Is It Unfair to Pay CEOs Billions?

Is It Unfair to Pay CEOs Billions?


Isn’t it unfair to pay CEO’s billions of dollars
when there’s so many people in poverty? That all depends on where the pay comes from
and how it is earned. If, for example, the payment to the CEO’s
comes in part from a government bailout, at the taxpayers’ expense, then absolutely it’s
wrong to pay then that. But if the CEO is earning that money, has
paid that money as a result of a contract with the board of directors and they use that
to reward him or her for making decisions for them. Because they believe that he or she is the
best … is a good option and worth it. And if that CEO makes decisions suppose the
CEO’s paid $10 million a year. If he or she makes decisions, which earn the
company $15 million a year, they’re absolutely worth it. As long as they … I guess I would answer
that the way I would answer about the pay … about any pay for anybody. It’s fair and it’s ethical, I think, if they’re
creating more value for the enterprise then they’re paid. Because then the enterprise is better off
on net. And let’s remember that enterprises make their
money by creating goods and services creating wealth for other people. So no I don’t have any difficulty with paying
a CEO millions of dollars. If he or she has earned it with making really
good decisions and guiding the company so as to create a greater amount of wealth than
what they’re paid. I see no problem with that at all. To add one other thing. The question isn’t it unfair to pay CEO’s
millions of dollars while other people are living in poverty, seems to assume that the
CEO has that money at the expense of the people in poverty. But that’s not true. If the company that the CEO works for is creating
valuable goods and services, then the CEO’s money doesn’t come at the expense of the poor,
it comes as a result of making the poor better off by providing them good and services they
would like to have at a price they’re willing to pay. This idea that the rich get richer in a free
market at the expense of the poor is a pernicious error. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t get rich
at our expense. They got rich by making us better off. It’s important for us to remember that.

74 Comments on "Is It Unfair to Pay CEOs Billions?"


  1. No,it isn't.The market will charge what the market will bear.If the company is stupid enough to renumerate for stasis or loss of profit or share price,then the board should be sacked.

    Reply

  2. I disagree. Board of directors are a scam. Doesn't matter what the company does, the board of directors will give each other raises because of a "back door deal." They take from the working class to pay their salary,bonuses and severance packages..ie.. jack Welch(GE), Mark fields(ford), Greg steinenhof(target), Jared barard(matell) just to name a few. A good portion of these ceos are only with the company a year or two and leave with tens of millions

    Reply

  3. Can we talk about the financial incentive of planned/forced obsolescence? It would seem that the system does have a financial incentive for executives that make decisions that negatively impact their consumers… even when they get caught the penalty is often outweighed by the benefit.

    Reply

  4. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc got rick by exploiting the government granted privilege of patent and copyright protections, after openly flouting such monopolies by copying other people's work.

    Reply

  5. We might as well ask: Is it fair Americans are paid minimum wage while people in parts of Africa struggle to even drink clean water? Why not take 20% of these minimum wages and use it for water facilities in Africa? After all, these minimum wage people live like kings compared the these Africans.

    That's how dumb the question is.

    Reply

  6. I get that you should reward good work, but to say that a CEO who makes the company 15 million extra deserves 10 million of that money is beyond the pale. No one person in a company, even a CEO, can singlehandedly implement change without the dedication and commitment of the rank and file. The idea that it is the CEO alone who earned that 15 million is wrong. I am left with the impression that no percentage of the company's profits is too high for the CEO to take as far as these libertarians are concerned.

    Reply

  7. I think the Prof. hit the nail on the head, is your typical CEO worth the millions they are paid. The general answer is no. The position of CEO if a flawed position out of the gate. A CEO takes other people's money and uses it to make money for themselves, thus their actions are inherently in self interest which almost exclusively runs counter to what is good for the company. Now if a CEO is also a direct owner or chief share holder then their fate is tied directly to that of the company thus the company's well being is in their self interest.

    The bailouts are a perfect example of the failure to perform resulting in a positive financial outcome for the CEO's and upper officers of several companies, where they took the influx of government money as a reward for their poor performance and behavior. This is the inherent flaw to the shareholder system. Once one person no longer has controlling stock then all the shareholders are divorced from the responsibility of what their money does. So the shareholders don't care how they get their interest on their shares, the CEO doesn't care how he gets his pay, most of upper echelon doesn't care how they get their money, only that they get as much of it as they can, and if that is from bailouts at tax payer expense it doesn't matter or is even encouraged.

