Those at the top levels of company management have no respect for the employees that are actually doing the work of the company - viewing all of them as a drain on the bottom line and replaceable at will - they are just a number.
Such management will espouse all kinds of false platitudes about their work force 'for company moral' all the while talking among themselves about how to cut more employees.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergertI'm sure the executives and shareholders of International Acme Brick and Paving Company (if there was such a company) feel they pay their bricklayers too much and their executives not enough.
Their CEO probably goes by Wile. Wile E. Coyote...
I suspect the CEO compensation issue has devolved into an endless circle, and that circle is running amok.
Company A thinks their CEO is doing a great job, so they give him/her a modest raise. If Company B wants to hire that CEO away, they need to up the ante. I think you see where this is going.
Of course, the CEO's get part of the blame for asking for the sky. Companies who want to hire said CEO candidate too often gladly give them what they ask.
Eventually, you end up where we are - outrageous salaries with equally outrageous compensation packages, and golden parachutes.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to reel it in. Perhaps the stockholders (across the board - in all industries) need to say "you're taking money out of our pockets. We're going back to that 20:1 wage ratio whether you like it or not. Sorry you can't afford the new Bentley this year."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Euclid Psychot Destabilizing the capitalist system in the myopic pursuit of efficiency and profits is neither efficient nor profitable in the long run. I do not believe the capitalist system is being destabilized by the pursuit of efficiency and profits. I think that is a talking point of those who want to replace the capitalist system for other reasons. The capitalist system is defined by the pursuit of profits. What is wrong with that? Profit is not wrong or unfair. In a capitalist system, profit is a necessary component to make it work. ........ So the people who complain about companies making a profit and not dividing it up fairly between the workers are actually calling for an end to capitalism.
Psychot Destabilizing the capitalist system in the myopic pursuit of efficiency and profits is neither efficient nor profitable in the long run.
I do not believe the capitalist system is being destabilized by the pursuit of efficiency and profits. I think that is a talking point of those who want to replace the capitalist system for other reasons. The capitalist system is defined by the pursuit of profits. What is wrong with that? Profit is not wrong or unfair. In a capitalist system, profit is a necessary component to make it work.
........
So the people who complain about companies making a profit and not dividing it up fairly between the workers are actually calling for an end to capitalism.
I'm completely with you and recommend better and more education as a step in the problem's solution.
Psychot Euclid Psychot Destabilizing the capitalist system in the myopic pursuit of efficiency and profits is neither efficient nor profitable in the long run. I do not believe the capitalist system is being destabilized by the pursuit of efficiency and profits. I think that is a talking point of those who want to replace the capitalist system for other reasons. The capitalist system is defined by the pursuit of profits. What is wrong with that? Profit is not wrong or unfair. In a capitalist system, profit is a necessary component to make it work. ........ So the people who complain about companies making a profit and not dividing it up fairly between the workers are actually calling for an end to capitalism. Far from wanting capitalism to be replaced by something else, I want it to survive. I've spent much of my life in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and therefore I have a great deal of personal experience with the ravages of communism. I don't want to go there. The people who will end up killing capitalism are those who hide their heads in the sand and pretend that all is well, while gainful employment for humans is steadily eroded by technological advances, not to mention the blind pursuit of profit without consideration for the long-term effects of excluding humans from the value chain.
+1
Well said!
Euclid What would you conclude about this statement from the following link?: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ “Importantly, rising CEO pay does not reflect rising value of skills, but rather CEOs’ use of their power to set their own pay. And this growing power at the top has been driving the growth of inequality in our country.”
JPS1So, what is it? CEO’s are setting their pay? Or corporate boards are setting it?
As I noted in my post, I believe the answer to this question is "Yes."
IMHO, CEO's are asking for outrageous pay, and the boards are willing to pay it. And the boards, looking for their next "golden boy" CEO, are offering it during their searches.
A quick review of information garnered by a search for "CEO Salaries" showed that the average CEO salary is between $150K and $200K, although a few sites gave numbers approaching $1M.
That doesn't square well with the other numbers bandied about as the multiple of worker pay, however.
A CEO getting a $1M a year whose workers got 1/286 of that would be paying his/her employees $1.66 an hour, if that were the case.
From Marketwatch.com • Pay ratios of Fortune 500 company CEOs to their employees range from 2 to 1 to nearly 5,000 to 1. The average CEO/worker ratio is 339 to 1. • At 188 of the 225 companies analyzed by the researchers a single CEO’s pay could be used to pay more than 100 workers. • Median-salaried employees in all but six companies would need to work for 45 years to earn what their CEO makes in one year.
• Pay ratios of Fortune 500 company CEOs to their employees range from 2 to 1 to nearly 5,000 to 1. The average CEO/worker ratio is 339 to 1. • At 188 of the 225 companies analyzed by the researchers a single CEO’s pay could be used to pay more than 100 workers. • Median-salaried employees in all but six companies would need to work for 45 years to earn what their CEO makes in one year.
• At 188 of the 225 companies analyzed by the researchers a single CEO’s pay could be used to pay more than 100 workers.
• Median-salaried employees in all but six companies would need to work for 45 years to earn what their CEO makes in one year.
