I would like Obama to set the cap on CEO

[negreen]

Idiots like you must vote for Bush twice. There is a huge
gap between CEO and average worker. Even cut CEO's pay
90%, they probably still make too much for minimal work.

Originally Posted by chriswyse

Stalin and Castro would be proud of you!!! Let's just make everyone get equal pay and let the government decide what job they do. Obama is with you!!!

[LA_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Statepug

What office was Buffett and Gates elected to?

Originally Posted by Statepug

LASpartan listed a bunch of people he said were elected to office. I couldn't find anything about Buffet holding an elected office and didn't bother with Gates. If he wants to throw out names I'd at least like to see some backup.

My bad. I shouldn't have included the word "elected". My point was to head off the argument that Democrats can't run a business.

[Timber]

Originally Posted by negreen

Idiots like you must vote for Bush twice. There is a huge
gap between CEO and average worker. Even cut CEO's pay
90%, they probably still make too much for minimal work.

I'll agree they are overpaid but the fact is, not everyone can do that job so to a point it is justified. If you want that kind of money redistributed, I suggest you become a CEO and do it yourself. No excuses if you don't think its viable since you believe anyone can do it and I have no doubt you'd have an easy job convincing any board accordingly.

Also, and just speculating here, I'd guess there are many more reasonably paid CEOs than those making megamillions. Not every public company out there is a WalMart or Microsoft.

[TravelinMan]

Wow, I'm sorry I missed this thread until now. I was too busy re-reading Atlas Shrugged for the fifth time.

[G Norm Oosdyk]

Another classic Wells Hall thread: people who will never be CEO calling for CEO wages to be limited.

Argument: It's not fair. I tell you its not fair. [Uh, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but life is not fair.]

Argument: The little investor has no say over big companies. [If you think that high CEO salaries are effecting - negatively - the returns of big companies, why are you investing in that company? ]

Seriously, the sole problem with CEO comp is not generally monetarily based, it is due to stock options that may, if not structured right, force the CEO into a greater short term focus than is already present in American business. CEOs need to be compensated for results on a long-term basis: longer vesting for options and severance packages that discourage a short term firing if longer term metrics are solid.

[G Norm Oosdyk]

Originally Posted by negreen

Idiots like you must vote for Bush twice. There is a huge
gap between CEO and average worker. Even cut CEO's pay
90%, they probably still make too much for minimal work.

Tell me, please, that you are a schtick...

[caspper69]

Originally Posted by G Norm Oosdyk

Tell me, please, that you are a schtick...

I'd say more like a young kid who can't see why companies pay these exorbitant amounts.

Unfortunately, CEOs are like star athletes now. They can pretty much get whatever they want if they have a proven track record.

It's a hell of a business to go into, but people that become CEOs of fortune 500 companies are another breed altogether. Most of them have ivy-league educations, connections all over the business world, and friends who sit on boards of many companies. These folks are generally the best of the best. The most ambitious, the smartest, etc.

But, as Norm said, companies have gotten much smarter about the compensation packages, which must be structured in a way to prevent the conflict of interest inherently present for any CEO.

What a waste of a thread. America will never limit the amount of money someone could make, and the day they did would be a sad day indeed.

[negreen]

Yes, CEOs are so smart. That is why share holders get 0 return on
sp 500 companies after 8 years?

Originally Posted by caspper69

I'd say more like a young kid who can't see why companies pay these exorbitant amounts.

Unfortunately, CEOs are like star athletes now. They can pretty much get whatever they want if they have a proven track record.

It's a hell of a business to go into, but people that become CEOs of fortune 500 companies are another breed altogether. Most of them have ivy-league educations, connections all over the business world, and friends who sit on boards of many companies. These folks are generally the best of the best. The most ambitious, the smartest, etc.

But, as Norm said, companies have gotten much smarter about the compensation packages, which must be structured in a way to prevent the conflict of interest inherently present for any CEO.

What a waste of a thread. America will never limit the amount of money someone could make, and the day they did would be a sad day indeed.

[Ignignokt]

This thread is retarded. The government can't control the pay of employees of companies. If the market for CEO pay is $4M/year, then that is what will get paid. If it's not through salary, it will be through stock, or gifts, or bonuses, or whatever. You simply can't limit it.

And to those who say that CEOs don't make a difference or do extra work, you obviously will never be in charge of anything. I disagree quite strongly with the previous poster who said that CEOs aren't special. Someone like Steve Jobs is every bit as talented as Lebron James, and probably even more so.

[DantonIzzo]

Originally Posted by Statepug

Why don't we just nationalize the public companies and split the profits amongst all the people?

The typical knee-jerk, overreacting response.

