Top US CEO pay rose 7.7% last year, outpacing inflation, study finds
reuters.com
reuters.com
Sure, the boss of bosses should make more that the average worker, but 300x-500x more? Rationalize about "bringing value" as much as you want, but if this class division continues it will not end well for the rich.
I earn a bit above median and have no aspirations even for a lower management position.
I see this stuff and to me it seems like either jealousy or white-knighting. A lot of people protesting these CEO pays seem to want to see the rich make less much more so than they actually want the lower class to make more. And the "it will not end well for the rich" polemic just confirms that assumption to me.
and you are saying that would be a bad thing? Seems hard to say that would't make for a better society.
I never got that impression, but articles i read could differ from those you read here, of course, giving different impressions.
I just wish discussion here in the states had inspiration from concepts that work, instead of these false dilemmas we have to pretend to choose between. Well, the saddest part is that you all aren’t pretending, you don’t know other options aren’t being presented.
What you’re looking at here are CEOs of the top 500 companies..of course they’ll earn much more than the average.
I don’t see anyone complaining that Beyoncé gets millions of dollars per performance while the average musician earns pittance. It’s the same here. It’s news orgs chasing clickbait to make money from the naive and perpetually outraged.
It would be a legitimate position to take. The system sustaining Beyoncé revenue is approximately the same one which is used to justify star CEO revenues.
The interesting question isn’t is it expected that top CEO will earn more than average CEO anyway. It’s why has the gap between the salary of top CEO and their average worker grew so much in the past 50 years. It’s a legitimate question to ask.
Ah yes. The "system" of buyers (music consumers, corporate boards) choosing to buy or not to buy things at the prices the sellers are willing to sell them at. What is your remedy for this?
I personally feel perfectly fine with strongly curbing the free market with legislations. It’s not the be all end all nor is it working particularly well.
Mass media geared towards easy entertainment successfully erased decades of effort into educating the workers and creating structures to give them a voice. I personally view the entertainment industry as fully complicit in a general dumbing down of the population. Should we applaud the opium peddlers in the name of the free market?
It's not the same CEOs year to year, it's just the highest paid, and since CEO pay is mostly equity, it's probably the CEOs of the top performing companies last year.
So if CEO #1 was on the list last year, and the company did worse this year, they likely aren't on the list, saw a compensation drop, but hey, that doesn't make headlines to say "Top paid CEOs from 2022 saw a compensation drop of 10% this year".
Citation needed. For Jefferies', one of those cited:
"Revenue Growth (Quarterly YoY) -8.35
Revenue Growth Rate (5Y) 8.06"
doesn't look stellar to me.
“Jefferies' 2022 total investment banking revenues, while down 38% from an off-the-charts 2021, represented our second-best year ever and were substantially above 2019 levels”
I think the question to ask is: Look at these companies, did their CEO do: (a) better than expected this year, (b) as expected this year or (c) worse than expected this year. What seems to consistently come out of these articles is that CEOs who fit (a) get paid a lot more YoY, CEOs who fit (b) get paid a lot more YoY, and CEOs who fit (c) get paid a lot more YoY.
And of course, some of it is richly ironic, one of the companies listed is equilar - a company whose raison d'etre is suppressing employee pay, they're a legal version of a cartel.
They probably know somewhat more than a recent MBA grad, but they aren't special geniuses, they made the right political decisions and have good connections. That meme, "your network is your networth," is very true.
The biggest problem is that corporate ownership is both divided among many stockholders and also fleeting, with stock constantly changing hands. This allows the executives to dominate control of publicly owned corporations.
Nepotism is the key factor here, don't be fooled otherwise.
Most people aren't saying that CEOs don't deserve more pay than the average worker but the rich continuing to get richer hasn't ever really worked out for the rich in the long run.
The bottom line is how much wealth/income inequality does a society want to accept. You have 2 paths ignore it and it will get more extreme or try to steer the ship towards a more equitable society. not a completely equitable society because that's impossible and people don't seem to work that well under that system, but there should be a goal in the middle somewhere.
You should also be aware the number of hours worked has nothing to do with actual output or value
Do you honestly think that someone working a minimum wage job doesn't deserve to be able to afford to live just by working one? Do you think that if someone isn't as competent as you would like them to be, they should just die? If you genuinely believe that, you should be ashamed of yourself
Worker's pay needs to come up or CEO pay needs to go way down. Preferably both
https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ceos-manage-time
62.5 hours a week average is what's being toted in this article.
I will probably get downvoted for this but companies don't care about people. They might make it seem like they care but they don't. If a company decides they can perform same or better by improving efficiency and cutting 10% of jobs that is a huge WIN for the business. CEOs are not there to make friends and be kind. Their job is to plan for the future of the company, not Bob slinging code in the back.
CEO often cannot predict exactly what the economy will do and what the clients will do. Their decisions can be based on data but it doesn't mean they can predict the future.
To be frank, I am not saying this is right or wrong. This is reality of business.
Firing people is a way to avoid a company's workforce from stagnating. It lets unproductive people in one environment find a new environment where they can meaningfully contribute. One should never avoid firing someone, instead what's important is ensuring that when someone gets fired that they aren't left destitute or desperate and that there's a path available to them to find new gainful employment.
how does that happen? What's the SOP on that?
And they can decide when and how long to take a break, and what to delegate to which underling, because there's no one above them. Let's not pretend it's the same type of work here.
I could probably work 8am to 11pm every day if that was all I was doing.
I would argue so are doctors but they don't get CEO pay, so there ya go.