Following our QOTD is this interactive graphic from the Sunday NYT showing the relative compensation of 200 chief executives:

>
click for interactive graphic

>

Source:
The Drought Is Over (at Least for C.E.O.’s)
DANIEL COSTELLO
NYT, April 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10comp.html

Category: Corporate Management, Wages & Income

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “The Pay at the Top”

  1. JimRino says:

    Shareholder robbery.

  2. philipat says:

    Yes, the system doesn’t work. Especially in Finanace. Why should Mangers make more than Shareholders? Boards of Directors should, of course, not allow this abuse, but we all know how it works.

    This is a serious problem without solution. Until Rome burns?

  3. Fred C Dobbs says:

    For the good of the US, and its citizens, the tax code should make a distinction between CEOs who innovate and “add value” to the nation, by creating more jobs, for example, and those who are merely caretakers of companies that are more or less static. Jobs has done wonders for the US, for the company, its employees, shareholders, local tax authorities etc. We all walk taller because of him. What has any of the Too Big To Fail Bank CEOs who are effectively provided jobs by the US taxpayers done? Banking should be a very boring job, it once was, and hopefully will be again, for executives to buy deposits by raising rates paid depositors, and buying loans by lowering rates paid borrowers. After making this distinction, the ‘do nothings’ should be taxed heavily, to demonstrate the US is all about merit, just like the football field and the baseball diamond. If they can’t or won’t compete, disincentivize them, and encourage them to get off their butts. Corporate America needs leaders, and leaders begin by leading through their own personal example. Jobs still gets $1 a year, doesn’t he?

  4. hankest says:

    Oh no, what about the SHAREHOLDERS!!!

    I just thank the Invisible Hand that these heroes are (i strongly suspect) being taxed at a lower rate than an architect or tile worker, and will get even more cuts under Ryan’s brave and radical 2012 budget proposal.

  5. willid3 says:

    i thought the reason so many protest allowing share holders any say on pay was just wrong was because if they did the managers would go else were and the company would just tank. doesn’t seem to work that way. and others say don’t set up any rules because investors have all the power needed to do so. but it seems that they really don’t. after all, they really don’t pick the directors (they vote for those that management picked. and even if one of them doesn’t win, they may still end up on the board). and the compensation committee is picked by management and the directors, and paid by management. so little wonder that doesn’t work out right often. but for all of this control on executive pay. they certainly have gotten control over every one else’s pay down pat. and most stock holders are funds. and they don’t care because they are more interested in getting in on the 401k scam at the company where they get fees. but there are some who don’t buy into that. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10gret.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

  6. carleric says:

    Lets leave Steve Jobs as the exception to the rule although some years ago he was considered by many to be an irresponsible flake. CEOs are overcompensated due to the incestous relation ships that boards have with each other and with managment. In general CEO pay is just money down a rat hole and anybody who thinks they bring or create vaue for a company needs a mental check up.

  7. blackjaquekerouac says:

    not for nothin’ but “did the Black and Decker guy stand out to you too?” I mean power tools? Maybe he’s vying for the “Peter Petersen award” but I was thinkin–”when was the last time i bought anything by Black and Decker” and the word “never” came to mind.

  8. JimRino says:

    I second Fred C. Dobbs comment.
    Apple, to make an IPod2, has committed 3 Billion dollars thru it’s partners to assure a supply of LCD screens.
    What has Exxon spent 3 Billion on? Aside from political bribery, err, lobbying, nothing.
    The oil and coal industry should be transitioning Now into Wind or Solar or Battery technology by making multi-billion-dollar-investments. Shareholders need to kick out the right-wing-dumbxxx CEO’s and replace them with people who can address current problems with innovative solutions.

    And funding the “Tea Party” is only a solution if your goal is suicide.

  9. JimRino says:

    Even GE has only committed 500 million to a new solar panel plant.
    That kind of timid investment not only means little impact in the market, but also allows a competitor to step in and Run Them Over.

  10. ottnott says:

    “graphic from the Sunday NYT showing the relative compensation of 200 chief executives”

    At least 199 CEOs believe that NYT has just published proof that they are underpaid.

  11. philipat says:

    The Gretchen Morgenson pice in the NYT has a very good perspective on this.

  12. BillG says:

    This is an interesting chart and my only criticism (with the chart, not executive theft er pay) is that it should note which of these guys actually founded their respective companies. If Larry Ellison makes a pile of money on a company he created then that’s not as bad (in my opinion) as some guy who just climbed the corporate ladder. Then again since these guys have made billions through their own equity maybe no distinction is necessary and the executive pay is still just theft from the shareholders. I mean if Warren Buffett doesn’t need more than $500K to run a firm that makes him billions per year in capital gains why should anyone else?

    And willid3 is absolutely correct. As much as these clowns want to keep telling us that their pay is what the market is demanding for these jobs the real reason for their high pay is their cozy relationship with the board and the fact that the shareholders have no real control over it.

  13. Bob A says:

    the title of the article should be.. “Organized Crime in America”