In my never-ending quest to use factoids as conversation starters:
Until the 1980s, corporate CEOs were paid, on average, 30 times what their average worker was paid. Since then, CEO pay has skyrocketed to 280 times the pay of an average worker; in big companies, to 354 times. But since the 1980s, the typical American worker has seen no pay increase at all, adjusted for inflation.
If you accept this factoid as true, what does it mean? Does it matter?
It means that we are all screwed and it doesn't matter because we are all screwed.
I have no problem with a good CEO being paid a lot. They make tough decisions that most people couldn't make. They, quite literally, can be worth a fortune, but a fortune isn't necessarily 354 times what the blue-collar employees are worth. A good CEO is worth a lot. HOWEVER, we both agree that a CEO should not be paid 280 to 354 times what an employee who works his/her fingers to the bone earns, somebody who does real work. THIS capitalist is outraged by that kind of pay. On this, we can come together and agree. Nobody should be earning that kind of pay when the people who make the business run, the cogs in the wheel of the business, get paid so much less. I'm for capitalism, but this kind of pay is wrong.
Are you a bit surprised by my stance?
No, not really, but then I thought you were a teacher. If I'm correct that makes you a capitalist lackey rather than a capitalist.
By this kind of logic, that would make you a "wannabe socialist."
It's pretty obvious, if you think about it.
It might be to you but there is nothing to suggest that I am obsequiously willing to obey or serve another person.
So you are/were your own boss?
"It might be to you but there is nothing to suggest that I am obsequiously willing to obey or serve another person."
Y O U S O U N D L I K E A C O N S E R V A T I V E O R A N A M E R I C A N ! Let's apply your statement to Obamacare. Why should any conservative be willing to obsequiously obey Barack Obama's policies?
Do you think they get the extra pay because every election year they have to serve as a congressional chew toy while the really over paid and feckless gin up voters?
Why is a multiples comparison to a non-executive worker a valid comparison?
If the CEO's abilities and decisions make the difference between a company succeeding or failing, as in jobs or no jobs - isn't his pay worth whatever the folks that hired him agreed to pay him?
If a dozen CEOs were available at the 80x salary package - but none had the ability, connections, or decision-making know-how to save a company, (or not run it into bankruptcy)...
... and one CEO that did possess the needed abilities and etc. to not only save a company, but also lead it to a prosperous future was available only at the 280x salary package level...
Which one should get the job?
To make it easier - make it personal. You own a large corporation that employs 5000 people, and your company is on the brink of failure. 5000 jobs about to go down the tubes. Your choice of CEO will decide success or failure, Jobs or no jobs.
Will you pass on the one CEO that can do the job, and save those other 5000 jobs - because he cost to much?
Fine, except there is no evidence that CEOs are any better, more efficient or more productive than they were in the 1980s and plenty of evidence that they aren't.
I totally understand what you're saying. I believe in capitalism, paying people what they are worth to an organization. I simply find it hard to believe that some of these people are worth what they are paid. I'm sure a coherent argument could be made to illustrate their value. I'm simply skeptical that any one person is that valuable to an organization, valuable enough to earn 100 million dollars or so per year.
As for the 5,000-job example, do you really believe that a CEO makes these kinds of decisions without help from an entire board of directors? Most have plenty of people helping with these kinds of decisions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just angry because of my inability to get more than a one percent raise in eight years. Perhaps it's just sour grapes.
No, it's not sour grapes. CEOs are flat-out being paid way too much. No CEO has any business making more than 20x what his workers make, and even that's not a number I feel comfortable throwing out there because $320/hour (based on the assumption that an average worker in a company that even has a CEO makes $16/hour) already seems excessive.
Yes, it could be described as a case of "sour grapes," or even "wealth envy," but I don't mean that as negative as those terms are usually thought to be. I too would like to be able to get that kind of compensation, so I guess I am guilty of a little wealth envy also.
But it is a fact of life that good CEOs are superstars of their profession, just as the best in the sports world are superstars of their sports. So why isn't there as much condemnation of Alex Rodriguez's $275 million contract as there is of CEO pay?
