Why do American CEOs get paid so much?

You've typed a lot of words to say naff all. Where is your attempt to demonstrate that the significant growth in compensation is worthwhile? Perhaps some sort of DEA analysis looking into inputs-outputs to try and suggest economic efficiency? Where also is your effort to justify the hierarchical changes that are independent of any economic criteria such as division of labour? Perhaps that's the link between the thread and Ben Affleck. You know more about Affleck than the economics.

Now if you wanted to refer to Affleck and try and give a critique that goes beyond monopoly power. You'd have to refer to media economics analysis into blockbusters and how the probability of success changes according to specific 'star'. Good luck with that!

 

As expected. Thanks for demonstrating the point. The interesting thing is you revert to the well worn talking point, "justification that this is all worthwhile.".. Translation, you're but hurt. As for flinging about demanding, why not simply try figuring it out for yourself. Perhaps that's more the issue than not. I know, I have a spoon.. I'm just not interested in using it to feed you.

I'm happy that you failed the Affleck example. I especially enjoyed the word soup "You'd have to refer to media economics analysis into blockbusters" so superficially authoritative.... And yet... The fail is complete. Thanks for participating. (oh, no trophy though...)

 

I think I should be fair. If I ever need to hear whinge and whine about Affleck, you're the man!

 

Because they can. Because they make their owners a lot of money. Because that's what Capitalism is in this country, and pretty much always was. It's a feeding tube pointed at the top sucking up everything from the bottom until eventually there won't be enough left to be a sizable enough fix to sate the addiction to profit.

That's what addiction eventually does. It destroys everything around it at the cost of feeding itself.

 

Compensation though rockets, even if losses are made. The managers I know suffer from a form of unconscious fraud. If there are profits, it's all their doing. If there are losses, it's the fault of external factors beyond their control. They cheat at golf too!

 

If you start a bakery and producing and selling 100 loaves of bread a day, making $0.50 profit per loaf, you would make $50 each day. If you invest your profits into machinery which can produce 1000 times as much per day 100,000 loaves, and reduce the price to where you make $0.25 per loaf you would make $25,000 per day, and maybe hire 10 people to put the ingredients into the proper bins paying them each $10 and hour or $800 per day, leaving you with $24,200 profit per day.
More consumers, more profits. The employees would be making $30 a day more than you were making before your investment which created jobs for them.

 

You've also put another 999 bakeries out of business and 9990 bakers out of work.

 

That's the price of progress. But more likely only 999 bakers put out of work due to the 10 added employees needed to feed the machinery.

 

BWAHAHAHAAA!! I guess that would explain the INVERSE relation between CEO pay and long-term corporate performance:

https://cooleypubco.com/2016/07/25/...n-ceo-pay-and-performance-over-the-long-term/

 

This whole statement is a well written piece. But you are forgetting your audience... There is no "LAYMAN terms" in your writing... Actually difficult for me to read and if so, no McDonald's eating Budweiser drinking person will attempt to, nor understand it.
Your right, tax the hell out of the rich and things will go back to the good days, 1950 - 1985 (when it was destroyed by the rich jews controlling Reagan). They were smarter than the rest, they then moved mfg. plants out of here for cheaper labor.
Today, they know Trumps time is running out, thus, not complaining and have all the money they need. I do too, but have been buying MASS GOLD to cover. Worried about what might happen...
I read Gordon Long a lot, he writes like you, also a brilliant man.... I feel like he, Schiff, Lynette Zang, a little Nomi Prins, make up my teaching... Otherwise, I would be like the rest of the Sheeple !

 

Another stupid post and another stupid "study".

The study includes stock value in CEO compensation - in fact the study talks exhaustively about stock value, and that's wrong. Stock value only matters if the stock is sold, until then it means nothing. And stock value is heavily influenced by all kinds of issued unrelated to company performance (such as talk of tariffs or expected election results).

