How much do you think average CEO pay should be compared to workers?

[Padawanbater2]

I think it's good that you agree with the non aggression principle. If you adopt that as part of a core philosophy you will see just how much contradiction there is when people employ cognitive dissonance in attempts to rationalize their behavior.

I do not believe in the concept of a just theft or the concept of renaming a given act in an attempt to make it seem more palatable than what it really is. Neither do you if your statements above agreeing with me are accurate.


There is a video explaining what Anarchy isn't. It was done by Larken Rose' wife (He's an Anarchist) I think. It offers some basic concepts. You could probably find it by googling Larken Rose What Anarchy isn't.

For the record I am not endorsing everything Larken Rose says, but he uses some pretty good logic in his videos. Peace.

Cool, I'll check around to see if I can find it, thanks for the info

If you disagree with taxation, it begs the question, how would all the programs currently funded by taxes be funded under a system with no taxes?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So nearly half of the votes so far say it should be 5 x's higher, (average worker = $34K, average CEO should = $170K/year, I'm a little more conservative, I'd give em x's 10 @ $3.4 mil/year)

Realistically, said CEO wages in the US currently = $11,968,000/year, workers = $34,000/year

$12 million to $34 thousand. In. One. Year.

 

[kelly4]

Realistically, said CEO wages in the US currently = $11,968,000/year

Would you mind sharing with us how you came up with that number?

You are talking about the top few hundred, or so. Big deal. There are thousands of CEO's who will never see $12,000,000 in their entire lifetime. The bigger the company, the more responsibility, the more pay.

 

[spandy]

My pay about triples any paid employee here, and I don't feel an ounce of shame. Lots of commercial places for rent in town, they can start their own gig if they want more.

A CEO should be paid what the investors want to pay, and only the investors should have any amount of say so.

And the CEO, like any other employee, can choose to accept or decline their wage offering prior to employment. But to accept, and then bitch that Sally and Jimmy get paid more, is not gonna get the investors to just hand you their money.

 

[NLXSK1]

Cute and glossy and brightly misleading in every detail. Good luck with that model in a real boardroom.

Which part is untrue?

 

[Red1966]

A complete lie of a statistic; if even one employee owns stock in America, your statement is incorrect. Since a substantial portion of us do, it's also misleading... but at least it's consistently misleading. After all, you're still talking out your ass about a job you obviously know dick about.

If it's a lie, you would have cited something that says differently. " if even one employee owns stock in America, your statement is incorrect." No, at least half of them would have to own stock in the company they work for. Your reply is misleading, stupid, or, more likely, dishonest. Where was I talking about a job? Just hurl insults that don't make any sense and pretend you addressed my statement.

 

[Red1966]

Really? Try running a company without its senior line staff. Companies try it all the time during strikes- and fail. Then again, it sounds like you're voting for the machine employee. Beware of what you wish for...

Sorry, one line worker not showing up doesn't make much difference. Companies try it all the time during strikes- and succeed, too. That's why they picket, to keep out their replacements.

 

[ttystikk]

Sorry, one line worker not showing up doesn't make much difference. Companies try it all the time during strikes- and succeed, too. That's why they picket, to keep out their replacements.

Are you a business owner or an employer? Would you work for someone who would treat you like that?

Only if you were desperate. Which seems convenient, considering the bulk consequences of such an outlook.

I treat my people like solid fucking gold, because they make me money. They do it now and they'll keep doing it as long as they get some respect and are paid reasonably. What's wrong with that business model?

 

[Harrekin]

Are you a business owner or an employer? Would you work for someone who would treat you like that?

Only if you were desperate. Which seems convenient, considering the bulk consequences of such an outlook.

I treat my people like solid fucking gold, because they make me money. They do it now and they'll keep doing it as long as they get some respect and are paid reasonably. What's wrong with that business model?

There's nothing wrong with that model, however the point is you have the option to choose as a business owner.

The lefties here want to remove the options from the business owner and tell them how to run their business or what to pay themselves/their staff.

Do you think after building your business using your own blood, sweat, tears and capital that someone else should be able to interfere with how you run the business you own and started?