It is also a fact that it is the market, both in business and sports, and any other capitalistic endeavor, which sets the value, or "worth" of any product, commodity, or service. Consider the level of the stratosphere that any particular business operates in and that is the stratospheric level that CEO compensation packages are formulated to fit.
It is the bad, (as in failed), CEOs, and the poorly structured "Golden Parachute" plans that have everyone's attention. Even if it is none of our damn business. It still looks bad.
As for your thought about a CEO really being able to do what I described? Why not? Sticking with the baseball analogy - What is the difference between the worst team in a league and the best, if it is not the coach?
Since you present these factoids to start conversations, wouldn't you like to participate too?
What is your opinion about CEO pay?
I will give you a running start - if a CEO's company isn't funded by taxpayer dollars, what the hell business is it of non-share holders what he gets paid?
ps. I sure hope this isn't one of those "fairness" topics.
Should it then be of no concern to the average worker who has seen no wage increase?
They should be grateful to not be filling in a wall, that architecture technique has been readily employed throughout history.
It hasn't always been that way and needn't be that way in the future. It just needs more people to realise that being a capitalist lackey doesn't actually make you a capitalist.
I disagree, the bodies buried deep in the Great Wall of China serve as proof, they were merely filler.
Mao and Stalin murdered over a hundred million of their own people. I will bow to your preference that they not be called socialists or even communists, but they were hardly capitalists. It really doesn't make much sense from a market economics stand point to slaughter your customers, but be that as it may, I would prefer to be called a decadent, Western running dog - if you please.
Who is talking about slaughtering customers?
How else do you fill the space in the Great Wall?
I think regard for those at the very top of the corporate food chain has gone way up and regard for those who do the grunt work has gone way down. I think the American version of capitalism has been perverted way beyond what is healthy. The current corporate pay structure is unhealthy for the economy.
Do you feel the same way about sport's Superstars pay too? Like the Alex Rodriguez $275 million contract I mentioned above?
How about superstar and celebrity endorsement deals? Some of the better ones garner the same type of stratospheric amounts?
Are they unhealthy for the economy too, or is it just the corporate dollars that are bad?
CEOs run and put a lot of work in the company hence the pay. Celebrities are a brand and people pay to see the brand; also endorsements are part of extending the brand hence the pay. It is best that each person concentrate on his/her pay and improve his/her pay if he/she feels that his/her pay is insufficient. No need of hating and envying those who earn more; that is an exercise in utter futlity. Think about improving one's station in life; don't hate, that is totally immature and an utter waste of one's energy. That is ALL I have to say on the subject, good night all!
On the surface, that would appear to be a valid analogy, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges and I think you know you're comparing apples and oranges. An athlete is not a CEO. It's the CEO of the company that he works for that chooses to pay that athlete his or her salary. Because some athletes are making so much money, they then become the CEO of their own brand. LeBron James is the CEO of Lebron James. Also, an athlete has a whole host of people he needs to pay: lawyers, agents; etc. So there are a lot of people taking a cut of that pay. Anyway, where I see these two situations as analogous is in their celebration of the cult of personality, which has degraded our society quite a bit. I think you can trace a lot of this to the way we consume entertainment and news and how that consumption has degraded our intellectual ability.
Anyway, is a CEO a commodity like an athlete is a commodity? I suppose there's an argument to be made either way.
Catching one of your points - I think there is considerable condemnation for what some athletes make.
The question really is, I guess, is an athlete or a CEO a commodity and should they be compensated based on whatever the market will bear? There are only so many people qualified to be a CEO of a company, so those people are in much higher demand than somebody who turns a screw onto a bolt. The CEO is paid more and the worker is paid less based on the demand for their skills.
What has changed in our society that the value of one of these has increased so dramatically while the other has remained stagnant?
What else BUT market assigned value could reasonable be used to compensate a CEO (or athlete or bolt turner for that matter?)
Why has one increased so dramatically? Personally, I think it is mostly a matter of perception; this person did very well at his last job, wants double the money and must be worth it. In truth, the CEO is no more capable than a thousand others (but not a million) and is not worth what some receive but the perception is that they are.