    This basically leads to a course of self destruction which is why the government should never bail out or subsidize any company or economic area. Such actions only promotes bad behavior and business practices while placing additional strain on the tax paying populace. Ultimately we need a separation of Corporation and State as well as a provision that the government is never allowed to give money directly to any individual or private organization that is does not directly employ or is not buying an item directly from. For companies that are providing services, payment is dispensed AFTER the service is rendered or the item is built and ready, not before.

    Reply

  8. The argument that billionaires shouldn't be paid billions is just a strategy of the political left to get resources from the productive.

    Reply

  9. The problem with Communism is that I work but my neighbor gets to spend my paycheck. The problem with Capitalism is that nobody can tell me how much is too much. Rich people create Charitable Foundations in an effort to redistribute some of their leftover money and that's a good thing but that money often simply gets wasted. There is no answer to the question of how much wealth is too much wealth. Every rich man decides that for himself. That is his privilege. As Solomon said, it's all just part of vanity. Nevertheless, don't covet what is your neighbor's. Create your own wealth. Wealth has value to those who seek it and money is very useful for a multitude of things. Nothing wrong with that. (God is wealthy and powerful – He constructed the Universe and owns everything in it. Is He too wealthy? Is He too powerful?)

    Reply

  10. By convincing the government that they were in trouble, banks got the American taxpayer to invest heavily in their bank and because of contracts with the bank, the CEO got a percentage of that investment. I agree with everything this guy says. After the bank bailout, there was a huge attack on wall street from the left, but people need to understand that there is a huge difference between what happened with the bank CEOs and CEOs in general.

    Reply

  11. What are we going to do about CEOs that make millions that do not create value? Do they not exist? Can we take the millions away, legally? I didn't think so. Well, let's fire that CEO since s/he is not creating value. How easy is that? Does that always happen? What accounts for CEOs performing poorly year after year, but still getting bonuses. None of these issues are addressed…

    Reply

  12. Can anyone name a CEO that gets billions not a one gets that much. When you place items like this in your headline you lose credibility.
    He mentioned government bailout CEO not getting the bonuses. Another one I can think of is if a corp files bankruptcy and the employees do not get their last check neither should those CEOs, and many have received their bonuses while the rank and file have been screwed.

    Reply

  13. But what if the rich as an influence group, through political clout, engages in class warfare importing competition to the middle and working classes through immigration thus driving wages down and prices up ?
    Tbh I think things are a bit more complicated and there are many levels beyond the corporate level for analysis, while capitalism is certainly the best and only viable system, it still has many flaws and unbalances (virtuous cycles for some and vicious cycles for others that can be very hard to get out of despite great efforts)

    Reply

  14. What about when the company produces profits that are detrimental to society such as by increasing prices of life saving medications so that poor people cannot afford them? Should those CEO s still get big huge bonuses? I'm actually just curious what everyone thinks.

    Reply

  15. Freedom means the freedom to be dumb. Fairness and ethics have nothing to do with HOW MUCH CEOs are paid. Fairness and ethics have everything to do with THE FREEDOM of corporations to pay their CEOs any amount of money they want. How much CEOs contribute to the corporation's profits also has nothing to do with fairness and ethics. In a free society every citizen can do any dumb thing he wants as long as he does not violate the property rights of any other citizen. Thus, a corporation could pay its CEO millions of dollars even if he is losing millions of dollars. That would not be unfair or unethical.

    The only unfair or unethical act in a free society is to violate some's property rights. If the government forced a corporation to lower the CEO's pay, the government would be acting unfairly and unethically, because they would be violating the corporations right to do whatever dumb thing that they wanted to do with their money. It is unfair and unethical for the government to have any power at all over the pay of CEOs, or any other citizen. The board of directors should be able to pay a CEO $10 million even if he lost $100 million. The true test of freedom is the freedom to do dumb stuff. That's true free-dumb.

    Reply

  16. I agree that the question is flawed, but I also question what his thoughts are when the company did make the money at the expense of the poor. It's not every instance but it certainly happens.

    Reply

  17. CEO's are the reason that companies hold together. Stockholders provide capital, employees provide labor, but someone has to direct the integration of the two or it's all for nothing. That's a very scarce skill, so it's only natural that people in those positions would be paid that much.

