Ralph Nader: Can a CEO Live Off $22,000 an Hour?

In part one of a two part interview, I sit down with five-time presidential candidate & consumer rights advocate, Ralph Nader, who shares hope that a left/right alliance in politics is indeed possible and shames the CEOs who actively contribute to the gross inequality in America.



What do you think about the possibility to get the left and the right to work together? How about the idea of a maximum wage, or salary cap, to help curb the growing inequalities? Let me know your thoughts in the forum below. You can also check out more episodes of my show Off The Grid on Ora TV.

a reply to: JesseVentura

No chance of getting compromise on either end of the pay spectrum. People don't seem to like the idea of raising the minimum or capping the maximum. It is ingrained, I believe, in the concept of the American dream. Sadly most fail to realize that less than one percent actually gets to that bronze rung these days... But I guess the off chance of doing so is enough to keep a lot of people reaching for it - even at their own peril.

It used to be the case that a CEO would be paid bonuses in the form of stock options ten years later down the road. In those days, the responsibility of running a corporation was to the country and the community, with the profits and dividends an extra bonus. But now the shareholders come first. The CEO's get paid according to how much the shareholders earn ...

I like the idea, but to be honest Jesse, you're not what this country needs right now. You have too much to lose. This country needs a whistle blower. Someone with no kids and no family who's willing to get in there and blow the lid off the whole damn charade.

a reply to: Hefficide

That's an interesting thought, and makes sense. I hope if enough people speak out on the issue of income inequality and give solutions that it will persuade the public to make a change, by creating a maximum wage or a similar idea.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Ya that wouldn't happen.. To many people are wrapped up in their daily lives..

So you say something.. Just like big government and when they were screwing Ron Paul by cheating.. People would consistently say...

"What can I do? I am just 1 person."
I point back..

"Ever watch the kids animation Ants?"

And then they call me weird and the conversation would end...

But people are seriously to wrapped up in how they are going to feed their families and themselves.. They do honestly think saving the world is futile because there is very little they think are backing them.. We have all these people and no organization of any of them..

I love your fighting spirit, and honestly wish you become prez one day Jesse.

But I believe this battle is over, the haves" have won, greed is a disease that doesnt cure.

People beleive that there will be another french revolution, but now they have a system to keep the peasants from starving,...... Welfare.

The gov isnt in charge anymore, they only get kickbacks and turn their head. Only true change will happen with another depression.

.... So plant your feet, get out your gattling gun, and get ready my friend. These s.o.b.s are dug in like alabama ticks.

The government should go back to the 90+ percent tax rate of the mid to late 1940's for people making over $1,275,000 per year. Think that will happen? It would have to be people that make over $13,000,000 per year in today's money.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Maximum Wage fo sho, Jesse!

a reply to: JesseVentura

oh man im a huge fan of a salary cap...i thought of that like 10 years ago but usually get shut down when i bring it up...and always liked nader...seems like a decent dude

Sports stars should spear-head this. They have the clout and have been under salary caps for years and people still dream about being a sports icon. Caps work. If those that want more don't want to participate they can go because there are plenty of people just as smart if not smarter that will take the job under a cap.

We just want to be successful and that does not have to mean successful at spending other peoples money.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Sorry Jesse, but if there was a "max" on how much a CEO can make they would just setup an account in a fake name or a family member's name and keep the same money coming in. This would just make the shady business more shady and we would get nowhere. Greed and money with more greed mixed in will not make the greedy and the rich less needy. The constant needs and wants of the CEO's will continue and with them in charge, the money will still come in just to different outlets instead of the same.

People with tons of money always find a way to keep that money flowing in while making the peons who work for them at bay...They will never give any chunk of their money to the workers, in their eyes it is their company and the workers mean nothing! They know they can bring in all new workers at anytime who get paid even less and will complete the same job...It happens all the time! Unfortunate state of affairs we are in and will always be until someone who has money grows some testicles and forces change on the world! But this person would need to be from a huge company with many companies under them who could make this change for everyone to follow suit....Let's face it, the MAJOR companies make so much money, they would never want to lose any of that cash flow for any reason EVER!!

We need this to happen but we need to realize it won't....UNLESS a huge company is willing to make the change, and I just don't see that happening!

I wish I could make 20 bucks an hour... It must be nice to drive a company into the ground for $22,000/hr. I would do that same job for $20/hr.

originally posted by: stormcell
It used to be the case that a CEO would be paid bonuses in the form of stock options ten years later down the road. In those days, the responsibility of running a corporation was to the country and the community, with the profits and dividends an extra bonus. But now the shareholders come first. The CEO's get paid according to how much the shareholders earn ...

Actually, that isn't quite accurate and the shareholders don't always come first. A great example of a large recognizable corporation that has had a recent history of not paying dividends would be Hanes. Hanes stopped paying dividends to their shareholders in 2006 and maintained a zero dividend practice until last year.

news.yahoo.com...

The practice of giving stock options to CEOs is actually directly tied to an attempt to get them to think on a more long term basis. CEO's have a tendency, as their payscale tends to hinge on quarterly and annual profits, to be very short-sighted. So, the practice of giving them the two fold benefit of a stock option (tax deference) and investment into the company that they head came about sometime in the 90's or late 90's but not 100% certain. Pretty sure that, when the change to pay CEOs in large stock options came about, that one started to see the huge spike in executive pay. Here's an article from the Atlantic that shows how executives have been paid since the 30's and the fact that payment in stock options has been more of a recent phenomena and entirely opposite of what you said above.

www.theatlantic.com...


The practice may have actually backfired entirely. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt opted to only receive $1 in pay but still maintained income (tax deferred of course) in terms of stocks. It rather messes with income tax revenues, deferring a good portion of them until the point of sale or exercise of the options themselves.

PS. For the record, I am an accountant with a degree in Business Administration. The subject of executive compensation was a major discussion in my school of business.