There is also the matter of paying via stock options; if the job of the CEO is to raise stock prices, and he does so, then perhaps a payment of stock is appropriate. If it's $10,000, OK - if it's $10,000,000 that's OK too as he obviously did the job.
Few people who complain about CEO pay complain about the absurd salaries paid to athletes and other celebrities. Remember what Max Weber said about sports and false consciousness?
This said, I suspect that at the core of the problem is an utter cluelessness as to what a CEO does for his/her money; an utter incapacity to imagine the level of responsibility of someone acting functioning as a CEO.
This raises another question: is that kind of concentrated wealth healthy? If we consider a company a microscopic example of the macroscopic community, you have the person at the very top making so much money that there simply isn't enough to go around for the majority of the company's employees. Were, say, $25 million of a CEO's $50 million salary redistributed to the majority of the employees in the form of incentives, increased salaries; etc. then those employees have increased purchasing power, buy more, and the economy as a whole benefits. The company itself might then benefit because they offer higher pay and attract better employees. This example is embodied, perhaps, in a comparison of Walmart vs. Costco. Now, who's to say which is the better company or which company benefits society more or whose employees are happier.
We live in a country where both kinds of companies exist.
I think what angers people about CEO pay is that even when CEO's lose their jobs they walk away with more money than they could ever spend. What's their incentive to succeed? What's their incentive to make the company better for the people who work there. Pride? I don't have a problem with a CEO making $100 million a year if their job and their pay is tied to their success. wilderness was referring to this with pay in the form of stock options.
You have fallen into a popular trap in thinking that a single salary can provide serious raises to all if distributed company wide.
In fact, if ALL of WalMart's entire profits were distributed to it's employees, not just the single salary representing a much smaller amount, those employees would still be grossly underpaid by most people's standards. It would not even supply a $5 raise to each employee, let alone provide reasonable bennies such as decent insurance, vacations, etc.
What angers people is that they think that money COULD help them out of the poverty they find themselves in, and that they somehow DESERVE that, but it cannot and they do not.
Long term, individual poverty is far more complex than most people are able to understand. As long as people believe that they are poor because they have no money, they will continue to misidentify poverty's root cause. It is series of poor decisions that become habituated and produce a pattern and path that is as difficult to leave as any addiction. It is a matter of locus of control/
Wait for the cries from the misinformed about how that is just wrong, people are poor because they are oppressed, when poverty is not the product of external forces.
Fully agree with your analysis as to the causes of poverty. That is a part of why I say that distributing a CEO's salary won't help; it won't eliminate poverty but the people it's going to will expect it to. Worse than nothing, then, in some ways.
No income, no money left saved up, no job, no callbacks on job applications?
Yeah, totally my fault. I should learn to use the Force and use that to convince them to hire me, but alas, I must be too lazy. Oh, hi there, retief. How's the view from that high horse of yours? Is that your feces over there? Smells lovely.
Retief2000, a logical and intelligent voice! In the United States especially poverty is the result of misinformed and poor life choices. There is no getting around this and avoiding the issue at hand. Poor people are poor in America because of bad choices. They see themselves as passive regarding making constructive choices in their lives. Poor people are poor because they elect to continue making destructive, not constructive, affirming choices, pure and simple. Furthermore, they refuse to accept accountability and to be responsible in their lives. They blame EVERYONE OUTSIDE of themselves instead of blaming THEMSELVES!
GMwilliams, That is just plain hogwash!
Your frequent responses almost always include this type of broad-brush generalization that completely destroys any possible validity your statements might have had.
A few simple qualifiers, like; many, most, the majority, almost all, too many, etc. etc. would have made your comment much more credible - because it is true about some poor folks. But it is absolutely not true about all poor folks - which is what you said - which in turn makes your statement nothing more than a rant.
Nothing personal of course, just sayin'
The craziness of this statement is that it address' the end result of what few don't understand about the problem. With the advent of NAFTA and TPP agreements they effectively vacated the workplace to overseas manufacturing. Cleaning the product of its highest cost which was labor and reducing the tariffs companies like Walmart and Costco were able to bring the products in at prices which ran the other domestic brands offshore as well. Guess what? The companies that adhered to this model profited charged what they wanted as the competition was driven out of business. Good result if you can manipulate it to happen. The CEO's just skimmed off the surface what was promised them as the few that were left either assembling or in distribution were easily replaced as unskilled labor and paid accordingly. What the CEO's were good at was making the whole thing seem the wave of a very profitable future was at hand. It was, for the company.