Next great big failure, while the study calculates CEO "pay" as "stock options, salary, bonuses, restricted stock grants, and long-term incentive payouts", and compares that to company paid worker compensation. To be fair, all worker retirement accounts would also have to be included (that means the value of stocks and bonds the worker owns), plus future value of social security and medicare. Apples to apples.

Total FAIL.

 

Why?

They are so much better than you plebs...

 

The OP states "bosses of the top 350 firms made an average of $18.9m in 2017. That’s a ratio of 312-1 over the median worker in their industries."
$18,900,000 / 312 = $60,576.92 about $29/hr
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median personal income of $865 weekly for all full-time workers in 2017. "
$865 x 52 = $44,980 about $21.50/hr

"The U.S Bureau of the Census has the annual real median personal income at $31,099 in 2016."
$31,099 about $14.90/hr

$60,576.92 - $44,980 = $15,596.92
So the top 350 firms pay their employees about 34.68% more than the average full time employee earns.

 

Cultural and social capital will get you anywhere...

 

Such claims are always false, absurd, and dishonest. By that "logic," the Duke of Westminster's landholdings in London mean nothing because they have been in the family since they were worth a few score pounds 500 years ago; the fact that they are now worth billions, and have made the duke one of the richest men in Britain if not the world, "means nothing" because they haven't been sold.
REALLY???
Such claims are so self-evidently idiotic and dishonest that no amount of refutation on my part could possibly make them seem more idiotic and dishonest than they already are on their face.

 

Because American workers are seen as very little beyond human cattle, peasants, or serfs. Much of the American working class has been brainwashed by crony capitalism or neoconservative capitalism for decades which has virtually suppressed any kind of worker uprising.

Thankfully this disgusting economy is on the verge of destroying itself with all the intellectual idiots and crony capitalists in charge of things, I wish things would speed up a bit in that I'm growing impatient. The evil empire must die....

 

Yeah, it's not like there was a coordinated push to destroy labor unions in the United States starting with the 1970's or a coordinated push for total business deregulation and no oversight on the behalf of workers in the 1980's.

 

If you make a vast majority of people poor self sufficiency is virtually impossible and any society that has no collective will reducing it to mere radical individualism will not survive for very long.

 

Low or no taxation? Ever look at the income taxes of all worker paychecks these days?

Actually in order to have little to no taxation if you're not a corporate conglomerate you need not apply. As an American myself I really have a bone to pick with the cult of individualism.

 

Well if it is any constellation to you I don't like the self indulgence lifestyles of the rich and shameless of Hollywood either although somehow I don't think you will care about such sentiments much.

 

Because economic inequalities causes people to lose all forms of self sufficiency and independence leading into indentured servitude or worse.

On the other hand the extravagant income of Kim Kardashian doesn't effect me much other than feelings of general revulsion.

 

Wow, that's a whole lot of business logistical mumbo jumbo that while certainly interesting from a point of logistics is about much of nothing at all.

Let's get back to the real world, shall we? The real world where people need enough of an income to live or survive off of to advance themselves in and have an equal opportunity to social mobility.

 

Just what percentage of American workers own stock?

Social security and medicare? They'll be financially insolvent way before 2025.

 

You are wrong.

Land means nothing unless it is used. If it just sits there then it is worthless no matter what the appraisal states.

Why is the Duke of Westminster so wealthy? Because he and his ancestors used that land as collatoral for loans and other development projects - a form of selling the land with rights to "buy it back".

If a person buys a house, lives in it all his life and never sells it, then its appreciation means nothing to him.

 

Thats irrelevant. The comparison between the CEO and the employees compared all of the CEO's wealth (salary, bonuses, stock, retirement plan, all benefits) to the employees wages and some company provided benefits (not even all benefits, the study even admitted it). Thats dishonest.

So social security and medicare may not be around for the employees to gain that value. The stock the CEO owns may tank before he sells it and gains that value. If you are going to amortize the employees wealth, you have to amortize the CEO's wealth as well.

Apples to apples.