 

[UncleBuck]

The lefties here want to remove the options from the business owner and tell them how to run their business or what to pay themselves/their staff.

Do you think after building your business using your own blood, sweat, tears and capital that someone else should be able to interfere with how you run the business you own and started?

yeah! you tell them, shorty!

no business should ever be told they can not pollute the air or water, or make their workers labor in unsafe condition, or pay them sweatshop wages!

how dare workers get any protection whatsoever! the tax payer should subsidize what that brave JOB CREATOR should never be obliged to provide.

 

[Harrekin]

yeah! you tell them, shorty!

no business should ever be told they can not pollute the air or water, or make their workers labor in unsafe condition, or pay them sweatshop wages!

how dare workers get any protection whatsoever! the tax payer should subsidize what that brave JOB CREATOR should never be obliged to provide.

Protecting your employees in the workplace isn't just a legal duty, it's a moral responsibility.

That doesn't mean they can expect to dictate the company owners wages or demand increases for themselves outside what they've agreed in the contract.

If someone demanded higher wages off me I'd fire them, they are there to make the owners life easier and nothing else.

Keep making nonsense statements tho, you're not even employed and you think you get a say, you don't.

 

[Doer]

This shows the level of ignorance most have towards Fortune 500 pay and how it got so far out if whack. Corruption, pure and simple; all these CEOs sit on one another's compensation boards and vote each other raises- then pony at the other companies and say they're just keeping up with industry trends?! How us that NOT a rip off of the highest order?

They're stealing from their employees AND the shareholders and somehow even institutional investors with the biggest blocs of shares seem to be okay with letting it continue... probably because THEIR compensation boards look the same way!

I think a CEO should make the same pay as the most experienced workers in the company, whether that experience comes from the boardroom our the factory floor, both have an equal impact on profitability. If a CEO wants more, then by ask means, buy stock- NOT just options that have been repriced to put then in the money. Once they have their own skin in the game, they'll behave a lot more appropriately.

It does show your level of ignorance to make a post like this.

 

[Doer]

Wow, this shows your complete lack of understanding of what the Fed is doing. What the bailouts of wall street did...

Now I remember why I can't take anything you say seriously.

Somehow you have a full understanding? No.

 

[Doer]

..in an open, transparent and accountable manner, which is certainly not the case now.

What are you saying? These are public companies. It is all accountable, if you bother to read it.

 

[Doer]

CEOs are like star ball players. Not just anyone can be a rainmaker.

 

[ginwilly]

Somehow you have a full understanding? No.

I have enough understanding to know that printing 85B a month and giving it to the too big to fail banks directly influences the widening income gap. Do you not posses that understanding?

 

[Doer]

I have enough understanding to know that printing 85B a month and giving it to the too big to fail banks directly influences the widening income gap. Do you not posses that understanding?

It may or may not. It is all partisan nattering.

 

[ginwilly]

It may or may not. It is all partisan nattering.

Or it's the same thing the financial experts are saying. I started trading currencies this year as a hobby. Just read the financials. It's pretty straight forward common sense. If you create a trillion a year for the top 1%, most of it will stay there.

The partisan nattering is denying the effect of QE 1-infinity on the widening income gap. The partisan nattering is blaming the 08 meltdown on trickle-down, which was letting people at the top keep more of their money, but denying the effect of magically printing new money and giving it to the top.

 

[ginwilly]

..in an open, transparent and accountable manner, which is certainly not the case now.

I negotiated my own contract. The guy down the hall negotiated his. We don't know what each other makes and I like it that way.

No way I'd want people I work with to know my salary or vice versa. That would cause some serious hurt feelings.

CEO salaries are already public if they are traded publicly.

 

[UncleBuck]

Protecting your employees in the workplace isn't just a legal duty

yes it is, short fry.

That doesn't mean they can expect to dictate the company owners wages

yes it does, shrimp.

that's why we set a "minimum wage", in fact.

maybe try competing with the child labor in bangladesh to live out your utopia. at your diminutive height, you would have no problem passing for a child, minus the fact that you are bald.