CEO pay is incestuous. It has nothing to do with the need to attract talent. As a few others have pointed out, CEOs sit on each others' boards. There is a compensation committee but members' incentives are to keep jacking up pay. The board members on this committee have a self-interest in keeping the CEO's pay up because that raises the average CEO pay for everyone else, including themselves.

The committees bring in executive compensation consultants to make it look like a disinterested party was involved but all the consultants really do is benchmark all the CEOs' pay and then say whether the compensation fits in the range, which creeps ever upward because almost every single person on any corporate board will personally benefit if the CEO of this company gets paid more.

It is a type of corporate price collusion, which in other contexts is illegal. And so pay spirals ever upward without anyone asking is this person worth it.

In theory shareholders should hold the line, but ultimately CEO pay is a small amount of total expenses so they are willing to overlook it as long as the CEO does a decent enough job hitting quarterly numbers. This has become the objective of almost every corporation due to the misguided belief that shareholder value is maximized by hitting those numbers instead of the company building long term value over a much longer horizon. This idea, and the corresponding huge leaps in executive pay, are a fairly recent phenomenon and can be fixed.

These two articles were posted recently in the Politics forum and are worth a read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/07/17/making-sense-of-shareholder-value-the-worlds-dumbest-idea/#3492332d2a7e

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/07/26/how-to-fix-stagnant-wages-dump-the-worlds-dumbest-idea/#3e7320a91abc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hate rich people.

I AM a rich person. Between me and my DH, we are bringing home $200k/year and despite what folks on DCUM might sometimes say it is a shitload of money and more than I ever expected to make in my lifetime.

If we made $180k, we'd be fine. If we collectively made $100k, we wouldn't live like we live now but we'd also be fine. We've been there before.

I resent the fact that my boss and my boss's boss and so on are basically skimming off what I make to enrich themselves further. I'm sure they put in longer hours than I do but no one needs to make upwards of $3 million (what the head of my company makes).

you can walk at any time. Ask for a raise put up or shutup lol idiot

200k a year is not rich

yes, it is. Look it up.

The CEOs aren't to blame. Their compensation is usually a reasonable base salary like $500k, then bonuses or stock options tied to performance. So they only get huge payouts if they produce huge results.

Their comp package is approved by the board of directors, often based on the recommendation of a compensation committee. Shareholders can easily vote out the board if they disagree with how things are being run.

I'm sure the CEO negotiated hard for that comp package, but the board is free to turn it down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say you make 50k a year and your boss makes 100k a year. In 10 years you make 65k a year and he makes 3.5 million dollars a year. That’s what happened to CEO pay in relation to employee wages.

Still doesn’t change the fact that if he made zero dollars, the savings wouldn’t be there for that number of customers. Even if he made just $250k, the savings per customer would only be $3 and some change. Even if none of the top executives made any money, and let’s say the company saved 1 billion, the customer would only be saving about $4.50. Would you notice or care about $4.50? What if nobody at all made any salary at BC, and you saved $15. Would you be happy? You wouldn’t even notice!

But you know who WOULD notice? All the underpaid peons at Blue Cross. Lower his pay to something less insane and give them a nice raise. And get me a better price on freakin Epipens!

Seriously. Look at what’s happening with the prices for epipens, insulin, Humera. People are literally dying for lack of access to drugs, and the people at the top of the healthcare industry are raking in money. This is a problem. This is not right.

Then the issue seems to be government regulation.

The pitchforks are coming.

I don't think Medicare for all is financially feasible, but with stuff like this the person who wins the democratic nomination will have to support it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say you make 50k a year and your boss makes 100k a year. In 10 years you make 65k a year and he makes 3.5 million dollars a year. That’s what happened to CEO pay in relation to employee wages.

Still doesn’t change the fact that if he made zero dollars, the savings wouldn’t be there for that number of customers. Even if he made just $250k, the savings per customer would only be $3 and some change. Even if none of the top executives made any money, and let’s say the company saved 1 billion, the customer would only be saving about $4.50. Would you notice or care about $4.50? What if nobody at all made any salary at BC, and you saved $15. Would you be happy? You wouldn’t even notice!

But you know who WOULD notice? All the underpaid peons at Blue Cross. Lower his pay to something less insane and give them a nice raise. And get me a better price on freakin Epipens!

Seriously. Look at what’s happening with the prices for epipens, insulin, Humera. People are literally dying for lack of access to drugs, and the people at the top of the healthcare industry are raking in money. This is a problem. This is not right.

Then the issue seems to be government regulation.

The pitchforks are coming.

30% of healthcare costs go towards Administration! Unbelievable!
People are upset because it all ads up and CEO of Blue Cross is a symptom of a mess that is this country's for profit healthcare system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/upshot/costs-health-care-us.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hate rich people.