    Reply

  18. CO's in the US are not earning their money. Companies outside of the US pay about 1/10 or less to their COs and get the same profits. What we got here in the US is CO capture of the rule making process. COs appoint the Boards that set their pay and direct the campaign payments to the politicians who make the rules on how they get paid. It's a system that is bad for workers, bad for consumers and bad for the country. One reform that might help is the German requirement that board of directors be made of 50% worker reprentsentives. There the COs work for the good of their stockholders, their workers and their country. Yes US COs are paid to much it is unfair, to workers, consumers, share holders, and the country.

    Reply

  19. I don't have a problem with a CEO making a lot of money. But when they make 40 50 and 60 million dollars running a company that simply raises their price every two years, I do have a problem. When they create a product that everyone can afford I'm all for that. I am referring to satellite and cable TV. The first cable I had was 7.95 a month. When I first got satellite it was 17.95 a month. I personally don't have a problem with a CEO of a non-profit making a decent salary. But my opinion of decent has a limit too. Some are shocked and finding out that these CEOs sometimes make 2 million dollars. By today's standards 2 million is really not much. If they bring value to that company so be it. But I don't believe they should get more than 2 mil. Yes I know, at this salary some do leave to bigger and better things. I have seen too many struggling and dying companies that over pay their CEOs also.

    Reply

  20. Ah, the morality of neo-liberal economics. CEOs get paid huge bonuses even when they are laying off employees, cutting wages and benefits, and exploiting workers in 3rd world countries. And what CEO could ethically justify making $7,000 per hour when half the world's population is making less that that per year? Did that CEO really work harder in that one hour than a year of hard labor as a lumberjack, fisherman, coal miner, ER nurse, soldier, ditch digger, farm worker, etc.? Pure economic fantasy designed to cover up the obvious moral stain on humanity that extreme wealth inequality creates.

    Reply

  21. Ok I understand the view point here but as much as I love to scream free market all day when you have 1% of people with the majority of the wealth something needs to shift. I just don't understand why they deserve that much more

    Reply

  22. This misses the point of why people are upset about CEO it's not how much they're making. It's the ratio of what they're paid compared to the average worker salary. Roughy 271 to 1, is the CEO 271 times more important then an average worker doubtful.

    Reply

  23. When the example pays $10 million to a CEO for a profit of $15 million, there is no way or reason to identify that the CEO is responsible for the totality of the profit. Making decisions is not the sole cause of the profits. That is why there is the concept of Profit Sharing. The profits come also from the work done by every other company employee. And by market forces that are totally outside the company. It is possible to have a CEO make no decisions and the company makes huge sales and huge profits. No assignment of value is completely free from bias, and one that disproportionately values any one employee over another without reason cannot be justified in and of itself.

    Reply

  24. As far as the argument about the CEO pay being 'at the expense of the poor', that is disingenuous. The CEO, as a single individual, is not responsible for the poor, as in all people everywhere. The Company as a unit pays employees as a result of profits made by the company as a whole. It pays them to benefit them all, each and every. When the argument is made that sets one CEO against the whole population of the poor, that is improper. Then again, if all companies have responsibility for all their employees instead of just their CEO, then the working poor would be being addressed and benefited by an appropriate and balanced array of pay. Then the economy as a whole would be improving.

    Reply

  25. "The rich get rich by making us all better off." Yes and no. The issue is not that benefit should be denied the rich, but that they did not create the benefit in a vacuum.
    Remember: "Million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen." That is a fundamental axiom of the business world. Any good idea requires both the follow-through of the originator and the cooperation of a host of others. These others are others within the organization, others in businesses supporting that organization, including through sales and material support, other in government both through direct support and by maintaining corruption free environment. So ultimately, there is not an unfettered right to take profit at a malicious level or to assign profit at a malicious level against the interest and benefit of the full staff of employees. That does not benefit the employees or the economy as a whole.

    Reply

  26. Paying them tens of millions of dollars is worse than unfair, it is inefficient. The difference between a 20 million dollar a year CEO and a one million dollar a year CEO can't really be that significant or likely even measurable. These boards are just throwing shareholder money at a CEO without really understanding the Return on Investment. That money could likely be better used by the company to create value rather than just paying some person a pile of money.

    Reply

  27. Hey it's not a free market when you have the power to hire and fire the people who determines your pay. It's a scratch each others back system in this country between CO's in how pay is set. How do I know? Well where CO's work under other rules in other countries they are not paid nearly as much in similar companies. It's free market there and crony cap here.

