Pay for America's highest-paid CEO tops $131 million

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
...Wealth inequality is what got us into this mess. It's not a solution, I don't pretend to have one. I have NO idea what system or policy would work best and that would be FAIR to everybody.

All I know is that it's not fair right now, and it hasn't been for the last 50 years.

~Keeper

We agree on lots of things. But we disagree at the start. The 3 degrees of separation that exist between us at the start (you think wealth inequality, I think the education system) become a wide gulf of disparity in the end.

reply to post by TreadUpon


You know, I agree in a sense.

As far as I am concerned the wealth inequality was the result of a lack of education.

When you do not have much it is easy
to get jealous and hate someone who does..

DON'T DO IT!!


IT WILL EAT YOU AWAY INSIDE..


Quit worrying about *the rich* and worry about yourselves...

Do whatever you must to make yourself happy
and stop looking on the other side of the fence at a house
that's bigger then yours..

If someone has more then you be happy for them, be happy
for the rich, because being pissed about it will only make you
an angry person.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I think the fault is in the education the people are receiving.

The problem is in poverty, and the colleges offer debt instead of education based on 2 generations of lies taught as the truth by classroom activists.

Pay an arm and leg for degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on because that's what they taught me in school.

the CEOs are only doing what they are trained to do. when the ship is sinking, pull out as much money as you can and find a boat, AKA privet island

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by amaster

 

You make good points, and I won't argue them as it's a matter of personal belief. I don't have a solution to convince you that my way of thinking is better, I don't think you, or anybody else does either.

I agree, outside of a complete overhaul of the tax system which inevitably would still be unfair to some while too relaxed to other. I’ll also apologies for my initial response incase it seemed like a personal attack. It was not intended to be.

As for education, it should be free. Entirely free. It's insane that we would PAY somebody to teach you how to make a living. The whole point of education is to make productive, tax paying members of society. It's REALLY hard to do that when you have 40K plus debt hanging over your head.

I'm lucky, I got government grants and scholarships when I went to university cause I worked by ass off. That's the reason I am in the great position I am in today, hard, back breaking work. But I also got here by helping out the little guy and proping those around me up.

I know so many people who would become great and productive members of society if they were provided the opportunity of a free education. There's a reason that Corporations ship jobs over seas. It's not just because they are cheaper to hire, it's also because they are overall better educated.

~Keeper

edit on 10/14/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

I agree to an extent. Education is free in America up through high school, however the quality of that education is severely under par with the rest of the world. Real change must take place there before anything else. With a better foundation of education through the first twelve years a student will be better prepared for the college experience and have greater chance of graduating and moving onto a fulfilling career, but college should not be free. Especially with the political indoctrination that many of these institutions impose upon their students. A government funded college would only breed into that atmosphere.

It must be understood however that despite how much money a company makes, or how much an individual earns and eventually pays back in taxes, on way or another, it is not the fault of that company or individual. More so, it is not their responsibility nor the government’s to ensure that everyone receives their fair share. Ultimately, the government makes the policies. The government creates the loopholes. The Government imposes the restrictions. If we want to blame someone, blame Washington, not Wall Street.

I don't think it's a matter of taking all their money OR letting them just run fast-and-loose and do whatever they want in the name of profit. Keep in mind, their profits and the success of their companies was built on people who the tax payers paid to educate, protected by fire and police the taxpayers built and pay for, makes use of the electric grid that we paid for, makes use of the roads and bridges that we paid for, etc.

These guys happen to be pharma. Yet we have critical shortages of vaccines, cancer drugs and a wide range of critical medications. Why? Because making them isn't profitable. So what do we do? Risk epidemics becuase we need to protect their profits? Let cancer patients die becuase we need to protect their profits? Force people to postpone life-saving surgery?

It's not black-and-white. It never is. Capitalism is fine but everyone --- corporations as well --- have a responsibility for the greater good. But if it's going to be every man for him/herself then someone send out a memo.

reply to post by TreadUpon


Yup, my daughter has friends in their 4th year of med school who are really upset because the kids in first year are learning what they are in 4th.

I completely agree with you .

reply to post by amaster


I agree on everything you said regarding education. Other than ollege not being free. Look at European countries like Norway who have completely free education. You dont' think those people are better off? The government certainly is when they have a vast pool of highly educated folk to help run the place.

As well as the government being at fault. The only reason I lump in wall street with that group is because of the private interest groups who loby the government for policy.

If we outlawed that practice, we'd have nothing to complain about as far as the rich having more. In order to solve our government problem, we have to solve the problem of the rich and entitled having more a voice than we do.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Education is already free. If you are speaking about college/trade school, why should it be free?

