CEOs earn 361 times more than the average U.S. worker

Gerald · 05-22-18, 12:15 PM

Quote:

(Reuters) - Chief executive officers at major U.S. companies saw a pay hike of more than 6 percent on average in 2017, widening the earnings gap with rank-and-file workers, according to a labor group analysis released on Tuesday.

The CEO of an S&P 500 company, on average, earned $13.94 million in 2017, 361 times more than the average worker, according to AFL-CIO, the largest federation of U.S. labor unions.

“This year’s report provides further proof of America’s income inequality crisis,” said AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Liz Shuler.

The average production and nonsupervisory worker earned some $38,613 per year, according to the federation’s data.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...KCN1IN2FU?il=0

Not surprisingly, the differences have been great for many years.

Platapus · 05-22-18, 03:03 PM

It is my understanding that CEO salaries are set by either the board of directors or the stockholders. If either group chooses, and it is their choice to pay the CEO that much, that's their decision.

vienna · 05-22-18, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is my understanding that CEO salaries are set by either the board of directors or the stockholders. If either group chooses, and it is their choice to pay the CEO that much, that's their decision.

A big problem is most of the Boards of Directors are populated with CEOs and other high-ranking executives of other corporations and the whole salary/benefits package determination process has become a mutual back-scratching situation where board members will vote for very high compensation with the expectation CEOs on their corporate boards will return the 'favor'...

The one thing I find quite puzzling is how the shareholders don't seem to take into account how much the overloaded salary/compensation packages are eating into the shareholders own return on investment; in some cases, with the very largest corporations, scaling back the cost of the packages would yield a noticeable per share return; it is almost like they are giving tacit acceptance of their pockets being picked...

<O>

Skybird · 05-22-18, 04:17 PM

Found your enterprise - and keep owning it. No shareholders. No board of CEOs. If you give the market what the market wants, you sell your stuff and become rich. If you fail to find out what the am rket wants, you ruin ourself. Fair deal.

A unique characteristic of the German economy is that more than in any other country you have a high rate of family-owned companies here. This is one of the reaosn why sly fioxes and the Donald attack it so much, for here they cannot make easy gains by just buying stocks. Many of these comopanies also get managed very well, becasue thoise managing it are also the owners - and thus have stuff to lose if they mess the business up. Having your own skin in the fire teaches better thasn anythign else to act respnisbly and make wise, well-thjoght out decisions. Top manager-mercenaries of today that wander from one company to the next, maximise their inco9me and when thing sget hot just jump off the train, do not have this sense of obligation and respnisblity, nor do they stay long enough to gain a real senbse of comoetence for the branch they are currently working in.

I think this modern misculture of managment does more bad than good to the overall economies around the globe. It also ruins the loyalty of the workers to their employer .

Also, many do not correctly understand what "invetsing" really means, they< think it is a nice casiuono gamble to place a bet and win a profit, in other words: they are exlcusively thinkling in self-focussed terms. Originally, the school of clasiscal national economics as wel,las the Austriansa chool knew this, it means to act due to understanding that you make y profit if you helkp to foster tzhe genrral econmic climate - by keeping prospering businesses alive and suzpporting the,m, while sortiung the mismanaged, fialig n ones out. The profit from stocks came as a (welcomed) side-effect - it was not the main goal alone, however. Investing means to do your share in supporting the national economy - and getting a reward for that.

This today is understood only by professional fond managers who have maintained a minimum of sense of ethical responsibility for themselves. And most lack that, I think. With investment bankers, its even worse.

They term "making money" is terirbly misunderstood these days. It has nothing to do with how Ayn Rand understood the term in her thinking system. If these modern predators claim they base their working mind on Rand, then they make mockery of her.

Falkirion · 05-22-18, 06:41 PM

Vendor I just did the math on that, that's a shockingly low pay packet for the average worker when you work it out. Sub $40k is not going to go very far in this day and age.

Wish some CEOs/boards would reward the workers who show loyalty to the company. But its always back scratching and rewards to the higher end managers/bosses before it even hits the average workers...shame really.

vienna · 05-22-18, 07:29 PM

Executive compensation is even more puzzling and infuriating when you think of their packages as being in multiples of the average US worker's income. There was one case several years ago where a CEO was earning 30+ times the average US Worker's income, begging the question of exactly what was that CEO actually doing/contributing that was equivalent to 30+ time the efforts of the average worker? In my decades of work in a wide variety of businesses across several different fields, I have seen astonishing incompetency at the executive level rewarded while actual productiveness and innovation at the lower levels either ignored, under-compensated, or having the productive efforts of the lower levels attributed to the credit an executive who had little to do with the gains other than being in their office. I once made the suggestion at a company I where I was working on an HR project that it would be interesting to give the executives the same employment tests lower level employees had to take when seeking their positions (not required of executive levels), just to see if they could actually pass the same tests. Although the suggestion was made in half-jest, the reactions from the HR execs was near apoplectic, in itself an indicator of how even they knew how the results would probably go...

Sometimes, though, justice is served. There was one company I worked for where the executive in charge of operations was incompetent, but managed to keep it covered by the efforts of his administrative assistant, a young man who was creative, meticulous, and dedicated to the quality of his work. The executive did, eventually, commit a real bonehead error and an inquiry into the executive's activities starkly pointed out the real talent and effort was in the admin assistant. The top executives did something very impressive: they didn't fire the executive, they demoted him - to the position of admin assistant, and they promoted his admin assistant to the post of executive in charge of operations, effectively reversing their roles. I remember the newly appointed executive, a very decent young man, confiding to me he felt a bit awkward about now giving orders to the person who used to boss him; I told him the old exec got what he deserved and that he, the new exec exec, got what had long been overdue and to just go on being what he had always been: a good, valued employee who valued the worth of his work...

