Eye-Popping Executive Salaries

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
Yes, as is pointed out in this article, business executive pay has reached outrageous new levels... but, I am resolutely against government regulation of executive salaries. If it is against the interests of businesses to hire at such stratospheric levels, they will stop doing it.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    Yeah, that would be completely intrusive for the government to regulate salaries.
  • Reply 2 of 40
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Not to mention it would destroy America's ability to compete with the rest of the world. The more over-regulated we become, the more attractive offshoring and outsourcing are. America needs to be more open to risk (with consequences), not less.
  • Reply 3 of 40
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    if you don't like the salaries, don't buy the stock, don't buy the product...there, you had your vote. works for me. other than that, pay them a billion a month, i don't care, its probably what they deserve and its none of my business or the governments as long as they don't swindle, cheat, lie or do nasty things with other people's money or lives.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I've heard several Democrat contenders (including Barack Obama) mention this issue as one they would "like to address"... meaning: they want to introduce legislation to regulate executive pay... bad, bad idea.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    Just rich idiots helping each other make more money while the average Joe makes 36,000 a year working for the fat guy.



    Incomprehendable greed, that's all.
  • Reply 6 of 40
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    How would regulation of CEO pay harm our competitiveness? I'm not saying I'm in favor of it, but I also can't see any mechanism through which it could harm anything except for a few fat cats.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    If CEOs were paid less, more earnings could be pumped into R&D, which would return greater profits down the road.



    Or, companies could pass the saving on to the customers by lowering prices, increasing sales and thereby increasing profits again.



    Both options would make us more competitive.



    Bringing the CEO's income more in line with that of the line worker would also increase worker morale, thereby increasing productivitiy, thereby increasing competiviness.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Executive compensation needs to be addressed somehow.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    Executive compensation needs to be addressed somehow.



    I suspect the airline industry will take care of that.
  • Reply 10 of 40
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    They can afford their own jets now.
  • Reply 11 of 40
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    They can afford their own jets now.



    Indeed. But not for long.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    If CEOs were paid less, more earnings could be pumped into R&D, which would return greater profits down the road. ...Or, companies could pass the saving on to the customers by lowering prices, increasing sales and thereby increasing profits again.



    Both options would make us more competitive.



    Bringing the CEO's income more in line with that of the line worker would also increase worker morale, thereby increasing productivitiy, thereby increasing competiviness.



    I agree with this. ... Think about this. How much of the $200 million per year given to ONE FRIGGIN CEO could be used for other good stuff?



    Maybe $50 million in IT upgrades for productivity, competitiveness of the company?



    Maybe $10 million in better marketing to increase sales?



    The CEO can still have his $50-100million per year. Just shave off a hundred mil' for IMPROVING THE COMPANY AND HENCE THE ECONOMY OF THE US.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    I'd gladly take the hundred 'mil off his hands, and I promise to "help the economy" by re-investing it at the local mall.8)
  • Reply 14 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Just rich idiots helping each other make more money while the average Joe makes 36,000 a year working for the fat guy.



    Incomprehendable greed, that's all.



    The "Average Joe" hasn't started a company that brings in millions of dollars a year. The more you put into making money, the more you will get out of it. (Well, not ALWAYS....)
  • Reply 15 of 40
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 681member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    If CEOs were paid less, more earnings could be pumped into R&D, which would return greater profits down the road.



    Or, companies could pass the saving on to the customers by lowering prices, increasing sales and thereby increasing profits again.



    Both options would make us more competitive.



    Bringing the CEO's income more in line with that of the line worker would also increase worker morale, thereby increasing productivitiy, thereby increasing competiviness.



    Exactly!!!! finally someone with common sense!
  • Reply 16 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    If CEOs were paid less, more earnings could be pumped into R&D, which would return greater profits down the road.



    Or, companies could pass the saving on to the customers by lowering prices, increasing sales and thereby increasing profits again.



    Both options would make us more competitive.



    Bringing the CEO's income more in line with that of the line worker would also increase worker morale, thereby increasing productivitiy, thereby increasing competiviness.



    True. If I ran a company I would do all of these things. But hey, it's their company to ruin if they choose to.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Just rich idiots helping each other make more money while the average Joe makes 36,000 a year working for the fat guy.



    Incomprehendable greed, that's all.



    nah, that average joe didn't bother to get some education that put him into the bracket that your 'rich idiot' worked hard to get into. Just pure poor man's jealousy.



    yeah, a lot of them started with the proverbial silver spoon in the culo, but not all of them. If you want, you get, if you don't try, you don't have. simple. most people just don't have what it takes, nothing wrong with that....which gives you: average joe.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    I completely disagree. it takes literally nothing that you cannot learn to succeed. people with it don't like others getting it, so they make it harder for them to do so and suggest that they are somehow superior...
  • Reply 19 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    I completely disagree. it takes literally nothing that you cannot learn to succeed. people with it don't like others getting it, so they make it harder for them to do so and suggest that they are somehow superior...



    Having worked closely with and known some very rich characters, I disagree with this strongly. I'm not very wealthy, never played golf, didn't go to college, and yet I still manage to do alright. I'm sure this is the case for most people on these forums. As a matter of fact, I'd say most of the people posting here are far more articulate and able to form a cogent argument than I am, but I wonder if they put all of these skills toward their success? I hope so.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    I think it was Bertrand Russell who said (pls correct me if I'm mistaken): "a specialist is a person who gets to know more and more, about less and less, until he finally knows everything about nothing". The executive salary situation reminds me a little about the above quote, in that (proportionately) fewer and fewer people are getting paid more and more, until finally a tiny elite owns everything. Well, thats obviously an exaggeration, but it is a parallel.



    How much reward constitutes "enough", or "too much", or "too little" (dare I ask?)? I am vehemently against government regulation and intrusion into peoples' private affairs... but this Thomas Paine quote puts it in a nutshell: "Society is produced by our wants, and governments by our wickedness." In the case of insane executive rewards, when society fails to exercise self-discipline and the top individuals within it fail to exercise "reasonable self restraint", where bloated excess, greed, grossness, opulence and the resulting astronomical wealth does not reflect those individuals' worth to civilization, then that is the (unfortunate) time where responsible government ends up having to step in, for the sake of everyone.



    How much higher can executive salaries get, before regular people start getting pissed enough to do something about it? There may be also a fear factor, a cold war relic at play here preventing this, (especially here in the US): Are we too afraid of being called "communists" or similar, because suddenly we recommend that the top people are limited to getting paid only 5,000 times the rate of regular workers, for example, as opposed to 10,000 times, or 20,000, or 100,000 times or unlimited?



    The top exec. salary thing is also a game they play ... a celebrity competition amongst the elite to see who leads the table of excess. Not only that, but these people can afford to hire teams of skilled accountants and lawyers to set up complex trusts and overseas accounts etc. etc. in order to "legally" avoid paying taxes.



    If these top salaried folks cant keep their own houses in order, re pay, and the situation gets so crazily out of kelter and lopsided that government is forced to finally step in, then that is the fault, not of government, but the narrowminded greed, lack of vision, and the "out-of-touch-with-reality" of these pigs. It's a bit of a parallel with the effects of terrorism, where the (evil) actions of a tiny minority screw things up for all... or in microcosm, where a bad kid misbehaves and doesn't own up, and the entire class often ends up beiung punished. At some point, I believe, enough is enough.



    **



    Whatever. Call me a commie... it would be a nice change from 'conspiracy theorist'.



    Carry on.
Sign In or Register to comment.