If someone gets a free education and gets a degree in accounting. Should he not be compelled to work in the accounting field for a period of time? If not, why not? After all, according to you we are educating him to be a productive member of society. We've no done that and he has a degree in accounting - now its time to pay society back, so get that green eyeshade out. The gent finds out that he hates accounting? tough, then pay the government back. Trained to be a mechanic and then don't like the work because its too physically demanding? Tough. Do the work or pay the government back by having your income attached until it is paid back.

The easiest way to give something no value is to give it away. Providing a free education will only undervalue education in society. (college education is outrageously expensive and most universities and colleges are more banks than institutions of higher learning with multi-billion dollar endowments, but thats another thread. I think there are roles for the government in driving down the cost of education substantially that are free market based).

Why on earth would the government pay for an education that has no direct connection to an actual job? I can see where having engineers, computer scientists, teachers, etc benefits society, but how does the government paying somebody to get a degree in philosophy benefit society? History or religion if they don't teach? Why should the tax payers of the country pay for some kid to get a liberal arts degree at all?

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Education is already free. If you are speaking about college/trade school, why should it be free?

It's nonsensical to charge a member of society in order to teach them to make a good living.

If someone gets a free education and gets a degree in accounting. Should he not be compelled to work in the accounting field for a period of time? If not, why not? After all, according to you we are educating him to be a productive member of society. We've no done that and he has a degree in accounting - now its time to pay society back, so get that green eyeshade out.

Pay society back? Society did not provide them with the education, some private company who made up the cost of said education gave it to them. Why do we even put a price on education? Who decided that it cost more to teach somebody to be a doctor than an accountant? How is one profession better than another?

The gent finds out that he hates accounting? tough, then pay the government back. Trained to be a mechanic and then don't like the work because its too physically demanding? Tough. Do the work or pay the government back by having your income attached until it is paid back.

So intead of letting that person continue their education, in a field they will enjoy, we will make them do something that makes them unhappy for 15 to 30 years while they pay back the government that needs them to be productive? That doesn't make sense to me.

The easiest way to give something no value is to give it away. Providing a free education will only undervalue education in society. (college education is outrageously expensive and most universities and colleges are more banks than institutions of higher learning with multi-billion dollar endowments, but thats another thread. I think there are roles for the government in driving down the cost of education substantially that are free market based).

Again, every nation that provide a free education is better off. The people are better informed, literacy, math and science rates are higher. The percentage of folks living under the poverty line is decreased dramatically. The list of societal benefits goes on and on.

Why on earth would the government pay for an education that has no direct connection to an actual job? I can see where having engineers, computer scientists, teachers, etc benefits society, but how does the government paying somebody to get a degree in philosophy benefit society? History or religion if they don't teach? Why should the tax payers of the country pay for some kid to get a liberal arts degree at all?

So having people who have studied thinking and philosphy and disucssing a better way of doing things isn't beneficial? Again, all education, regardless of subject is good for people to have and in turn good for society. Look I come from a country where people understand that EVERYBODY sometimes has to foot the bill to make things better.

Healthcare in Canada for example, we pay for it through the nose and we are damn happy to have it. I'd be DAMN happy knowing that I am helping provide a decent and thorough education to young minds in my country, so that it can become better than it is when I am ready to leave it.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Actually what they are paid directly affects the average American. Almost every cent they get comes from the American people. Over priced medical products, other over priced items.

Every bonus/compensatory payment takes money from people with very little and gives it to the very rich.

The hardest working individuals are the nurses, others who do not get paid ridiculous salaries for their hard work. Just because a task is 'menial' does not mean it is worthless. The cleaners, machinists, other 'unskilled' jobs are absolutely essential. Designer clothing is not essential and not worth the money, entertainers get more than they are worth be they actors or sporting personalities.

Financial directors in the UK get paid more than doctors and nurses, highly qualified people who save lives, work long hours! It's stupid.

No individual works hard enough to deserve even 1 million per year, if anyone did it would be those who provide the most essential services and hardest workers. Not number crunching, swindling leeches on society.

Care assistants of the elderly and infirm are some of the lowest paid in western society. This is why care provision, particularly in the UK is abysmal. Our most vulnerable in society are at the mercy of underpaid and overworked staff. This is how a society should be judged. It's disgusting.

You can not defend the indefensible.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well, it's like I said, I worry about the type of education that will be received in a government funded college. Most institutions are already leaning hard left in their political support and teachings. With government funding comes government control. It's no longer a balanced environment in that case. However, I could agree to a reduced tuition. I see no obvious reason for it to be so damn expensive.

As for the Wall Street firms, they are only playing by the rules. That is, the Golden Rule; "He who has the gold, makes the rules". Do away with lobbyist, and special interest groups and the problem resolves itself, like you said. Personally, I think it should against the law to allow corporate sponsorship of political candidates as well as Special Interest Lobbying. Just as there is an implied separation of Church and State, there should be separation of Corporate and State.

reply to post by amaster


The worry of the quality education is certainly warranted considering our government's track record with publicly funded programs.