I AM a rich person. Between me and my DH, we are bringing home $200k/year and despite what folks on DCUM might sometimes say it is a shitload of money and more than I ever expected to make in my lifetime.

If we made $180k, we'd be fine. If we collectively made $100k, we wouldn't live like we live now but we'd also be fine. We've been there before.

I resent the fact that my boss and my boss's boss and so on are basically skimming off what I make to enrich themselves further. I'm sure they put in longer hours than I do but no one needs to make upwards of $3 million (what the head of my company makes).

you can walk at any time. Ask for a raise put up or shutup lol idiot

200k a year is not rich

Anonymous wrote:Why are you ok with it, OP? I have yet to hear an argument to justify exorbitant ceo pay that holds any water. We know these people aren’t magicians. They too squat to take a shit.ive worked as a speechwriter/ghost writer to CEOs, and I can tell you that many have barely a marble rolling around up there. Meanwhile everyone fawns around, doing everything for them. The way companies enable their executives to carry on like spoiled toddlers is truly sickening to behold.

I work for a CEO and read every email. It’s sickening the way people kiss his ass. He’s been here two years. He started off writing emails like a normal person but now the power has completely gone to his head. He refers to himself as a quarterback and a cowboy when he’s doing a mediocre job. You wouldn’t believe how people write to him. It’s unreal the deferential treatment he gets. After reading so many emails I’ve developed a theory about ceos. They just completely surround themselves with sycophants until everyone just says yes to them nonstop. And they run the company into the ground. .

Also, he makes us call him by his title instead of his name.

Anonymous wrote:I work for a Fortune 500 and you couldn’t pay me enough to be CEO. Their entire life and that of their family is completely dominated by work. To get to that level you are wholly owned by the company. If they want to live that life go for it. They should be compensated. And the pp who said it is mostly stock is correct.

You should get out more. There are plenty of people working for meager wages whose life is their work. There are plenty of people who earn multiple millions a year whose life is not entirely work.

So no. In the face of deaths due to prohibitively expensive healthcare and medications, those upper management people are vile in the highest degree, and were they in another line of work, they still wouldn't "deserve" the money.

Anonymous wrote:Also, if a CEO of a large corporation gets fired, he gets a pretty package and a golden parachute; you on the other hand...

.



Yes so what incentive do they have to stay with the company and see that it does well? Someone who started their own company has to work hard and I believe deserves the fruit of their labors. CEOs who pop in and out of companies have a salary that just doesn’t measure up to the work they do ( for the most part)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a disturbing amount for "non-profit mutual benefit" company.

Or any company.

Truth.

And frankly, at that number, it’s just bragging rights. His life is not measurably better than someone making $5mil a year.

Slowly people are realizing that we’re being turned into serfs, with all our wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people. Maybe the tide will turn, maybe it won’t, but I think it will get ugly before it’s over.

‘Being turned into serfs ‘ ?
We’re already there

- fellow wage slave

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hate rich people.

I AM a rich person. Between me and my DH, we are bringing home $200k/year and despite what folks on DCUM might sometimes say it is a shitload of money and more than I ever expected to make in my lifetime.

If we made $180k, we'd be fine. If we collectively made $100k, we wouldn't live like we live now but we'd also be fine. We've been there before.

I resent the fact that my boss and my boss's boss and so on are basically skimming off what I make to enrich themselves further. I'm sure they put in longer hours than I do but no one needs to make upwards of $3 million (what the head of my company makes).

you can walk at any time. Ask for a raise put up or shutup lol idiot

Anonymous wrote:They hate rich people.

I AM a rich person. Between me and my DH, we are bringing home $200k/year and despite what folks on DCUM might sometimes say it is a shitload of money and more than I ever expected to make in my lifetime.

If we made $180k, we'd be fine. If we collectively made $100k, we wouldn't live like we live now but we'd also be fine. We've been there before.

I resent the fact that my boss and my boss's boss and so on are basically skimming off what I make to enrich themselves further. I'm sure they put in longer hours than I do but no one needs to make upwards of $3 million (what the head of my company makes).

So much fud. Yeah evil ceo pay is the problem. Nevermind the freeloaders and clock pumchers.

Anonymous wrote:I work for a Fortune 500 and you couldn’t pay me enough to be CEO. Their entire life and that of their family is completely dominated by work. To get to that level you are wholly owned by the company. If they want to live that life go for it. They should be compensated. And the pp who said it is mostly stock is correct.

I completely agree. I’m in senior level management and feel like my life revolves around work- but it is absolutely nothing compared to what my CEO deals with. He deserves whatever he is paid to handle the crap he handles