Pay!

[Jackster1]

How would you like a 54 percent pay raise? That's how much pay jumped last year for the chief executives of the 500 largest U.S. companies, reports Forbes magazine.

>>Full-time worker pay averaged just $32,594. That's 11 percent less than 1973's average worker pay of $36,629, adjusting for inflation, although worker productivity rose 78 percent between 1973 and 2004.<<

>>In 1973, CEOs made 45 times as much as workers, according to pay expert Graef Crystal. In 1991, when Crystal said the imperial CEO "is paid so much more than ordinary workers that he hasn't got the slightest clue as to how the rest of the country lives," CEOs made 140 times as much as workers. Last year, CEOs made more than 300 times as much. <<

>>Executive pay now takes more than double the bite out of company earnings it did a decade ago<<

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers...r.cfm

I know the catch-phrase 'class envy' was supposed to stifle questioning questionable rewards but this is getting ridiculous!

[Fishfoote]

No doubt, many CEOs are grossly overpaid - company's losing money and chief executive(s) still rake in big bucks. That said, the compensation of many senior executives is tied directly to the company's profitability via stock options at above market strike prices. There is a much different risk/responsibility function for executive positions and a much lower supply of those with proven experience than the "average hourly worker." Stockholders look to the board of directors to recruit and retain the best qualified people, and those that are in high demand are well aware of it. It's pretty similar to professional sports, team owners will pay millions to get a star player to advance the team and fill stadium seats and sell advertising. Would you want to be in charge of say, General Motors? Lots of factors you can control in making cars - lots of them you can't.

[Kevin]

I think the soaring pay of CEO's is a joke, particularly when it isn't hinged on corporate performance.

Unfortunately, too often CEO pay is often based on expectations of short-term stock health - instead of long-term company health.

Don't know the answer to fix it - though you would think that with companies in which employees make up a good portion of the stockholders (GM?), there would be sort of an automatic internal watchdog for long-term health.

[UPwannabe]

CEO's pay jumps for last year a skew due to a change in the way the SEC required companies to report earning. Stock options are now counted as earning for an empoyees now even though it might be years before they are excersiced, if they ever get excersiced. No one knows what a companies stock price is going to be 5 or 10 years from now. Those options that they get at say $5/share may be worthless if the stock price is $3 when they become mature.

Nopt to say that their pay isn't unbeleiveably high but when you see that number of a 54% raise, it is higher thatn previous years only because of a change in bookkeeping.

[Hamilton Reef]

As Howard Dean said, "Some Republicans never worked a day in their lives." The same can also be said of the Democrat CEOs that scam and con their way to the top of the companies. However, define work. It really does take some work to screw the working class on those magnitudes.

[TrailFndr]

although worker productivity rose 78 percent between 1973 and 2004.<<

>>In 1973, CEOs made 45 times as much as workers, according to pay expert Graef Crystal. In 1991, when Crystal said the imperial CEO "is paid so much more than ordinary workers that he hasn't got the slightest clue as to how the rest of the country lives," CEOs made 140 times as much as workers. Last year, CEOs made more than 300 times as much. <<


And everyone wants to blame the UNIONS for companies problems....Wake up America. Unions are simply doing what the Execs are doing, getting the most bang for the buck that they can. How can they not try for more when the top execs get so much? 300 times....thats alot of workers.

[Ranger Ray]

And everyone wants to blame the UNIONS for companies problems....Wake up America. Unions are simply doing what the Execs are doing, getting the most bang for the buck that they can. How can they not try for more when the top execs get so much? 300 times....thats alot of workers.
Blame whomever you want but unless they can act together to fix the problem disaster awaits. The pension and health benefit program for retirees works when the number of people entering the work force far outnumber the retirees and growth and wages continue to increase. We are at a point that the number of people trying to pay for pensions is reversed to what it can be to continue as we are and the burden is falling more and more on the working force that has no guarantee of a pension themselves. There is a drastic change coming because they have all banged this buck to death.

[snakebit67]

personallly, i forsee a taxpayer bailout of alot of pension plans.

[Mickey Finn]

The pension and health benefit program for retirees works when the number of people entering the work force far outnumber the retirees

I think you are talking about social security here. Pension plans that are done on a defined benefit program are as strong as the investments that are made with the funds. For example, my pension fund at work is 130% vested. The employer does not even have to make payments as long as it is above a certain point.

Just wanted to clarify this point.

As for tax payer bailouts. There were none for the steel manufacturers. As far as I can remember, that is.

[TrailFndr]

personallly, i forsee a taxpayer bailout of alot of pension plans.

I agree, and its a darned shame. These pensions should have been fully funded and untouchable, even in bankruptcy. Lets be real, people with 20 or more years in a company have come to depend on that pension, right or wrong, its a simple fact. And without it, a lot of people are going to suffer in thier golden years, Unfortunatly, those years may end up being far from golden. I forsee a large influx older people having major financial problems.

[Ranger Ray]

I think you are talking about social security here. Pension plans that are done on a defined benefit program are as strong as the investments that are made with the funds. For example, my pension fund at work is 130% vested. The employer does not even have to make payments as long as it is above a certain point.
I was talking about the auto makers pension funds which are under funded by as much as 100 billion for Ford and GM combined. The auto makers have been running a deficit not surplus in their pension plans for years, always counting on endless growth and sales. Not sure how they are allowed to run deficit on pension but they have, maybe someone can explain to me how they are allowed to do this.

[Mickey Finn]

I was talking about the auto makers pension funds which are under funded by as much as 100 billion for Ford and GM combined. The auto makers have been running a deficit not surplus in their pension plans for years, always counting on endless growth and sales. Not sure how they are allowed to run deficit on pension but they have, maybe someone can explain to me how they are allowed to do this.

I quess the UAW would have to take some of the blame for that. If they are run in deficit. My employer has been taken to court in the past for dishonest behavior.

Considering the stock market in the past ten years or so, I'm left to assume that the big three invested primarily in themselves. :lol: Not the wisest choice.

[Swamp Monster]

Although I agree the pay is getting a bit out of hand, comparing it to most employees is apples to oranges. Many hourly folks get to punch a clock and with it, can forgot about all responsibility until they punch in the next morning. CEO's don't have this luxury. Every decision the CEO makes has ramifications for literally thousands of people.....and many of those people hold the strings to his job in their finger. The average worker must make decisions as well, but most with far less consequence. That type of responsibility earns you to right to make substantialy more money, plain and simple. And considering the fact that most people are not qualified to hold such a post, the market is thin and the demand is high. If the market was full of qualified individuals willing to take such risk, maybe the salaries wouldn't be as high And in the case of Ford or GM, the employees are usually bigtime stock holders as well, and they want to see that stock grow, so in essence, they are a willing participant in the circle.