So, f'rinstance, in the one example these companies could hire 18,800 workers for what they pay their CEOs. Of course, some companies could hire two workers...
In the end, though, I would opine that it comes down to the same question folks probably ask about those in pro sports - what the heck do you do with that much money? Does anyone really need five Rolls Kanardlys? A house on both coasts and one in the mountains, etc? Is a head of lettuce that much more if you're rich?
Capitalism was saved from its own excesses twice before in US history: first in the progressive era, when leaders like the capitalist TR introduced needed regulations; second in the New Deal, when cousin FDR introduced other tempering influences.
tree68IMHO, CEO's are asking for outrageous pay, and the boards are willing to pay it.
It is not outrageous if the board is willing to pay it. It is no more outrageous than a unionized worker’s hourly rate. Pay is not determined by limiting it to what seems to be outrageous. What this is really advocating is that the rich are taking more than their share because there is a finite pie and it should be divided equally among all those who participated in making the pie. That is socialism which is always at war with capitalism.
This complaint about executive pay rising faster than worker’s pay seems to include an assumption that the company is a sort of collective in which everyone’s wages should be synchronized in proportion, if not actually matched. So if executive pay goes up 10% and workers’ pay goes up at only 7%, that means something is wrong. We have inequality.
Pay is determined by supply and demand, and companies are going to pay as little as they can while still having an adequate supply of workers. And every worker category may have different rates of supply and demand. So you could easily have one class of workers surging ahead in pay while other classes fall behind. That is not unfair. If a job is offered and a person takes it, it is just a contract between the person and the employer. The job does not come with an entitlement to the same pay as someone else doing the same work.
There is no way to draw a just and equalized comparison between a line worker and the CEO, no matter how outrageous you can make it appear by giving the ratio. The premise of that outrage is that everyone shares the bounty of the collective effort equally. Why should that be the case? Some worked harder than others. And if everyone knows they will get the same share no matter how hard they work, they won’t work as hard.
EuclidIt is not outrageous if the board is willing to pay it. It is no more outrageous than a unionized worker’s hourly rate.
Well, it is outrageous if the board is willing to pay 300 times the pay rate of the people who actually do the work for them. That's the point. Especially when the CEO brings little more than a name to the game. "Wow - we hired Fred Smith as our CEO!"
And it's long been my opinion that because of our country's myopic view of itself as an industrial monolith in the fifties and sixties that we were paying the guy who put the lug nuts on new cars thirty dollars an hour (in the 1960's). When off-shore automakers found someone willing to do it for a buck or two an hour, it took just that much off the price of their finished product, to the detriment of US industry.
However one bad CEO can take down the whole company
rdamon However one bad CEO can take down the whole company
After which, they send him away with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
Lithonia Operator rdamon However one bad CEO can take down the whole company After which, they send him away with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
Boeing? I wonder what the consequences will be for their CEO?
charlie hebdo Lithonia Operator rdamon However one bad CEO can take down the whole company After which, they send him away with a multi-million dollar golden parachute. Boeing? I wonder what the consequences will be for their CEO?
There may not be any. Will be interesting to see. But if he goes, it will be with lots of money.
CEO compensation is determined by the BoD.. CEO’s are also chosen by the BoD... In addition those of you who invest in the stock market you would know this unless you are a passive investor, and don’t care about your investment .... Also unskilled labor doesn’t need to make or equal wages of skilled labor.. Example someone screwing or placing parts on an assembly line doesn’t need to have a total compensation package averaging $70K per annum.. It’s funny we don’t have this same sentiment for Teachers who actually provide value to the public.. Like I said before this nation shot itself in the foot, and continues to do so with bad outdated information that people latch onto like a crybaby screaming for Mama! When discipline and ethic return to this Nation don’t expect any productivity from a nation of fools who are more excited about the legalization of smoking weed and being gender confused....
daveklepper I'm completely with you and recommend better and more education as a step in the problem's solution.
I agree, and it needs to be a two-tiered system. We aren't doing anyone any favors by pretending that college is for everyone, because it isn't. Everyone is blessed with different talents; some are good with numbers, some with computers, and still others with their hands. That latter cohort needs to be served with a robust German-style vocational education system that trains people for highly-skilled blue-collar professions. But more than that, we need to move past the mentality that little junior is a failure because he doesn't want to go to college.
But even if we do all that, we still might find ourselves in a predicament a few decades down the road if technology advances to a point where machines can replace even the most highly-skilled blue-collar workers. At that point, I don't see how we can avoid some sort of redistribution and/or "make-work" jobs to give people a reason to get up in the morning. Of course, the mere mention of the word "redistribution" causes certain people to scream "LIBRUL! LIBRUL!" but I'm not. I just want to see our wonderful capitalist system survive and do what it's supposed to do: make life better for everyone.
