121–130 of 203 posts
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, if you took Blizzard CEO's total pay (from the article, I think around $28 mil) and spread that over the nearly 10k employees, everyone gets an extra $3k, which wouldn't do diddly squat for retention. Also, losing 40% of growth would be pretty awful for anyone who has company stock (employees, 401ks, investors) especially if that's year over year.
The extra $3k might not mean a lot, but knowing your CEO gave $28m back to the workers at his or her own expense? I'd argue that kind of thing is great for retention. The challenge, obviously, is that CEO pay is a market and the current, insane pay scale has emerged from it. The only way for it to change would be a) regulation (good luck to the enforcers), b) a global moral awakening among CEOs that causes a sufficie…
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
What’s behind the growing ceo to employee income ratio?
1. Complexity - a change in exchange rates can hurt Netflix's / Google's / Apple's profit, even if all underlying numbers are correct. Guessing exchange rates is a terrifyingly difficult task, and it is just one of many complications 2019 CEOs have over 1969, let alone 1919.
2. Globalisation - rather ironically, if a company employs an extra 10% of people - no one loses their job they just add an extra 10% - the ratio likely gets larger. How is that a BAD thing that more people are employed? Mattel is the most telling in this context ($6,271 average worker salary). IMHO it's a GOOD thing that Mattel directly employs workers, rather than using a, say, Foxconn. But it makes the ratio a lot worse. Obfuscating real worker wages is bad for workers, but good for avoiding ending up on these sorts of reports.
3. Market size - a follow on from 2, if Google makes 50% of it's revenue outside of the USA, what should the ratio relate to? US workers to CEO? Or South African? A lot of these CEOs are multi-country CEOs, and that is a level of difficulty beyond what existed a quarter century ago.
4. Market forces - a law to make CEO pay public means it is signaling something negative when a CEO makes a low ratio, which drives it up. Having public records of salary makes negotiating easier for workers, and CEOs are no different, so it has had a double upwards pressure.
Just some things that have made it grow over time.
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
If your pay doesn't match the value of your work, I guess someone logically profits from it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You share the company's wealth by offering stock as part of compensation. This works well for the high earning tech employees, who can pay their bills with their first 100k and save the rest or invest it. It doesn't work as well for middle/lower class employees who need immediate cash instead of stocks that they can't always hold until it's worth more. Imagine working for Amazon back in the day for $30k, and come tim…
"I've always wondered what it would look like if were were paid in multipliers instead of salaries. The lowest would get 1x, middle folks 5x, and CEO maybe 20x. The usual "a rising tide lifts all boats" mindset." I like that idea!
Why would anyone care about how much CEOs make? It is private industry, if the board or owner wants to pay, CEOs get paid. It is not like they are stealing tax payer's money to pay these people. When the CEOs expire, they are also replaced. It is called business.
Actually, aren't they literally stealing tax payer money? Inflated salary = lower profits = less net income = less tax?
So in your example no, more taxes actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The extra $3k might not mean a lot, but knowing your CEO gave $28m back to the workers at his or her own expense? I'd argue that kind of thing is great for retention. The challenge, obviously, is that CEO pay is a market and the current, insane pay scale has emerged from it. The only way for it to change would be a) regulation (good luck to the enforcers), b) a global moral awakening among CEOs that causes a sufficie…
"CEO pay" is only a market if you believe that having been paid an astronomical amount of money as the CEO of an unrelated company is a prerequisite to being the CEO of, say, Activision. In the past, companies promoted CEOs from within their own longterm management, instead of CEO being some kind of mystical profession unto itself.