[DantonIzzo]

Originally Posted by chriswyse

Stalin and Castro would be proud of you!!! Let's just make everyone get equal pay and let the government decide what job they do. Obama is with you!!!

Again with the exaggerated "YOU'RE A COMMUNIST!!!" retort.

I'm not saying the thread is on to something, but the whole situation is out of control.

[Timber]

Originally Posted by DantonIzzo

I'm not saying the thread is on to something, but the whole situation is out of control.

There is probably a guy working the graveyard shift in some filthy hole that would say your situation is out of control. If you are that guy, now we understand why you have the view you do.

Where is the outrage for pro athletes? Seriously. Putting a ball in the hoop now requires more talent and skill than successfully running a major corporation.

[DantonIzzo]

Originally Posted by Timber

There is probably a guy working the graveyard shift in some filthy hole that would say your situation is out of control. If you are that guy, now we understand why you have the view you do.

Where is the outrage for pro athletes? Seriously. Putting a ball in the hoop now requires more talent and skill than successfully running a major corporation.

Couldn't agree more.

Hollywood, too.

This country is struggling beyond belief, yet the rich get richer.

Of course, again, you make a comment like that, you're labeled a communist/socialist. After all, it's capitalism at its finest, right? Free market?

The Roosevelts would be proud.

[I'll Hit it After U]

I'd like to see Obama have a cap on campaign contributions, since he is raking it in in record amounts. While he is at it he should cap the pay for his chicago buddy Oprah, she makes way too much, her pay is probally 1000 x the salary of the parking attendant in her building. The AUDACITY of stupidity, salaries of my father. blah blah blah. promise the world, but will turn is back on you like he has done his friends.

[Lochgelly]

Well...the real point here is that Officers of corporations are now in cahoots with the Board of Directors...there lacks the separateness needed. All Corporation laws utilized this as a means to prohibit exactly what is going on...to stop the Enrons of the world from taking advantage of citizens.

When these CEO's get outrageous pay for non-performance while the Boards of Directors get huge pay for essentially nothing...with stock options being manipulated and "golden parachutes" being approved...it is total BS.

If you got rid of proxy votes and did everything electronically the smaller investor could get together and make a difference. These large institutional investors have usurped the power and they are not doing their job in policing for their investors. The large pension funds have the right interests in mind...but they also have not objected when they should because then the have to pay legal fees to fight unscrupulous Board actions that benefit Officers only (and themselves)...

Therefore...by opening up the process...and eliminating proxy votes...and forcing companies to hold key annual meetings on weekends etc...when most people will be available...we can hold these companies feet to the fire and the stockholder can demand action.

[The Anti - Bob]

Why not just have lotterys that pay next to nothing?

What a stupid country this has become, everybody wants to be rich but nobody wants to see anybody else have a dime. And we get to vote for somebody that promises that they will do all they can to make it happen.

[PRStoetzer]

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

Well...the real point here is that Officers of corporations are now in cahoots with the Board of Directors...there lacks the separateness needed. All Corporation laws utilized this as a means to prohibit exactly what is going on...to stop the Enrons of the world from taking advantage of citizens.

When these CEO's get outrageous pay for non-performance while the Boards of Directors get huge pay for essentially nothing...with stock options being manipulated and "golden parachutes" being approved...it is total BS.

If you got rid of proxy votes and did everything electronically the smaller investor could get together and make a difference. These large institutional investors have usurped the power and they are not doing their job in policing for their investors. The large pension funds have the right interests in mind...but they also have not objected when they should because then the have to pay legal fees to fight unscrupulous Board actions that benefit Officers only (and themselves)...

Therefore...by opening up the process...and eliminating proxy votes...and forcing companies to hold key annual meetings on weekends etc...when most people will be available...we can hold these companies feet to the fire and the stockholder can demand action.

I agree that the stockholders should have more of a voice than they do now.

[AvgMSUJoe]

Over the 1992 to 2005 period the median CEO saw pay rise by 186.2%,

while the median worker saw wages rise by just 7.2%.

One of these are controlled by the market... one isn't... you wanna take a guess at which is which?

[Zakath]

Originally Posted by DantonIzzo

Couldn't agree more.

Hollywood, too.

This country is struggling beyond belief, yet the rich get richer.

Of course, again, you make a comment like that, you're labeled a communist/socialist. After all, it's capitalism at its finest, right? Free market?

The Roosevelts would be proud.

As long as people are willing to pay as much as they are for tickets to movies, sporting events, etc. the salaries will continue to go up. That is the free market working.

Once the general public decides they're not going to pay that much for tickets, or that they're not going to pay $6 for a soda, $4 for a hot dog, and $8-10 for a beer, then it will change. Until then...