creating huge amounts of wealth is good

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you only look at the top executive that math seems to work
But if you compare upper management (not just one guy) to the others you’ll get a far different number
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you put a statistical number on talent, ability, motivation, competitiveness, initiative, knowledge? If getting an upper management that is superior in the qualities necessary to successfully compete and innovate requires top dollar salaries, would scaling down those salaries in order to create an illusion of fairness be the best thing for those below "upper management"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Can you put a statistical number on talent, ability, motivation, competitiveness, initiative, knowledge? If getting an upper management that is superior in the qualities necessary to successfully compete and innovate requires top dollar salaries, would scaling down those salaries in order to create an illusion of fairness be the best thing for those below "upper management"?

It's all just B.S. woke virtue-signaling.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you only look at the top executive that math seems to work
But if you compare upper management (not just one guy) to the others you’ll get a far different number
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Take the top guy and the next level down. It's still a rounding error on the balance sheet of a huge company.

Pete, everything loos stupid when you consider the cost and completely ignore the value.

If you work for a very large company, is it worth something to you, to have a world-class CEO? Isn't that a good thing for you?

No one has to work at Apple or buy an Apple product, plenty of choices.

[Pete F.]

so when companies were struggling at the start of the pandemic, we gave them a $3 trillion bailout

now that they're enjoying record profits (by raising prices), we don't get a dime of it

there's always socialism for corporations, but never for the people paying the bill

CEO pay in past year: up 16% to $14.2 million
CFO pay in past year: up 16% to $4.9 million
Worker pay: down when adjusted for inflation

Funny how the people in charge of the money ensure their raises are comfortably above the inflation they helped create
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

so when companies were struggling at the start of the pandemic, we gave them a $3 trillion bailout

now that they're enjoying record profits (by raising prices), we don't get a dime of it

there's always socialism for corporations, but never for the people paying the bill

CEO pay in past year: up 16% to $14.2 million
CFO pay in past year: up 16% to $4.9 million
Worker pay: down when adjusted for inflation

Funny how the people in charge of the money ensure their raises are comfortably above the inflation they helped create
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"there's always socialism for corporations, but never for the people paying the bill"

"the people" didn't get multiple stimulus checks? Including many many people who didn't miss a paycheck due to covid?

"Funny how the people in charge of the money ensure their raises are comfortably above the inflation they helped create"

Didn't you show recently, that those people are mostly democrats?

[Pete F.]

For the last month I've been clicking on every headline with the word "inflation" in it and scrolling through to see how many mention record corporate profits.

Or the trillions that the fed printed and gave to the banks to dump into the stock market.

Just about none of them do.

Seems like a piece of information that would be relevant, but what do I know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

From 1978 to 2020, CEO pay based on realized compensation grew by 1,322%, far outstripping S&P stock market growth (817%) and top 0.1% earnings growth (which was 341% between 1978 and 2019, the latest data available). In contrast, compensation of the typical worker grew by just 18.0% from 1978 to 2020.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

From 1978 to 2020, CEO pay based on realized compensation grew by 1,322%, far outstripping S&P stock market growth (817%) and top 0.1% earnings growth (which was 341% between 1978 and 2019, the latest data available). In contrast, compensation of the typical worker grew by just 18.0% from 1978 to 2020.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you really want what the ceos have, do what they did and you’ll
have it. whiny and jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you really want what the ceos have, do what they did and you’ll
have it. whiny and jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simple isn’t it

Implications of the growth of CEO-to-top-0.1% compensation ratio.
The fact that CEO compensation has grown far faster than the pay of the top 0.1% of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”) that also increased the value of highly paid professionals: Rather, the growing pay differential between CEOs and top 0.1% earners suggests the growth of substantial economic rents (income not related to a corresponding growth of productivity) in CEO compensation. CEO compensation appears to reflect not greater productivity of executives but the power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Simple isn’t it

Implications of the growth of CEO-to-top-0.1% compensation ratio.
The fact that CEO compensation has grown far faster than the pay of the top 0.1% of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”) that also increased the value of highly paid professionals: Rather, the growing pay differential between CEOs and top 0.1% earners suggests the growth of substantial economic rents (income not related to a corresponding growth of productivity) in CEO compensation. CEO compensation appears to reflect not greater productivity of executives but the power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Waah waah waah.

Why do you care? What harm are they doing you? They're easing your tax burden, that's all they're doing. That, and keeping HUGE numbers of us employed.

You like to poke fun at me because I took a demotion. You know why I did it? Because while I'll never have as much as many, I have something that those CEOs will never have.

I have enough. It's an amazing feeling. It's nice to not give a rats azz about what anyone lese has. It's a lot healthier than being jealous of what a tiny, miniscule number of people have.

[Pete F.]

You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some irony here

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?"

100M a year, for a $3 trillion company, is nothing.

Like all the good commies here, all you're doing is focusing on his cost. You're assuming he ads zero value.

Look at the stock performance, growth, jobs added, any measure you want. He gets an A+ for his management of Apple.

I doubt most Apple employees want him gone and replaced with a cheaper alternative. If they don't care, no reason for you to care.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?"

100M a year, for a $3 trillion company, is nothing.

Like all the good commies here, all you're doing is focusing on his cost. You're assuming he ads zero value.

Look at the stock performance, growth, jobs added, any measure you want. He gets an A+ for his management of Apple.

I doubt most Apple employees want him gone and replaced with a cheaper alternative. If they don't care, no reason for you to care.

Oh, okay
In the last 50 years executive and upper level management compensation has increased at a rate much higher than the rate for lower level employees who in many cases have if you account for inflation, lost income even though worker productivity has increased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except hiring companies don't base salary offers only on their title at their previous employer. And, I dunno, maybe the former Apple employee has the ability to tell his interviewer what his job was, or put it on his resume?

What a pathetic joke that was.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What a pathetic joke that was.

he's consistent...