I have to say this---since you mentioned Walmart.
The other day I was waiting for a friend of mine outside a fitting room at a Walmart store in a working-class small town.
The fitting room attendant was blabbering on and on about how she was NOT going to spend her vacation money in Hawaii because it would (at least in her imagination) directly benefit President Obama. She concluded her blabbering commentary with a note that she had just purchased tickets and hotel for a 2-week vacation in (presumably Obama-free) Bermuda.
This makes it REALLY hard to get into the poor workers vs. the ugly CEO's thing.
You have certainly expanded the conversation now, haven't you? From, "is it wrong, or even evil for CEOs to get paid like they are?" to "Is this behavior good for society?"
A quick opinion to the first part of your new question is that I think there are very few companies that would fit your micro/macro question. So no, I do not believe it is a detriment to society that we have Walmarts. I do not think it is a societal problem that every company isn't a Costco.
Of course it would be nice if they were. And a Costco business model would be great for many citizens - but I just don't think that is a "micro" that can be expanded to a "macro."
To your point about failing CEOs - yep, I think you are right about that. As my ol' Pap used to say, "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease." In this case the squeak is the publicity of a failed CEO with a Golden Parachute, and the grease is the ensuing public outrage. While the three other wheels; as in successful and well paid CEOs, don't even hit the public's radar.
Here's a tidbit about the top 10 CEO compensation packages in 2013.
Almost every one of the "extravagant" packages were so due stock option compensation. Which means their performance definitely affected their pay.
The top three started and were majority owners of their companies.
And... there are more interesting tidbits if you were interested:
Time's Top 10 CEO Compensation Packages for 2013
Maybe I'll see you at this weekend's Kumbayah campfire.
The assertion that poor people are poor solely because of their bad choices is narrow-minded and misinformed. Poverty is a complex issue, like most issues, and to blame it entirely on the poor is despicable. I'm sure many poor people have much responsibility in their poverty. Some poor people are entirely responsible. However, their are societal and historical contexts to poverty and to ignore them is uneducated, at best.
Really, who is blaming the poor for being poor? I am bored by the inability of lefties to understand plain language and reality. Poor choices versus wise choices is rather plain. It is not "those stupid poor people...." Yes poverty is complex that is precisely why a centrally directed bureaucracy cannot alleviate poverty. It is also why many languish in poverty because of the policies of lefties. It is also why many people in poverty cannot see the relationship between their own life choices and the conditions in which they live.
There are three things anyone without an interfering disability can do to avoid poverty. There are no societal or historical excuses involved - those are pretend causes and the product of an irrational, excuse pron, marginally intelligent and poorly educated person.
1) Stay in school as long as you can and attain the highest level you can afford - at the minimum, complete the free education all Americans have available to them through high school.
2)Enter the work force, work full time, pursue as much responsibility and training as you can
3)Delay marriage until after graduating high school, delay children until after marriage.
These 3 things will not make you rich but those who do these things are far less likely to be poor.
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2011/08 … d-poverty/
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/po … d-poverty/
and many, many more.
Poverty is not random but it has been institutionalized and exacerbated by lefty policies.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-again, the voice of reason!
Hmmm...I don't know which response to give...
Response #1: Whoooooops! Looks like you forgot that that's next-to-impossible because fat-cat conservative businessmen keep sending jobs overseas because hiring Americans is detrimental to their precious bottom line!
Response #2: What do you think I've been trying to do for 6 months now, jackass?
Response #3: inb4 someone who's never been poor in their entire life tells poor people how to not be poor--oops, too late!
Response #4: Judging by your catalogue of posts, you may want to revisit your first suggestion...
Vote for your favorite!
Don't you mean that Barack has put so much laser focus on job creation that he has vaporized millions of them. Pull absurd notions out of your hat all day. There are states like mine in which jobs are being created due to a friendly environment for business and states like California and Illinois where jobs are not going over seas but coming here. Perhaps a little more time on the playground will help you focus.
