Football coaches are paid by the booster clubs, run by wealthy alums..........
Much of the problem is the incestuous nature of so many corporate board rooms. Many times, you have Company A executives sitting on Company B's board of directors, and the Company B execs are on A's board. So it's easy for them to rubber stamp outrageous compensation packages as a quid pro quo.
Did it include the value of benefits?
Here are the salaries of all the major conference football coaches.
How many of these are being paid with our tax dollars?
Pac-10 football coaching salaries
I don't remember if the news report did or not (it was a couple of years ago). The website I referred to currently states:
Utah's Right To Know | UtahsRight.com
You make it sound like voters don't elect the people who make the hiring and salary decisions. But they do.
I'm not saying it's easy. But how many people would it take in a 20,000 voter community to get the pols scared enough that they would do at least something about it? I'm guessing that you'd never be able to organise a consumer boycott that would have the same effect. C'mon, reducing overpaid government workers' salaries, should be a slam dunk, who's going to vote against that? (Well, apart from the government workers
, but presumably they're in a minority, or their salaries would be coming from their own taxes.)Not arguing, just tellin' ya how they are paid. The university kicks in some of that, but a LOT of it comes from athletic boosters (rich alums) at the university.............
And maybe it's a sign that society has warped priorities, but the bottom line is that Mack Brown is helping to generate gazillions of dollars for Longhorns Incorporated while your average chemistry professor isn't, and that helps dictate compensation.Not a big collegiate sports fan in any sense of the word here, and not to justify what they make, but Division I college football coaches have to have one of the most stressful jobs (it hurts my stomach watching their faces during a bowl game, not to mention all the parties who weigh in on their performance) and are working all the time and are in charge of a revenue-producing function for their schools. I sort of take them out of my usual salary consideration outrage because of that
No absolutely not. I would have been content if this thread simply groused about Bell as an example of corruption or government run amok -- it appears to be so. I was reacting to this:
. Bell is not representative of government salaries -- far from it. And to compare an outlier like this to the situation with CEO salaries, well...enough said above.
I read somewhere that when Daimler merged with Chrysler, there were senior German managers coming to the US and finding that people three levels below them in the hierarchy were making more money.
I do not think that he's justifying the exorbitant pay of executives in either sectors. He's trying to say that do not just pick on the public sector.
Just one more thread to put on ignore.
Agreed that private sector CEO pay is often ridiculous, but as a consumer of goods offered by private companies, I have choice. As a taxpayer funding public salaries, I do not. I sometimes have market-based choices to deal with excessive private sector executive pay that I don't have with public sector pay.
You have roughly the same chance of changing the CEO's salary by not buying company X's goods and services, as you do of changing the public employee's by voting. Small in either case, but in both cases it's plausible to imagine a campaign being organised.
No sale.