But when I look at the European model, it works just fine and there's no reason a similar system could not be implemented in the West.

~Keeper

What really gripes me is how people with lots of money worry it about it all the time. In my opinion, money not spent by the wealthy is just as bad for the economy as the poor class are with no money to spend. Economics like this is going to force us to become a socialist country if capitilism continues to fail 99 of the population.

Our education system was a fine system for many years but it has to change like everything else since 911. In my opinion, higher education has become ridiculous in their core classes to get a B.S. I don't know many businesses that give you a test in calculus for a job.

One example, my son-in-law has been welding since out of high school for 6 years. To get a decent job he needs to get certified (or a job at all now). You think he could just take the tests and prove he learned it on the job. No, he has to pay tuition and go to to school five days a week for 2 yrs. He is fortunate than most because we as a family help support him to do this.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


There is one very large reason why it could not work here in the States; We're not Europe!

Seriously though, thank you. I'm glad we've been able to see eye to eye on this. Real change is possible, but our efforts must be directed in the right place. Going after Wall Street and these highly paid CEO's is like arresting the Bank Clerk for allowing the bank to be robbed. Find the source and stop the leak.

reply to post by amaster


There's that false idea that anything incorporated from another country somehow makes America, less American...

I think every country should look to other countries and adopt policies that work.

But I get it, I suppose. And thank you for the mind opening conversation.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No, I didn't mean it in that way. I was actually saying that America couldn't pull it off because, as you implied with other government funded programs which fail to hit the mark, we (the politicians) are too preoccupied with self interests, corruption and re-elections to do it right.

You people are pathetically gullible. CEO pay is insignificant compared to income of the major shareholders.

And someone talked of building schools. Oh, please. Whatever amount of money you pour into the school system most teachers still don't deserve to have a job. Coz they're mediocre.

reply to post by Threegirls


Market forces dictates compensation, basic supply and demand. There are 10,000 folks who can clean a bed pan for every one who can run a global corporation. Now you might argue that there is still an element of excessive compensation for executives and I would agree with you which is why you need to be informed regarding how firms compensate executives relative to their worth which is dictated by company performance over time.

If careworkers want more money and better treatment, they should organize. That is what organized labor is for. I am not a supporter of organized labor, but clearly that is one of the benefits of it.

As far as individual companies go, why would a firm compensate a worker $20/hour when their competition compensates them $15? It would destroy their margins and ultimately put them out of business. When the competition is non-US, the problem is further compounded when you lay the cheap labor on top of a lax regulatory environment. Now perhaps you want tarriffs on those goods and services. That is a different issue all together, but as the current free trade model is implemented, corporations have no choice when they are in a business where skills are commoditized. Personally I think that the government could do far more to support domestic production, but economic policy is deeply tied to diplomatic and national security policy and those relationships are very complex.

A job is worth what someone is willing to pay for that job. If you don't like the pay scale, find something else to do. A CEO who is driving good performance on his share price is creating massive wealth for the economy and share holders and should be compensated as such. Does that mean that he should be paid $100M a year? Thats not my decision. It is the decision of the compensation committee within the board of directors of the firm. As I stated, I won't invest in a company who pays its executives that kind of cash because I think they are ripping off the share holders. They are not ripping off the workers - they are being paid at market rates. They are ripping off the share holders. In the case of large corporations such as Walmart, those share holders are pensioners. Teachers, auto workers, transit workers who rely on that increasing share price to live comfortably in their retirement years.

The entire matter is far more complex than the OWS crowd believes it is. It is a complex matrix of supply and demand, global forces, trade policy, transparency into corporate governance, institutional investment practices. Saying simply that "this CEO should not be paid $100+ million" is childish.

If you don't believe that anyone is not worth $1M a year, take action. Don't watch professional sports, go to a movie, watch TV, read books, listen to much of the popular music produced. Research companies before you buy their products. By Apple where Jobs paid himself $1/year and took his compensation in long term compensation rather than HP or Dell. Get informed, do something. Encourage folks to do something. The OWS folks are not encouraging anyone to do anything but hang out with signs.

For folks to be down on Wall Street protesting listening to their iPods playing $zillionaire music stars, wearing brand name clothing, much of which is manufactured in China by companies who pay their CEOs massive amounts of money is idiotic and hyprocratic.

The whole business has been tremendously effective - this week the DOW Jones is poised to have its best week since April. Whether or not they realize it these folks protesting are utterly irrelevant. This business has been going on for a month and what do they have to show for it? A higher stock market than when they started, a ton of police overtime, media which makes them look like a bunch of incoherent fools and dirty parks.