If there are no jobs where you are then come to Indiana, we have plenty for those who want to work. As for there not being jobs, I suspect that isn't entirely so. It is far more likely that there are jobs you don't want to do or that do not pay as well as the dole.
As for not having been poor, you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should comment on what you understand. There were times when I walked miles from school to work and then home afterward, through unfriendly streets because bus fare each way would have cost too much. You have no idea what others have experienced.
As for education, let's compare someday.
As for the name calling, it merely reveals your own failings.
Oh, there are plenty of jobs around here--trouble is, they're all trucking and nursing jobs. I have poor/next-to-nonexistent depth perception, so the former's out, and I don't have a nursing degree, so the latter's out. So I try desperately in vain to grasp at the clerical job that pops out of the darkness every few weeks, but to no avail. And repeatedly applying to the local fast food joints has gotten me nowhere, as well.
And I can't just move, because you kinda need to have money to move, in order to pay for gas and for your first month or two's worth of rent. A single month of rent would bankrupt me right now, and if I didn't have any luck finding a job in some new place, then I'd be stuck living as a drifter in a town I don't know.
As for your comment about having a dole, I have a dole? Last I checked, my bank account has received $0 since October, and I've just been trying to make due with what I've saved up while being forced to live with the folks because, as mentioned, I can't afford rent.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) exists to enable persons with documented disabilities to secure "reasonable accommodations" in educational and job settings.
Such accommodations make successful completion of training and degree programs possible and make securing and retaining gainful employment also possible.
In fact, there are specific government programs (state and federal) for persons who are visually-impaired. It is possible, thanks to the ADA and the government, to get a college education and a degree in many career-track programs and receive financial aid and grants specifically available to persons with disabilities to cover costs associated with getting an education.
But, the students must be willing---as has come up in this discussion, to take responsibility for his/herself and to take responsibility for his/her education.
Problem is, unless they've got a truck that doesn't have a front-end, nothing will help. Training will teach me how to drive the truck, but it's still gonna get its engine kicked in. Glasses only make my vision sharper, but don't help my eyes work together (three surgeries likewise did nothing). I don't see in actual 3D, because my eyes can only move in the same direction the other does, and thus my vision is basically really lifelike 2D--like I said, training and new glasses would be a nice gesture, but I'd still end up costing the company thousands in front-end repairs.
Trust me, I've looked into this stuff already. I'd love to truck. Cruising down the highway with my mp3 player blasting my tunes as I go around and see my country ('tis of thee)? That would be awesome! But I can't!
There are a lot more opportunities for you than in trucking and nursing. You should contact your local Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired and talk to someone about how much---thanks for adaptive technologies, is available to you in terms of education and employment.
Oh, there are plenty of jobs around here--trouble is, they're all trucking and nursing jobs. I have poor/next-to-nonexistent depth perception,
So the able bodied person with perfect vision who spends high school stoned shouldn't struggle? A failure of character is hardly the same as an actual physical challenge. Why have sympathy for those who are totally able to pursue any employment they wish but would rather suckle on the public teat.
Here in the UK the group with the fastest rate of growth of unemployment are university graduates!
But still, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
So it has always been that way? Well done Britain. There is no opportunity there perhaps those graduates with meaningful degrees, not Medieval Literature, can come to Indiana. The people are friendly, the beer is good, the climate is pleasant(most of the year), it is green and there is work to be done.
The beer is good! That gives the lie to the rest of your statement!
And think about it, you are inviting immigrants to your country to take jobs that could be filled by your own!
You may well be surprised by the quality of beer available at my home, none of that mediocre mass produced, "lite" swill here.
The invitation is honestly offered. If someone in the UK is unable to find a job that will make them happy and keep them in skittles and beer, then they should come here. A shared language(mostly) and a shared culture(with differences) would make you a welcomed addition. There is a fine Pub here. It was founded by British ex-pats and the beer is good.
The US is a nation of immigrants. We are all of us the descendants of immigrants---and many of us of the last wave of immigrants who arrived here just before World War I.
