Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I haven't had my three martini lunch yet so I'm a little shaky.
While I don't strongly disagree with the above, I do disagree with the above. For the most part and I've said the most part, CEO's and executives get to that level because at some point they've proven that they can do that job. For the most part CEO's and Executives get paid more because they have the skills, knowledge or Corporate Behavior that dictates large dollar pay checks in the market place. But Captain, some will argue, what about the CEO's that are running companies that are losing money, or doing bad business. Well the system while flawed will eventually take out those executives. Also for the most part salaries aren't set based on the success of the organization as much as their based on the fierce competition to find, hire and retain very high level people. I think if you want to blame companies or corporations etc, you have to get beyond the CEO focus and go right to the Board of Directors level because those are the guys that approve the golden parachutes and high salaries.
At the end of the day, in a Capatalist society you will get paid what the market dictates you will get paid, and its great to have the notion that a guy who digs toilets should get paid on a closer level to a guy that runs a multibillion or million dollar company its just not realistic.
I've always agreed that the government should be in the business of closing loopholes and making the tax code easier to follow. If you actually cut all the loop holes, you would literally be able to lower tax rates because everyone would pay their proper share.
I absolutely agree that GE has to pay more taxes, but don't you need to balance that against the nearly 300,000 people that they employ in the U.S.? How do you balance that off and encourage companies like GE to continue to grow and employ Americans?
And instead of blaming GE for taking advantage of the tax code, shouldn't we be angry at the American Government and the IRS? And don't you think that we should be wary that Obama received a corporate contribution from GE to the tune of $570,000.
|
sorry, not as knowledgeable about parsing quotes as you...
the irony of the executive compensation is that they are no longer called performance bonuses, as the meltdown shows, 'performance' has nothing to do with it..."retention bonuses" are simply semantics might to hide the issue. While I agree that there is a hierarchy based on ability, I think the question is more about whether that multiplier is more than what it ought to be.
Once upon a time, the level of executive compensation vs employee salaries was not as high as it is now. Check out this link
http://heritageinstitute.com/governa...mpensation.htm and scroll down to the CEO compensation as a multiplier of employee salaries... seems like one country alone is the statistical outlier.
a capitalist society has to have "haves" and "have nots", I am not that naive to believe otherwise. However, when you have lobbyists that essentially "rig the game", it's pretty easy to understand why people are frustrated.
socialism is anathema...unless of course, you qualify as being "too big to fail"...