How'd You Feel If Your Boss Made $486 For Every Dollar You Make?

[devildavid]

You think everyone who came to the US did so purely for financial gain?

Many came to avoid starvation. Many came merely for a chance just to stay alive. And many were ground up in the factories of the wealthy and worked hard to find no reward in that work.

 

[noonereal]

How'd You Feel If Your Boss Made $486 For Every Dollar You Make?

I'd say he earned it and run out to vote him another tax cut!

 

[Perotista]

A big part of what's wrong with America. Does anybody believe that these CEOs work 150-500 times harder than their employees?

Top Bank CEOs Questioned About Their Pay In House Hearing : NPR

The heads of some of the nation's biggest banks faced tough questions from Democrats on Wednesday about overdraft fees, the stability of the banking system and their own multimillion-dollar compensation.

The House Financial Services Committee hearing was titled, "Holding Megabanks Accountable: A Review of Global Systemically Important Banks 10 years after the Financial Crisis."

"Ten years ago, the CEOs appeared before this very committee to discuss the financial crisis and the massive bailout taxpayers provided," said committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif. "A decade later, what have they learned? Are they helping their customers and working to benefit the communities they serve? Or are the practices of these banks still causing harm?"

View attachment 67254742

No, they don't work 150-500 times more than I or you. But their responsibility is 150-500 time more than ours.

 

[Xelor]

How many failed CEO's suffer financial hardship due to their failures? When they fail big, their golden parachute works just fine. Not so for the majority of employees who simply lose their jobs.

I get the point of your analogy, though I don't much care for the analogy itself, I largely agree with the point you're making with it.

 

[Media_Truth]

The less available for the shareholders. For publicly traded companies it is up to the shareholders to object to CEO compensation, and they get to vote on that compensation. To assume the difference in money not given as compensation to a CEO or other executives would go to other employees is absurd at best. Dividends and share buybacks, other investments would be the likely choices for the shareholders, not increased employee compensation.

If you doubt this hypothesis, examine the history of activist shareholders who dismantled companies for the value of their parts greater than the whole, leaving the workers in the lurch, again and again and again. This was just done with GE, one of leaders of the DOW. With the claim that parts were liabilities, the company divested those parts, with huge sums of cash going to those who oversaw the divestitures, dismantling this once great company into a shadow of itself, and workers spun off to god know where. However, the company coffers are flush with cash, debt is gone, and now the company is free to rebuild in the age of robotics and AI and the hell with the workers. Those investors who understood what was being done, walked away with great wealth, and those who were blind suffered like the workers. So it goes. No government could have stopped the stripping of the great white elephant to become a phoenix. The rise and renewal of GE will take time, but it will be free of the unions and the workers. It may succeed, or it may fail. But the workers are still history.

The value of Sears was the Real Estate it controlled. Show me how the workers shared in that dispersal of wealth.

Ignorance of the business world is no excuse for cockamamie declarations. No matter, the Queen bee survives, the worker bees are expendable. Justice and righteousness has nothing to do with any business outcome or decisions, no matter pressures from whiners.

"Say on Pay" was good in theory, but it's largely ineffective. This may be the mechanism to control overpaid and underperforming CEO's, but it will need some more guts to it.

Does an unfavorable say-on-pay vote mean what it says? – Cooley PubCo

Not really, according to this study by academics from the University of Pennsylvania Law, Rutgers Business and Berkeley Law Schools to be published in the Harvard Business Law Review. Say on pay was initiated under a Dodd-Frank mandate adopted against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis, largely in reaction to the public’s railing against the levels of compensation paid to some corporate executives despite poor performance by their companies, especially where those firms were viewed as contributors to the crisis itself. Say on pay was expected to help rein in excessive levels of compensation and, even though the vote was advisory only, ascribe some level of accountability to boards and compensation committees that set executive compensation levels. So far, however, say-on-pay votes have served largely as confirmations of board decisions regarding executive compensation and not, in most cases, as the kind of rock-throwing exercises that many companies had feared and some governance activists had hoped. The study reported that, since 2011, the average annual percentage of say-on-pay votes in favor has exceeded 90%, while “the percentage of issuers with a failed say on pay vote has never exceeded 3% and, in 2016, that number dropped to just 1.7%.”

I think "Say on Pay" would be more effective if employees and shareholders could vote. The vote could be separate, and the weight could be 50-50.

 

[SMTA]

I'd start working harder, to get the boss's job. Nevermind, I did that and was the boss till I retired.

Life isn't fair, boo hoo hoo.

Snort. Second shift team lead at McDonald's.

 

[devildavid]

I get the point of your analogy, though I don't much care for the analogy itself, I largely agree with the point you're making with it.

It isn't an analogy. It is what most often happens when companies fail. Most of them are corporations. The CEO's are not owners. Their personal finances are protected. And they are often rewarded better for failure than the average wage worker makes in a lifetime.

 

[Media_Truth]

Red:
When I wrote them and opted not to expound on the details of what I meant, I wondered whether someone might latch on to that allusion in my "X%" remarks. Mind, I bear no grudge for your thinking I may have meant all employees should receive the same (or nearly so) rates of increase, but that isn't what I meant. I'll explain.