It is not immigrants that bother Americans. It is immigrants who come here to exploit social welfare "safety nets" and who import crime with them; immigrants who come here and remain here illegally and in open defiance of our laws who are then rewarded, by liberal politicians, with welfare benefits, free or low-cost college tuition, and other "perks" unknown to most native-born Americans.
And to add to your list: Assume personal responsibility---including your higher education.
If you want nothing more than an education that leads to employment, then go to a community or technical college and learn a skill.
If you want an education for education's sake, then go to a liberal arts college.
Or...maybe try doing both. Again, assume responsibility for your choices and deal with the consequences.
That being said, saying that society is 100% to blame for poverty is equally useless.
There, not their. Misuse of their for there is always a good way to make an argument sound stupid.
How much more than a worker a CEO should be paid is highly debatable and depends on many factors. But no CEO should take any salary (in any form) when his/her company is losing money - or losing investors money.
Oh yes, poverty was so much better before governmental bureaucracies got involved.
Poverty was not a government maintained institution, then. Now it is. Trillions of dollars have been spent to end it. If those dollars had been left in the HOLY middle class, from where most tax dollars and charitable giving come, then wouldn't the results have been better. Who can tell. A massive transfer of dollars to a bloated, greedy, bureaucratic government that slices more than half away for payrolls and then scatters the remainder for the poor would have never emerged. How is that a bad thing? Charities that aid the poor are far more efficient and helpful than the nameless, faceless, well paid, paper pushers who generate a byzantine, inefficient and redundant system of hoops and hurdles. No wonder people stay poor, it takes up all their energy to manage the welfare state's requirements.
Is that why when charity was in private hands we had workhouses?
In Great Britain of the 19th century poverty was understood as a criminal condition.
The British workhouse---essentially designed and operated as a reformatory, replete with forced manual and physical punishment.
In the United States, the workhouse is generally unknown, but analogs are found in so-called "poor farms" and "alms houses" operated in rural areas---generally by local civic authorities and private charities. This said, poverty was not understood in the US as criminal. Poverty was understood as early as the 19th century as the result of complex social and personal factors including substance abuse, lack of education, lack of cohesive families; as something that could---with proper interventions, be effectively mitigated.
Some more facts, in the UK we had (and still have) the deserving and the undeserving poor.
Totally agreed. The poor has to be educated on the benefits of education and goal attainment; most of all, they have to get rid of their negative socioeconomic conditioning and animus against the more educated and successful classes. So many poor people believe that society, the establishment or THE MAN is against them. They also have a passive approach to life. They believe that they are powerless and do not make a difference.
They also inculcate their children in the same premise. They feel that education is not for them and a total waste of time. They believe that it is the duty of society to get them out of poverty and that society OWES them. They do not realize that it is their conditioning that puts or keeps them in impoverished circumstances. They also do not think about the future but of immediate gratification of their needs. The book THE CULTURE OF POVERTY describes the modus operandi of the poor in great detail. Poor people have to WANT to better themselves and not to blame THE MAN or SOCIETY for their malaise. Disclaimer: not talking about the hard-working poor or people who have fallen on temporary hard times but the indolent poor.
I must say, I totally agree.
And the United States is---and remains, in fact, a place of tremendous opportunity for achievement and success, but it is also a place that demands hard and continuous work and that demands that we are self-propelled and self-sustaining.
Some of us still embrace this as "rugged individualism", the American Dream, and American Exceptionalism.
It's very easy for the privileged to rant about how easy it is for poor people to avoid being poor. How poor have you ever been, retief2000? Again, not saying that poor people have an excuse or should be given free stuff, but let's use one example: many poor people are single mothers. Now, I suppose the answer for women is to avoid having sex while single. But since many of these single women are divorced and their former spouses don't pay child support, perhaps they shouldn't have sex while married either. Just thinking out loud, I suppose. All I'm saying is that if you look at historical context, poverty doesn't have an easy answer. Education is a great answer. Sadly, the quality of education in all areas and for all groups of people is not the same.
"It's very easy for the privileged to rant about how easy it is for poor people to avoid being poor. How poor have you ever been, retief2000?"