    Reply

  28. OK, for people who don't know, CO pay is not set by stock holders buy a board of directors. These board of directors are proposed by other CO's. Yes stock holders vote on these people but choices are determined by the CO's. It's a very corrupt system. Board of directors who do not support the wishes of the CO's do not remain board of directors. This is why the CO pay is so high. Has nothing to do how good these people are. Does this sound like a free market to you?

    Reply

  29. In all honesty i wouldn't tell that last part to anyone who's living paycheck to paycheck.. facts dont matter if the perception is that the rich have benefited the most from the economic progress of the past 50 years. Perception is what causes angry mobs to come to your door and start revolutions. I have heard time and again about how the masses rose up because they thought they were being screwed, but in hindsight the very government or hierarchy was in the process of reforms or adressing the grievances. The American revolution is a good example.

    Reply

  30. Libertarianism is an abstraction bordering dystopia. No pragmatic application in our world, complete lack of basic economic theory, and the same goal as communism, just a different road to get there. Please read and think critically before jumping on a ostensibly 'anti-establishment' ideology that ultimatly works to further entrench social stratification and power divisions in society. There is no such thing as a 'free market', land, labour and money are NOT commodities, the state manages the economy in order for capitalism to function, and capitalists manage the state for the same reason, liberal democracy is not the same as participatory democracy, white men do have more power in society, and libertarianism is the rallying cry of the ignorant.

    Reply

  31. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich by underpaying their employees and overcharging their customers.

    Look at Linus Torvalds as the technology counterpoint. Creator of Linux, he gave away his work. Hundreds of volunteer coders joined him in creating a hugely valuable product. Linux runs the super majority of data centers and super computers. Linux underpins Android OS and Mac OS. What's Torvald's net worth? By recent estimates, around $5 million.

    Reply

  32. No more ceos. Let's democratize the workplace.

    All profit is the unpaid wages of the workers.

    Reply

  33. Horse shit. I am a free market kind of guy, but if we don't start taking criticisms of capitalism seriously, we are going to lose more and more young minds to communism. Plus, CEOs are worthless… they are a boys club of elites who provide next to zero value to a company.

    Reply

  34. Don't buy it!!!! Say what you want to say, the moment you have people making billions and people working 12 hours/day and cannot pay for even basic services, then there's a problem. I'm not saying steal from the rich, I'm saying TAX the rich UNTIL the basic conditions for living like a decent human being are GUARANTEED for any human being that is working for another.

    Reply

  35. Most CEOs today just suck as much money out of the company for themselves and destroy the company in the process then the company is a dried out husk and then go out with a golden parachute

    Reply

  36. … except they do get richer at our expense through unfair tax laws bought and paid for by the same corporations who employ politicians before and after their public “service”

    Reply

  37. Most of profits from a company comes from under paying employees. Large companies can pay their CEO's millions of dollars because they under pay tens of thousands of people. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme in which most employers borrow labor from it's employees at a discounted rate that is created by employers. If a company is not paying it's employees daily then it is borrowing labor from the employee and the employee is actually invested in the company as much as any investor. But laws negate that borrowing recognition. So the government is in on the scam as much as the employer is.

    Reply

  38. I fully agree that it is fine to pay them 10 Mio if there work contributes a value of 15 Mio to the company. Only question is: how do you measure that? There decision will never generate any money on its own. There are a lot of other people involved.

    Reply

  39. let's get rid of the employees who are living under the constant fear of losing their jobs and become not able to make ends meet, and see how much that CEO brings after then.

    Reply

  40. This video conveniently skips past all of the theory that explains what profit is and how it is made. Very short sighted and dumbed down video.

    Reply

  41. CEOs DO NOT deserve that much money. If you fire the CEO, you can keep $10 million and still run a company. Try firing employees who's salary will add up to $10 million (say 100 employees at 100K/year) and see what happens to your company.

    Sorry, but this guy has it wrong.

    Reply

  42. A shallow and lopsided answer about Corporatism that doesn't explore what "good decision" means by "a CEO that makes good decisions that make the company more profit". Explore what that means for a lot of the workers on the floor or the local economy it could be eradicating or a myriad other impacts. What a douche.