In my own firm, I defined ranges of base pay for all staff positions, and I hired people in at sums within those ranges. When base pay increases were assigned, employees' increases were based on their performance level:

• Exceeds expectations --> Highest increase rates
• Meets expectations --> Standard increase rates
• Does not meet expectations A --> No increase
• Does not meet expectations B --> One is let go
• Note:
  It was different for myself and my partners (non-employees), for our income, since we were the firm's owners, was based on firm income as a whole. Basically, when the firm made more, the larger was the pot of partner-allocable income, and, in turn, we made more. If the firm brought in less in the following year, well, the pot was smaller, and we earned less. In contrast, our employees' base compensation didn't depend directly on firm revenue; however, firm revenue affected the total sum available for staff increases.

The standard increase was, even in the very tight years around 9/11, always something reasonable, never less than 5%, but always less than the lowest increase rate accorded to folks in the highest rate group. To folks in both increase-rate groups, we accorded a little more to those we felt, for whatever subjective reasons we partners agreed upon, deserved a little more than their peers in the same group.

So, did everyone get the same rate of increase? No, but everyone who got one, even at the lowest increase rate, got a reasonable increase. That said, I and my partners were committed to finding ways to "share the wealth" when it came to incentive/bonus pay we earned from our clients. Between the base pay, which was competitive, and the incentive allocations, nobody had any reason to feel they didn't get an equitable share of the revenue/profit they helped generate. Could we partners have retained more of the firm's take for ourselves? We could have; we just felt doing so wasn't right because doing so wasn't going to change our lives and granting it to our staff made a difference for them.

Does every firm have the ability to exhibit largesse of that sort? Probably not, but the point is that we did have the ability to do so; thus we did so. That's really all I expect of firms, be they ones like the banks noted in the OP, or other firms of vast means. There's no way in hell those banks don't have the ability to do so, yet it's obvious they don't do so.

Great insights. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Media_Truth]

No, they don't work 150-500 times more than I or you. But their responsibility is 150-500 time more than ours.

That's very questionable, and also very subjective. I was on call 24/7 for most of my career. Many of my fellow-salaried employees had an incredible amount of responsibility. To say that these executives have 150-500 times the responsibility, to me, is just an outright LIE.

 

[What if...?]

The answer requires to details:
1. How much is my income
2. Can I earn a higher income elsewhere.

How much the boss makes is his concern, not mine.

How the hell did it become the government's job to patronize and support personal envy.

When they started working froth the rich.

Envy is what droves THEM.

Or more accurately status.

Every one is trying to make sure nobody is "above" them on the ladder. They are chasing the guy above them and fighting off the guy beneath them, obeying primary biological drives.

Historically, this is why societies collapse.

 

[Deuce]

It's interesting how many conservatives are convinced that people are always paid what they are worth. Line worker and management alike.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It's interesting how many conservatives are convinced that people are always paid what they are worth. Line worker and management alike.

They are, If I put out the capital and risk, just what percent of that are you entitled to?

 

[What if...?]

"How'd You Feel If Your Boss Made $486 For Every Dollar You Make?"

I'd be trying to figure out how I could get that gig.

.

You're not. Only a few can. If everybody could there wouldn't he any great fortunes, massive power.

There would also be a lot more companies. Every year there are less due to acquisitions and mergers.

 

[Eriech]

Does a guy with a shovel work harder than a guy who runs heavy equipment. Who should get paid more?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[What if...?]

How would you feel if you had $468 dollars in your pocket and a panhandler at the gas station asked you for a dollar because he doesn't even have a dollar? A dollar for food he says.

How would then feel if 9 more panhandlers approached after him, telling you the same thing? And what can a person buy for a dollar? Shouldn't you at give each one at least a $10? That'd still leave you $368 dollars - and how unfair is that to those 10?

Really you should at least give each one a $20. You'd still have $268 and they each would only have a $20 - meaning you have over 1000% more money than any of them.

How much would you give each panhandler? Somehow, I think you view is that they should get the money they need from someone else - definitely not you.

None of those panhandlers do work you need done, so your example isn't good.

More accurately you can pay less than people need to live and let the taxpayers make up the difference.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You think everyone who came to the US did so purely for financial gain?

I doubt that many came to the US hoping to become poorer. I agree that financial motives alone are not likely to be cited but surely played a part in selecting the US out of all nations on the planet.

 

[Xelor]

Great insights. Thanks for sharing!

You're welcome.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Snort. Second shift team lead at McDonald's.

That's quite a goal you've established for yourself. Good luck.

 

[cpwill]

How many failed CEO's suffer financial hardship due to their failures? When they fail big, their golden parachute works just fine. Not so for the majority of employees who simply lose their jobs.

How many NFL Football Players become destitute as a result of having a bad season?

There are capabilities and skill sets that we value more than others.