SD60MAC9500CEO compensation is determined by the BoD.. CEO’s are also chosen by the BoD... In addition those of you who invest in the stock market you would know this unless you are a passive investor, and don’t care about your investment .... Also unskilled labor doesn’t need to make or equal wages of skilled labor.. Example someone screwing or placing parts on an assembly line doesn’t need to have a total compensation package averaging $70K per annum.. It’s funny we don’t have this same sentiment for Teachers who actually provide value to the public.. Like I said before this nation shot itself in the foot, and continues to do so with bad outdated information that people latch onto like a crybaby screaming for Mama! When discipline and ethic return to this Nation don’t expect any productivity from a nation of fools who are more excited about the legalization of smoking weed and being gender confused....
BoD's are filled from the CEO 'class'. BoD's with a number of other company's CEO's tend to 'feather the nest' of the company CEO, with the expectation (and experience) that the nest feathering will get handed on in the next BoD that the selected CEO becomes a member of.
CEO's really fall into the clique of 'unskilled labor' as for the most part they cannot perform any of the actions required to produce the product(s) their company's sell for the company's income.
BaltACDBoD's are filled from the CEO 'class'. BoD's with a number of other company's CEO's tend to 'feather the nest' of the company CEO, with the expectation (and experience) that the nest feathering will get handed on in the next BoD that the selected CEO becomes a member of. CEO's really fall into the clique of 'unskilled labor' as for the most part they cannot perform any of the actions required to produce the product(s) their company's sell for the company's income.
BaltACD SD60MAC9500 CEO compensation is determined by the BoD.. CEO’s are also chosen by the BoD... In addition those of you who invest in the stock market you would know this unless you are a passive investor, and don’t care about your investment .... Also unskilled labor doesn’t need to make or equal wages of skilled labor.. Example someone screwing or placing parts on an assembly line doesn’t need to have a total compensation package averaging $70K per annum.. It’s funny we don’t have this same sentiment for Teachers who actually provide value to the public.. Like I said before this nation shot itself in the foot, and continues to do so with bad outdated information that people latch onto like a crybaby screaming for Mama! When discipline and ethic return to this Nation don’t expect any productivity from a nation of fools who are more excited about the legalization of smoking weed and being gender confused.... BoD's are filled from the CEO 'class'. BoD's with a number of other company's CEO's tend to 'feather the nest' of the company CEO, with the expectation (and experience) that the nest feathering will get handed on in the next BoD that the selected CEO becomes a member of. CEO's really fall into the clique of 'unskilled labor' as for the most part they cannot perform any of the actions required to produce the product(s) their company's sell for the company's income.
SD60MAC9500 CEO compensation is determined by the BoD.. CEO’s are also chosen by the BoD... In addition those of you who invest in the stock market you would know this unless you are a passive investor, and don’t care about your investment .... Also unskilled labor doesn’t need to make or equal wages of skilled labor.. Example someone screwing or placing parts on an assembly line doesn’t need to have a total compensation package averaging $70K per annum.. It’s funny we don’t have this same sentiment for Teachers who actually provide value to the public.. Like I said before this nation shot itself in the foot, and continues to do so with bad outdated information that people latch onto like a crybaby screaming for Mama! When discipline and ethic return to this Nation don’t expect any productivity from a nation of fools who are more excited about the legalization of smoking weed and being gender confused....
That's the thing. Someone else pointed this out earlier in the thread also. The idea that CEO pay is the result of some kind of meritocracy is a huge myth. The people at the top take care of each other. These people make this kind of money largely because it's them deciding how much they get.
Lithonia Operator That's the thing. Someone else pointed this out earlier in the thread also. The idea that CEO pay is the result of some kind of meritocracy is a huge myth. The people at the top take care of each other. These people make this kind of money largely because it's them deciding how much they get.
Yes, I have heard that a thousand times. The evil CEOs who contribute nothing are taking way more than their fair share because they can and nobody can stop them. And I have asked a thousand times: What are you going to do about it? You might then say there is nothing that can be done about it.
But let ask it this way: If you could wave a magic wand and solve the problem of CEOs robbing society; what solution to the problem would you produce?
It is a little fishy that nobody seems to want to solve the problem.
EuclidBut let ask it this way: If you could wave a magic wand and solve the problem of CEOs robbing society; what solution to the problem would you produce?
Start working back toward that 20 times number. BODs have to embrace that, the potential CEO's have to embrace that. Perhaps a voluntary freeze on CEO wages. "Sorry - we're holding your salary at $100 million this year..."
Of course, a major part of the problem is that back when the 20X factor was the "rule," companies were, on the whole, much smaller, and the CEO was that much closer to the workers. I suspect the closer to the workers a CEO is, the lower their salary will be.
Today we have layers upon layers of megamergers, the results of which is probably where you'll find the CEOs with the outsized salaries. These folks are no longer running a company - they are running a holding corporation. Some may not even realize they are manufacturing Acme Catapults.
EuclidIt is a little fishy that nobody seems to want to solve the problem.
Is it a question of no one wants to, or no one really knows how? How long will it be before a potential CEO decides that he might as well take that $90M a year because no one is going to offer him $100M?
One way to start to change the situation is altering corporate governance to include fair input from all stakeholders: employees, shareholders and customers.
charlie hebdoOne way to start to change the situation is altering corporate governance to include fair input from all stakeholders: employees, shareholders and customers.
In today's world - I have a bridge to sell you, Cheap!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.