As usual, you completely miss the point. This isn't a bottom-line issue; it 's a perception issue. The middle class sees its income rise ... more like stagnate ... by perhaps 0.5 percent a year, while executive bonuses climb skyward like Jack's beanstalk. The rich get richer while the middle class keeps treading water.

 

A peception that two-thirds of the country embraces.

 

So you admit it's a perception issue and not a substance issue . So as Clyde said if we want to talk about helping the middle class let's talk about issues of substance.

HuffPost poll from '14 found that 66 percent of Americans think the pay of top corporate executives and CEOs is too high, while only 18 percent think their pay is appropriate. Two percent said that executives' pay is too low.

 

Another problem poll for Republicans.

 

You know before 2008 the average citizen probably knew little about CEO salary but then the collapse happened and basically revealed this imbalance.

 

Right or wrong it's terrible PR for companies trying to convince its employees and America they are not just in business for the almighty dollar.

So you admit it's a perception issue and not a substance issue . So as Clyde said if we want to talk about helping the middle class let's talk about issues of substance.

You're assuming that "substance" is more important than "perception." You would be wrong. What sunk Romney in '12 was how the public perceived his 47 percent comment. That effectively negated any ideas of substance Romney might have had regarding boosting middle class.

You're assuming that "substance" is more important than "perception." You would be wrong. What sunk Romney in '12 was how the public perceived his 47 percent comment. That effectively negated any ideas of substance Romney might have had regarding boosting middle class.

 

I think we all get that the perception to too many is not good.

 

It's immaterial though.

HuffPost poll from '14 found that 66 percent of Americans think the pay of top corporate executives and CEOs is too high, while only 18 percent think their pay is appropriate. Two percent said that executives' pay is too low.

 

Another problem poll for Republicans.

 

And what someone else is paid affects the average middle class financially .... how?

 

Are most publicly held company senior executives over-compensated for the real and unique value they bring? Yes.

 

Does it make any difference when you can be replaced by a $15 an hour person in Brazil, Mexico, India, Romania? No.

 

But the sheeple will eat the hate generating talk of the subject.

You know before 2008 the average citizen probably knew little about CEO salary but then the collapse happened and basically revealed this imbalance.

 

Right or wrong it's terrible PR for companies trying to convince its employees and America they are not just in business for the almighty dollar.

 

Why else would they be in business?

You know before 2008 the average citizen probably knew little about CEO salary but then the collapse happened and basically revealed this imbalance.

 

Right or wrong it's terrible PR for companies trying to convince its employees and America they are not just in business for the almighty dollar.

 

They are.

 

The purpose of a business is to generate wealth for its owners.

 

If you can do that with solid wages, motivated working force, etc. then most will do that. But when push comes to shove and the wealth generation capability of a company is hampered or destroyed by radically cheaper labor overseas or even state to state labor cost deltas then a company must react to survive.

 

And this 'must react' is the ploy used by the major 'business management consulting' firms to sell them on the need to chase the newly enabled world-wide, world-based competitive labor marketplace.

 

I have seen company try to avoid this wave. But eventually they are forced to capitulate when they can not stay price competitive.

Edited July 3, 201511 yr by Bluegrasscard
add 'not'

CEO's of fortune 100 companies are basically rock stars. They are in the position for their image and the direction they give their billion dollar businesses. Like them or not, that is what they do. Why is their no concern about how much basketball players make or baseball or actors while the price of tickets goes up and up?

 

How much does Calipari make now....millions, while students build up tens of thousands of student debt? So why hire him?

I think we all get that the perception to too many is not good.

 

It's immaterial though.

 

Not to the Alinsky worshipers. HRC even compared him to MLK. RFR is a way of life for the useful i....

Edited July 3, 201511 yr by Bluegrasscard
Freudian slip - useful - not useless

I think we all get that the perception to too many is not good.

 

It's immaterial though.

We disagree.

We disagree.

 

I apologize if I missed it but you haven't explained why jobs are going away or paying less because of CEO pay.

Exec pay is just for headlines and for "the MAN is sticking it to us" thinking. Way too simplistic and IMO is ignoring the truth.

 

Alright, you're making good points in this thread (and not doling out mindless insults) and I'm re-thinking my position here.

 

Now, I've never said placing restrictions on compensation is desirable, that there's a magical number that's "too much," or that it's as simple as "take x $ from CEO + give to hourly workers = panacea."

 

But, here's at least part of where I'm coming from. Sticking with the Walmart example, their top six executives make a combined $76M. $54M of that is derived from stock ownership. Their baseline salary is only a combined $5.9M plus another $11.3M in performance incentives. So, the overwhelming amount of their income and wealth comes from the valuation of the stock.

 

That is intuitive in many ways, but the stock market is not a perfect reflection of a company's performance or its ability to be profitable in the future (though that's a major part of it). A lot of what a stock is valued at is based on investor perceptions. And there are a lot of perceptions that demand or reward decisions that comport with such "conventional wisdoms" as cutting employee numbers in downturns, paying no more than competitors do, outsourcing as much as possible, etc., even when these decisions might bite into the quality of products or services provided. Considering many executives serve anywhere from three to nine years on average and about a quarter of them are forced out they have a much stronger incentive from stock price than they do from salary or other performance incentives and thus less incentive to make stronger long-term decisions that might be unpopular in the short-term. So, at least in part, executive compensation and its explosion correlates to short-term interests and their success in adhering to Wall St. dogma, which right or wrong, is largely running firms as lean as possible, even at the expense of quality and reputation.

 

I'll accept if I'm off-base here. I'm not an expert. But, I think if I were off the mark then there would be a strong correlation between executive compensation and company performance (not stock price) that justifies their explosion in compensation over the last several decades. I can't find any evidence there.

I apologize if I missed it but you haven't explained why jobs are going away or paying less because of CEO pay.

Stock options and such are how big bucks wind up in the pockets of CEOs. More so than straight salary. If sales aren't to be grown to boost the stock price, then plan B is to cut labor costs. You can connect the dots from there.

Stock options and such are how big bucks wind up in the pockets of CEOs. More so than straight salary. If sales aren't to be grown to boost the stock price, then plan B is to cut labor costs. You can connect the dots from there.

 

No dot connection required. Youi are dead on and we should say it.

 

Public held companies generate wealth through two means for their owners - dividends and increase in stock price.

 

If top line revenue is flat or shrinking then higher dividends are difficult. So you have to pump up the stock price. So go for profits or as CNBC likes to call it = 'Earnings Season'. Beating EPS - earnings per share - is the only game in a shrinking economy for public companies. And that has been the game since 2007.

 

Unfortunately labor cost are usually a major cost component and the easiest to cut in the short term. That is a fact. So yes, labor cuts are usually part of any cost reduction action for a company.

 

There, dots connected. No evil conspiracy. Its just business.

CEO's of fortune 100 companies are basically rock stars. They are in the position for their image and the direction they give their billion dollar businesses. Like them or not, that is what they do. Why is their no concern about how much basketball players make or baseball or actors while the price of tickets goes up and up?

 

How much does Calipari make now....millions, while students build up tens of thousands of student debt? So why hire him?

 

Great point