 

[Xelor]

That's very questionable, and also very subjective. I was on call 24/7 for most of my career. Many of my fellow-salaried employees had an incredible amount of responsibility. To say that these executives have 150-500 times the responsibility, to me, is just an outright LIE.

I wouldn't want to quantify how much more responsibility senior execs bear vs. that borne by lower level managers, to say nothing of non-managers. I will say, however, that senior execs have a lot of burden to bear.

The things senior execs (C-level, presidents and EVPs) do isn't, for the most part, visible to "everyone" else.

• Merger/Acquisition (as a single-initiative example): "The world" sees a CEO/CFO make a big announcement about something -- the merger with/acquisition of another firm. They don't see:
  • the tomes of "white papers" and reports that CEO read -- both before and after the announcement -- to understand
    • the operational, marketing, human resource, cross industry, financial, regulatory, etc. synergies (lack thereof)
    • about what s/he needed to solicit further info so s/he could, in turn, assess whether "this or that" may/will be a problem, a benefit, and how much of either it augurs to be.
  • the myriad meetings to discuss all the stuff in those papers and reports.
  • the incessant negotiations with the would-be partner firm, financiers, regulators, boards of directors, accountants, lawyers, division/department heads, etc.
  • the vastness and multiplicity of risks the exec must anticipate and task his/her people with mitigating
• Routine: Most folks also don't see the more routine sorts of things C-level folks do.
  • Neverending research into coming trends, economy shifts, monitoring political winds for potential threats or opportunities, etc. Why? Two words:
    risk management. It's a CEO's job to anticipate basically everything. Obviously, one cannot, but it's one's job to get as close to anticipating everything as it is humanly possible to do, and then task one's staff with planning to manage those predicted risks. At the end of the day, the best CEOs anticipate more than do mediocre and bad ones.
    • Ask yourself how keen you are to read several 50-to-100-page technical reports each week. Just from my experiences here, I can tell you that the typical DP member isn't even willing to peruse a 20-page white paper, let alone actually read one. Hell, a bunch of them will see this post and think "TL;DR." Top execs see stuff of this length and "digest" it in a minute, literally.
  • Do we diversity "this" way or "that?"
  • Do we "cut bait" on one line of business and expand another?
  • Managing the expectations of investors, stakeholders and shareholders and then making sure one and one's firm meets those expectations.
  • That much of what execs do happens after "business hours" because the 9-5 is filled with meetings wherein they're the center of attention and primary speaker, thus preventing them from doing that other stuff.
  • A tremendous number of emails to respond to, enough that one must allocate a a block of time or two each day to deal with them, and outside of that let them wait until tomorrow. (Phone calls not so much; top execs' time is so structured they relatively rarely get "out of the blue" calls.
    They make plenty of them, but they don't receive too many.)
• Exceptional: These activities tend to be seen when one'd rather they not be, not seen when one'd rather they were, and either way, "everybody's an 'expert'" who hasn't the same understanding of the factors in play that one does, yet they have something to say about however one behaves in these exception management situations. For example:
  • One of the firm's highly visible employees does or says something impolitic, and now one must fit dealing with it into one's already filled schedule.
  • A natural disaster clobbers the town in which one employs several thousand folks.
  • The POTUS (or other significant political figure) makes a dumbass remark about one's firm, "dumbass" equalling "the POTUS unilaterally mentioned one's firm." What makes it dumbass is that one'd just as soon the public associate one's firm with nothing political (or quasi-political) that one didn't specifically endeavor to tie the firm to, and if a POTUS is going to mention one's firm, one wants advance notice of it and control over the messaging, i.e., one's not having to put out a fire that resulted from the mention.
  • Some adverse report -- regulatory, news/gossip, etc. -- comes out and one didn't know about it or what gives rise to it.

Now, sure, most folks see the the "dog and pony" part and the pay CEOs earn. Folks then think about all they stuff that money buys. What they don't see or think about the rest, and they don't because most folks never approach having to deal with or do that stuff.

 

[SMTA]

That's quite a goal you've established for yourself. Good luck.

Hah. You. Deserved.

 

[Airyaman]

How'd You Feel If Your Boss Made $486 For Every Dollar You Make?

If he had life as easy as me, I'd feel envious. But since I know I suck at being a boss, I'm good with others making a **** ton of money more than me for whatever they do.

I have no idea how some people get where they are. I know how I got to where I am. I'm OK with the big boss making way more than me if my employer feels OK with paying them that. Now, if we were in dire straits, I might have a different opinion.

(But our big boss doesn't make that kinda green, so not applicable)

 

[OldFatGuy]

Hah. You. Deserved.

Is English your third language?

 

[cpwill]

You're not. Only a few can. If everybody could there wouldn't he any great fortunes, massive power.

There would also be a lot more companies. Every year there are less due to acquisitions and mergers.

uh. not seeing that in the data, but...

 

[Waddy]

If my boss brings in an extra $100 million dollars into the company because he's a great businessman/woman, then I'm fine with him/her earning $400 to my $1. Or if he/she is the owner and took all the risk. What I don't understand are people like Roger Smith, who ran GM into the ground making that kind of money. He should have given it back.