<O>

August · 05-22-18, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falkirion

Vendor I just did the math on that, that's a shockingly low pay packet for the average worker when you work it out. Sub $40k is not going to go very far in this day and age.

Wish some CEOs/boards would reward the workers who show loyalty to the company. But its always back scratching and rewards to the higher end managers/bosses before it even hits the average workers...shame really.

It's not just that. I think that stock holders demanding a quick return on their investments is what mainly drives the disparity.

Gerald · 05-25-18, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falkirion

Vendor I just did the math on that, that's a shockingly low pay packet for the average worker when you work it out. Sub $40k is not going to go very far in this day and age.

Wish some CEOs/boards would reward the workers who show loyalty to the company. But its always back scratching and rewards to the higher end managers/bosses before it even hits the average workers...shame really.

I agree, while 'the difference will last forever'.

05-22-18, 03:03 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	It is my understanding that CEO salaries are set by either the board of directors or the stockholders. If either group chooses, and it is their choice to pay the CEO that much, that's their decision. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

05-22-18, 04:17 PM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Found your enterprise - and keep owning it. No shareholders. No board of CEOs. If you give the market what the market wants, you sell your stuff and become rich. If you fail to find out what the am rket wants, you ruin ourself. Fair deal. A unique characteristic of the German economy is that more than in any other country you have a high rate of family-owned companies here. This is one of the reaosn why sly fioxes and the Donald attack it so much, for here they cannot make easy gains by just buying stocks. Many of these comopanies also get managed very well, becasue thoise managing it are also the owners - and thus have stuff to lose if they mess the business up. Having your own skin in the fire teaches better thasn anythign else to act respnisbly and make wise, well-thjoght out decisions. Top manager-mercenaries of today that wander from one company to the next, maximise their inco9me and when thing sget hot just jump off the train, do not have this sense of obligation and respnisblity, nor do they stay long enough to gain a real senbse of comoetence for the branch they are currently working in. I think this modern misculture of managment does more bad than good to the overall economies around the globe. It also ruins the loyalty of the workers to their employer . Also, many do not correctly understand what "invetsing" really means, they< think it is a nice casiuono gamble to place a bet and win a profit, in other words: they are exlcusively thinkling in self-focussed terms. Originally, the school of clasiscal national economics as wel,las the Austriansa chool knew this, it means to act due to understanding that you make y profit if you helkp to foster tzhe genrral econmic climate - by keeping prospering businesses alive and suzpporting the,m, while sortiung the mismanaged, fialig n ones out. The profit from stocks came as a (welcomed) side-effect - it was not the main goal alone, however. Investing means to do your share in supporting the national economy - and getting a reward for that. This today is understood only by professional fond managers who have maintained a minimum of sense of ethical responsibility for themselves. And most lack that, I think. With investment bankers, its even worse. They term "making money" is terirbly misunderstood these days. It has nothing to do with how Ayn Rand understood the term in her thinking system. If these modern predators claim they base their working mind on Rand, then they make mockery of her. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-22-18, 07:29 PM	#6
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,711 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Executive compensation is even more puzzling and infuriating when you think of their packages as being in multiples of the average US worker's income. There was one case several years ago where a CEO was earning 30+ times the average US Worker's income, begging the question of exactly what was that CEO actually doing/contributing that was equivalent to 30+ time the efforts of the average worker? In my decades of work in a wide variety of businesses across several different fields, I have seen astonishing incompetency at the executive level rewarded while actual productiveness and innovation at the lower levels either ignored, under-compensated, or having the productive efforts of the lower levels attributed to the credit an executive who had little to do with the gains other than being in their office. I once made the suggestion at a company I where I was working on an HR project that it would be interesting to give the executives the same employment tests lower level employees had to take when seeking their positions (not required of executive levels), just to see if they could actually pass the same tests. Although the suggestion was made in half-jest, the reactions from the HR execs was near apoplectic, in itself an indicator of how even they knew how the results would probably go... Sometimes, though, justice is served. There was one company I worked for where the executive in charge of operations was incompetent, but managed to keep it covered by the efforts of his administrative assistant, a young man who was creative, meticulous, and dedicated to the quality of his work. The executive did, eventually, commit a real bonehead error and an inquiry into the executive's activities starkly pointed out the real talent and effort was in the admin assistant. The top executives did something very impressive: they didn't fire the executive, they demoted him - to the position of admin assistant, and they promoted his admin assistant to the post of executive in charge of operations, effectively reversing their roles. I remember the newly appointed executive, a very decent young man, confiding to me he felt a bit awkward about now giving orders to the person who used to boss him; I told him the old exec got what he deserved and that he, the new exec exec, got what had long been overdue and to just go on being what he had always been: a good, valued employee who valued the worth of his work... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

05-22-18, 06:41 PM	#5
Falkirion Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Melbourne, AUS Posts: 1,043 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	Vendor I just did the math on that, that's a shockingly low pay packet for the average worker when you work it out. Sub $40k is not going to go very far in this day and age. Wish some CEOs/boards would reward the workers who show loyalty to the company. But its always back scratching and rewards to the higher end managers/bosses before it even hits the average workers...shame really.