    Reply

  43. Just a point on this. I don't disagree with the idea that a CEO who earns big money for a company should be paid big money. However, we must remember two things, firstly, a CEO who fails (and therefore causes the company to fail) doesn't lose any money – there is no 'danger' element to being a CEO. Second – and more important – we need to define how that money is made. Government bailouts are bad, sure. But I would argue that an asset stripping CEO is also bad. As is one who inflates a companies share price so that they can meet targets which boost their own pay. Unfortunately the world at the moment has too many of these types of CEO who understand just how to 'play' the system to boost their own earnings whilst failing the very workers who are earning their huge wages. There are a number of good CEO types who deserve to be very wealthy. We just need some rules to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Reply

  44. Frankly I'm tired of debunking these CEO pay disclosure hit pieces circulating Social Media. I have examined dozens of name brand companies. Netflix is the only company I have seen where the employee base was SMALL enough for redistributing CEO pay to make a noticeable difference in the employee salary at $1500 a year per person. Amazon has so many employees that if you took Bezos' salary and divided it equally your talking a $2 increase per person for the year. Before we get all uppity about CEO pay, do some simple math and Googling. CEO salary of company ______ /number of employees at company _____= ____. For all but 2% of companies you'll find even if you pay the CEO nothing you won't move the salary needle for the rest of the company more than $300 a year per person.

    Reply

  45. … well speaking from the experience of being laid off. Damn straight the CEO of my former employer was paid too much. Any CEO that makes millions … yet "anywhere" in their organization has a layoff…. He / she is paid too much. I get that if a guy/gal can make epic decisions left and right he she should be paid thusly. Problem is they can't.

    Now I'm not for legislation for capping or fixing CEO wages. I'm more for an enlightening of the boards of corporations that are willing to pay for good CEO's but …. willing to lift the entire frigging corporate boat. Tie the CEO salary to the salary of the lowest paid employee. Thusly if CEO does good all do good. If CEO fubar's everybody is fubar'd

    Reply

  46. That's a fair argument, but the problem is that when you get into the territory of big businesses that can pay CEOs billions of dollars, the commensurate wealth they generate for the business is usually crony capitalism. The CEO of a pharmaceutical company that bribes politicians to allow price-jacking will indeed generate wealth for his business, but that will only hurt the people who need the medicine. Sometimes, literally at the cost of their lives.

    Reply

  47. This seems a straw man. The real question is, does the CEO's job really deserve millions of dollars, are they really THAT much more competent than everyone else and that necessary? Ironically, the answer is frequently a resounding no. Many CEOs bankrupt companies, many of them are not even great con artists. You see this in game development companies in particular, but there have been plenty of scandals in finance companies and the like that demonstrate this.

    When a company is laying off thousands of its employees, paying million dollar bonuses to the CEO is just weird. It shows they have plenty of money to splash around, which isn't being used for the business. I mean honestly, would you seriously pay TWO THIRDS of your annual profit to one man? He'd have to be a super man who is holding the company together to justify that. Maybe such people exist, but normally you'd be better off spending 9 million of those dollars to improve your company, raise wagers and hiring standards.

    Reply

  48. Depend. How much do you pay your lowest skill employees ? That is the real question. If they can all live from their wages, they it is ok to pay your CEO as much as you want. Othewise they DO get rich at the expense of the poor

    Reply

  49. From my perspective, the trouble seems to be that CEOs are paid billions to run their companies into the ground. This suggests, not some aptitude for the position, but that he got in through connections. A particular CEO might be worth billions — but probably not if he causes your business to lose money.

    I would argue, though, that companies like WalMart have not made us better off. They have reduced the ability of the common man to make a living. These supposed "job creators" eliminated many other jobs by putting companies out of business. However, the issue of the common man being able to earn a living is a separate issue from CEO pay.

    Reply

  50. The CEO of one company is on the board of others. It's all kept in the upper 1%. Average person will rarely get upper management..

    Reply

  51. I worked for a company that hired a CEO that was given a signing bonus in the eight figures. His name recognition made the company stock go up, but he never focused on the parts of the company that were sick, only what he was familiar with. The company ended up declaring bankruptcy. The new CEO was paid very well, but nothing like the last one, and did common sensical changes to stabilize the company.
    You don’t always get what you pay for.

    Reply

  52. Given what we know now about computers, smart phones, the internet, corporate greed/lies, etc…. I doubt we as a society are really "better off". It depends on how you want to define that term.

    Reply

  53. Two minutes crowded with logical flaws.
    To me the channel name suggests, that liberty is an acronym for logical incompetence bringing extraordinary rubbish to you.

