Very true.Of course, compensation has little to do with how hard the work is...
Very true.Of course, compensation has little to do with how hard the work is...
Come to Mass! Our niece in law is a second year third grade teacher making $80k. (And summers off)
I consider myself a card-carrying capitalist, but the above Web page shows how some CEOs get away with a lot of bacon.
They are not afraid of Porky; they would render all the fat out of Porky, and turn him into pork rind.
While it doesn't make unjustified CEO compensation right, the fact is the phenomena is not confined to CEO's. How about major sport pro athletes, folks at the top of the entertainment business, etc. ? The pay pyramid is very steep near the top of many professions...
IMHO us passive indexers are contributors to the problem. A good old boy network of employee and board. It's been that way forever. As passive/indexers we take whatever they give us, You can't have it both ways.
But don't lose sight of the implications. It means that the same level of hard work that you and I put in will yield substantially inferior results for our children, and fewer people overall will enjoy the success we have. The system has reduced the number of "winners of the game" while the number of players has increased.
As I said, some folks certainly have an easier path to success than others, but you see so many folks self-sabotage their financial situation. I'm sure my tenants think that the man is keeping them down... as the Amazon truck shows up with their weekly delivery of "stuff they don't need" while they're racking up late fees to me for not being able to pay their rent on time. They're living room TV is literally twice the size of mine - just one more example.
Furthermore, as you say, it may be hard for people to acknowledge their privilege, but I think it is just as hard to get people to admit their own fault in their situation instead of thinking it is something outside their control (such as prejudice, discrimination, birthright, etc.).
MIMH
How is COL in Mass? Can I live on $80k there? I'll start packing tonight! Now to just learn to like kids... J/K
MIMH
Taking the nation as a closed system that hasn't been the case for over a decade.
As I said, "Taking the nation as a closed system..."I think the people in 3rd world countries who now have jobs doing some of the 'menial work' that was done here a while ago would disagree with you.
As I said, "Taking the nation as a closed system..."
As a stockholder, I get to vote with my shares to approve or not approve the board, and as a result the CEO's compensation. If I don't like the result or what they do, I can sell my shares and move on to where I think the situation is more 'fair'.
As a non-stockholder, I don't care how much the CEO makes, nor should I have a say.
No one forces me to own stock in a company whose policies I don't agree with. No one forces me to buy products from a company whose policies I don't agree with. [There are exceptions to this, which should be unconstitutional, but that still sometimes been forced upon us. ]
.Taleb in one of his books (I forgot which one) made the point that modern-day economics created the phenomenon of "winner takes all". That is particularly true in the entertainment business and professional sports. In the old days before TV and radio, less than first-class singers and entertainers could make money in traveling entertainment troupes and circus. Now, everybody wants to go see the best, or what is purported to be the best.
But these sport players and entertainers are rated by the audience that they serve. One may complain that the masses have poor taste, but hey, that's how people want to spend their money.
On the other hand, some CEOs get away with lousy performance, and still get rewarded handsomely. They have the board of directors in their pocket. As shareholders, we have no recourse but to sell the lousy stocks. Is there a better way?
Bogle had been vocal about corporate governance for a while, trying to get institutional investors such as MF and pension managers to be more active in selecting good company directors. I have not heard much about his activity in this area recently. I guess he gave up.
I think it is safe to say that CEOs take on significantly higher risk and have much more responsibility than the average worker, (they probably work more hours, also), but I suspect that the average worker does not realize this or see it this way.
.
And what is worse is the newer corp structures which have non-voting shares issued to the public while the CEOs and founders have 100% voting power... such as Facebook.... IOW, there is no way to get rid of Zuckerberg as long as he wants to be in charge... sounds like a dictatorship.... ..
.... The CEO for my mega Corp total compensation package is $25 million. I fail to see how that can ever be justified while we continue to raise the price of products.
It must be interesting carrying on a conversation when one participant only remember the last thing that people said.OK, 24 posts back!
The comparison seems "illogical" the same way that taking care of Mamaw and Papaw when they get old might seem "illogical" to some, on the logical basis that Mamaw and Papaw are not bringing income into the household. A world where logic is the prevailing governing factor would be a horror. Compassion and justice are more important than such short term analytics.The comparison seems illogical to me. Employees are paid competitive wages or they leave.
And the point isn't that they shouldn't be paid more, but rather that the jump from the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965 to the 59-to-1 ratio in 1989 to the 286-to-1 ratio in 2015 was both unjustifiable and harmful to society. Again, short term analytics leads to myopic conclusions; to understand the problem requires higher-order considerations, such as the mature judgement that values people more than numbers, and integrates compassion and justice into conclusions.Same with CEOs. To be a CEO, especially a public company CEO, requires a rare skill set.
.....The CEO for my mega Corp total compensation package is $25 million. I fail to see how that can ever be justified while we continue to raise the price of products.
What is $25 million divided by sales (the price of products)?
The comparison seems illogical to me. ...
The comparison seems "illogical" the same way that taking care of Mamaw and Papaw when they get old might seem "illogical" to some, on the logical basis that Mamaw and Papaw are not bringing income into the household. A world where logic is the prevailing governing factor would be a horror. Compassion and justice are more important than such short term analytics.
And the point isn't that they shouldn't be paid more, but rather that the jump from the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965 to the 59-to-1 ratio in 1989 to the 286-to-1 ratio in 2015 was both unjustifiable and harmful to society. Again, short term analytics leads to myopic conclusions; to understand the problem requires higher-order considerations, such as the mature judgement that values people more than numbers, and integrates compassion and justice into conclusions.
Compassion and justice are more important than such short term analytics.
Hopefully there’s no need for Porky, although a little less snark would help.