You, as usual, pretend to far too much knowledge of what is in my mind and heart. How does that merit any kind of response?
How easy is it to avoid the consequences of any condition resulting from bad choices? Is it heartless and hateful to offer a list of suggestions on how not to become obese or an alcoholic or terminated from employment? Is your heart so full of bile and hate?
Poor is not a disease. It is not a severed limb. It is a circumstance from which MILLIONS have escaped through their own efforts. If one can all can. Look at how many MILLIONS overcome disease or the loss of a limb to go on to triumph. Are those Paralymians some how more holy, more perfect, more special?
Why do you want people to think that poverty is who and what they are rather than a place from which one can move? Why do you hate poor people?
Nice try. I will say this though. Your 3 bullet points about how to avoid being poor or becoming poor or staying poor are excellent and I agree with them whole-heartedly. I'll reprint just because:
1) Stay in school as long as you can and attain the highest level you can afford - at the minimum, complete the free education all Americans have available to them through high school.
2)Enter the work force, work full time, pursue as much responsibility and training as you can
3)Delay marriage until after graduating high school, delay children until after marriage.
As a British national, living in the States; Serial Entrepreneur, CEO of one company and CTO of two others, can say the factiod is "over-rated". The numbers seen are generally based on total income value. Of which 50-80% is stock (preferred or common) for most companies. The CEO is one rank from being owner (if not the owner themselves). So, it is only natural they receive the highest payroll level.
I, for one, have worked extremely hard and diligently to reach that title. Granted, myself only, have not yet jumped into the corporate stock arena or thoroughly achieved the quarter-million mark. But others whom I know, and do not, have faced similar challenges and equally similar financial rewards.
To the factoid, the average "payroll check" a CEO receives is around $250k USD annum. The remainder paid is done so in stock options. This sets the valuation on the CEO higher and as a result the value of the entire entity itself in the open marketplace. Without that "extreme" valuation most Fortune 100, 500 -even 1000 companies would never go public nor retain funding for R&D, production, expansion, etc. Those are important factors "lower level" employees do not seem to understand.
The reason CEO's are seen as they are -like Gates, Jobs, Meyer, Zuckerberg, etc is because their name, credibility, etc establishes the public acceptance, recognition and support of the company. That -like any figurehead or celebrity- comes with certain rewards. And rightly so. It is because of such brand recognition people use their services/products or enter the companies employee list. Without it, the product alone must sustain and represent the entire company. Less than 2% of all business relies on the product alone to make-break the company. It is a hugely dangerous gamble to put ones business, employees, potential on the weight of a product and much less a risk to put the risk on the public spokesperson. Just like people put the POTUS as their representative, companies put their CEO's is such.
by Don W 3 years ago
"Between 1979 and 2007 the annual earnings of the top 1 percent grew 156 percent, while the remainder of the top 10 percent had earnings grow by 45 percent"(1)."Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the...
by Sooner28 9 years ago
Yes, I know there is a typo in Capitalism...1. Capitalism has no mechanism to deal with dwindling finite resources. With the population growing, and other countries turning into consumer societies like the United States, our resources will be destroyed very quickly (just remember the...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
Does the United States need a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage?In response to a huge increase in inequality of income and wealth a movement has begun in support of establishing a maximum wage. CEOs would be limited to a specified multiple of the company's worker pay. Barclay's bank CEO...
by Doug Hughes 11 years ago
LaLo and others have argued against the minimum wage. They honestly think it would benefit the economy. The argument has raged but no one has examined the numbers rationally. Probably the single largest industry with a a minimum wage work force is restaurants. I worked in management there for a...
by bmonoski 12 years ago
With budgets being tight and homeowners feeling the pinch, the simple question comes up...are teachers overpaid? Their pay comes directly from taxes and thus a raise for them is a raise in taxes. Is this justified?
by James Smith 6 years ago
Bob, Peter and Lucy all own land of an equal size, and respect each other's right to it. Bob grows apples on his land, Peter breeds cows on his land, and Lucy grows wheat.1. - Bob trades a basket of apples with Peter for a pale of milk.2.- Bob trades a basket of apples with Peter for a pale of...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|