    Reply

  54. This argument has a fatal math flaw:

    1) You assume that WITH the CEO, the company makes ++profit, but without the CEO, the company does not make ++profit. This is an ASSUMPTION. If the company would make ++profit either way, with or without the CEO, then the CEO is not worth their high salary – unless increase in profits by having the CEO is greater than the CEO salary. (hint – if you removed the CEO, the company would still make profits)

    Here is a basic example:

    Acme makes 150M in profit and pays CEO 15M.
    Acme would make 140M in profit – without the CEO.

    Total profit with high priced CEO = 135M
    Total profit without high priced CEO = 140M

    Did Acme make more money with the high priced CEO? Yes.
    Was he worth the pay? No.
    If Acme fired the CEO and kept his pay as profit, would the overall company profit be higher? Yes.

    I suggest you listen to Richard Wolff – he addresses this point many times.

    Reply

  55. ALL DEPENDS??? LMAO! ITS REALLY THIS SIMPLE! IF YOUR AVERAGE WORKER MAKES 30k THEN THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE SHOULD BE PAID 300k: THIS MEANS THAT A PERSON WORKS 10 TIMES HARDER THAN A AVERAGE WORKER WHICH IS NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE. ITS NOT. PERIOD! SO MORE LIES AND PROPAGANDA FROM SOME RICH RACIST OLD WHITE GUY TRUMP LOVING RUSSIAN REPUBLICAN WHO HAS BEEN CHEATING ON EVERYTHING SINCE THEY COULD CRAWL!

    Reply

  56. I wouldn't exactly say Gates and Jobs are good examples, both made a product that visually keeps (kept) getting better but sorely lack in innovation, quality, productivity, security, privacy. Awesome businessmen, poor long term innovators (not going to deny short term innovations). Both Windows and MacOS, are toys if you need to innovate you use Linux.

    Reply

  57. For example the Walmart family. After they made it big another group of CEO's took over and told the Walton family let us run the show. So while the Walton family became Billionaires so did another group of unrelated CEO'S and board members ect too. The Walton family already did it alone. They did without buying anything from China. But to do what they did now. All the other unrelated Billionaires. They had to move it to China. That is not Capitalism that just ……..

    Reply

  58. 'Fairness' only makes sense in certain contexts, for instance when one person or agent (usually an authority) is expected to treat a set of other people or agents (subordinates) a particular way, with an emphasis on a particular form of consistency. So it makes sense for your six year old to complain that "It's not fair" if you spend more on his sister, or something, because they're both your kids and you're expected to treat them the same. (I'm not saying you should treat your kids as equals; just that it's plausible and conventional that you would be expected to)

    Yet in the case of a CEO getting paid billions of dollars (which just doesn't happen as far as I know) compared to poor people, they're doing completely different things. Poor people are either vending fries or sitting on their bottoms watching Jeremy Kyle; CEOs are working their bottoms off doing very clever things with great calibration to reality acquired from courage, honesty and other virtues practiced in exactly the right ways at the right times. And for each CEO in question they don't even work at the same company as "poor people", except for the specific poor people who do work at his company. Why would anyone expect there to be any constraint on the difference in their pay? How does 'fairness' apply here? Who's the common authority? What's comparable in their relation to such an authority? Silly question.

    Reply

  59. The main issue is that CEOs arrogantly believe that they are responsible for all the value created by their companies and thus they deserve 10,000 times more money than any employee. However, the data shows that American workers are about 3 to 4 times more productive than they were a generation ago but their wages have not increased. Meanwhile CEO pay has increased 1000% since 1978. Meaning, the CEOs are effectively siphoning off value created by workers and attributing it to themselves.

    Also "value" just seems to mean an increase in stock price from quarter to quarter. So a CEO can do a stock buy back, close a factory and lay off some workers and see a rise in the stock price in a 3 month quarter. But is this creating real value? And what about the opportunity loss when their isn't investment into R&D or upgrading facilities with the money they've paid themselves? Also, do employers have any responsibility to the society or their workers or is it just a one way deal?

    Reply

  60. To all the communists chatting here: at the end of the day, that's not your decision to make if you have no stake in the business! I dont get to vote on what color you paint your house! Privately accumulated wealth is not subject to the good graces of the voting public. A CEO is not a politician, they are a private employee, paid by private companies or corporations with stockholders. Whoever is deciding their pay has more of a stake in that CEO's success than joe voter does. That billionaire CEO pays more in taxes in one year than the taxes of everyone you've ever known's lifetime combined.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *