Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us view insurance companies as an unnecessary and expensive layer of the healthcare industry. They see other countries with better and cheaper healthcare that do not have money harvesting insurance companies.

They know the system is rigged against them to keep the rich ever richer. $19 million this year? I'm sure he's already building a case with the board to show how badly underpaid he is.

the difference between $19 mil and $10 mil or $24 mil in terms of lifestyle is ......?

Anonymous wrote:Some of us view insurance companies as an unnecessary and expensive layer of the healthcare industry. They see other countries with better and cheaper healthcare that do not have money harvesting insurance companies.

They know the system is rigged against them to keep the rich ever richer. $19 million this year? I'm sure he's already building a case with the board to show how badly underpaid he is.

Anonymous wrote:because people are weak and like playing the victim card (aside that's basically the entire playbook of the democrats)

The path to CEO is easy make work your life and you will eventually get there

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

As if that’s a realistic option for the overwhelming majority of people. And not everyone is wired or driven for that. Some people are actually not materialistic sociopaths. Crazy, right? Doesn’t mean they should live in squalor and desperation. In the 70s, my grandfather supported 5 kids and a wife on a teacher’s salary, that’s impossible now. Why?

Two teachers making 160k a year can definitely live comfortably. Your argument is invalid because in the 70s dual income wasn't a thing.

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.

Ok let's see...
If you are not going to make any money discovering drugs why would you invest in research and development?
Most people think that drug discovery is very cheap and simple...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

As if that’s a realistic option for the overwhelming majority of people. And not everyone is wired or driven for that. Some people are actually not materialistic sociopaths. Crazy, right? Doesn’t mean they should live in squalor and desperation. In the 70s, my grandfather supported 5 kids and a wife on a teacher’s salary, that’s impossible now. Why?

Two teachers making 160k a year can definitely live comfortably. Your argument is invalid because in the 70s dual income wasn't a thing.

Where is it that teachers make 160K?!?! I love being a scientist but I'll walk out right now...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

As if that’s a realistic option for the overwhelming majority of people. And not everyone is wired or driven for that. Some people are actually not materialistic sociopaths. Crazy, right? Doesn’t mean they should live in squalor and desperation. In the 70s, my grandfather supported 5 kids and a wife on a teacher’s salary, that’s impossible now. Why?

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.

Anonymous wrote:
Healthcare insurance and pharmaceutical companies are inherently unethical in their pay structures, OP, when you compare how grossly they overpay their senior staff and how much people pay for their insurance and how ridiculously it covers medical and medication care.

This is NOT the case in Europe. I am French, and cannot fathom why Americans haven't rebelled yet, and voted in politicians who are going to change the system. In the USA, people become bankrupt or die from not being able to pay their medical care. Not in France, or many other European countries. It's mind-boggling. And you think the CEO of a healthcare business is fine with getting 19 million every year? These are the people I would throw in the ninth circle of hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This just sounds so out-of-touch with lower income families where parents work several jobs just to make ends meet. A Fortune 500 CEO can quit at 40 and his grand kids can still be set with all the dividends.

I’m the first poster.

There aren’t that many Fortune 500 CEOs who are 40. It’s a job you get after years of being completely dedicated to your industry.

Look, I get it, it’s a ton of money. That said, I much prefer the childhood I had with a dad as a teacher and a stay at home mom than the life our CEO and other members of our executive team live. They move, often internationally, every couple of years, miss birthdays, concerts, first dates. You name it, they aren’t present. Their spouses frequently have to give us their jobs due to the frequent moves. Divorce rate is high. It’s an impossible life if you want to have any balance.

If you are interested in that type of money start playing the game. The office and airports will be your new home and you’ll have a constant knot in your stomach from all the stress.

Retiring at 40 is just a rhetoric to show how much they make. I think you're still missing the point. Yea, I know, CEO's lives are difficult as they're married to their jobs. But there are many many low income parents that work several jobs and see little of their children just to make ends meet. The counter example of the low-salaried worker is not to belittle the achievements and dedication of the CEO, but to emphasize how exobertant and inflated their salaries are.

And no one is stopping any of the low income people you mention from becoming CEOs, or making 19 mil/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone deserve to make $19MM per year??

No one needs that much money.

Yea, I'm going to take inspirational advice from what is arguably the poorest performing demographic group in the US in terms of economic performance.

Try this guy then. He’s loaded. Maybe you’ll listen to him.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

So what is Mr. Hanauer from donating his fortune to the government? That is always an option when doing taxes. If he truly thinks inequality is so bad, he should put his money where is mouth is.