4 ms·

This is due to the increase of stock based compensation and an accounting change. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/02/05/465747726/-682-when-ceo-pay-exp

by nojito 6y ago

This is due to the increase of stock based compensation and an accounting change. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/02/05/465747726/-682-when-ceo-pay-exploded https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/02/05/465747726/-682...

bluescrn 6y ago
And ever-increasing selfishness and greed.
- nojito 6y ago
  Not really no...Companies typically don't want to lose their CEOs so with the accounting change they are incentivized to give out larger and larger stock comps. Combine that with the rocketship of the market these past 20 years....
- saas_sam 6y ago
  If you were a CEO and your board & investors thought you were worth $50M a year, presumably you would decline that out of selflessness and insist upon a much more reasonable living wage?
  - lgierth 6y ago
    Many people would, but I assume they wouldn't be considered CEO material.
  - ordinaryradical 6y ago
    The real question is why the board continued to increase executive compensation to such staggering ratios.... until you realize that boards are made up of networks of other executives, and there is a large "upward current" to reward one another and thereby boost ones own salary. But your question is really inane. It's not about the individual choice to accept compensation, it's about a system for corporate advancement that creates such pressure for outsized wages at the top.
    - spurdoman77 6y ago
      The boards try to maximize ownership value, and I think they genuinely believe thar if they give CEO the stock options that is also making the stock price to go up on average.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Pointing to a single person and declaring that to be where the failing is and that to be the source of the inequality we're seeing here is insufficient. There's a real chance that the board has actively refused to allow increase in the lower level people's wages at the company. It's not just that the guy at the top makes a lot extra, but also that the people at the middle and the bottom don't.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Hand-selected by the CEO from a surprisingly small of cadre of cronies. The FOAF graph of board directors is Hapsburg level inbred.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I certainly would. But I love the idea of worker co-ops. Hell, I'd be looking for ways to select suppliers based on their CEO comp ratios.
  - hogFeast 6y ago
    If you were CEO that was worth $50m/year why would you work for anyone else? I have met almost no CEOs who were actually skilled AND were happy working for someone else. If you are worth $50m/year to the company, you are worth substantially more if you take that money and started your own company (the reason why most CEOs don't, and all the good ones do is because most CEOs are terrible).

by nojito 6y ago

bluescrn 6y ago

And ever-increasing selfishness and greed.

nojito 6y ago
Not really no...Companies typically don't want to lose their CEOs so with the accounting change they are incentivized to give out larger and larger stock comps. Combine that with the rocketship of the market these past 20 years....
saas_sam 6y ago
If you were a CEO and your board & investors thought you were worth $50M a year, presumably you would decline that out of selflessness and insist upon a much more reasonable living wage?
- lgierth 6y ago
  Many people would, but I assume they wouldn't be considered CEO material.
- ordinaryradical 6y ago
  The real question is why the board continued to increase executive compensation to such staggering ratios.... until you realize that boards are made up of networks of other executives, and there is a large "upward current" to reward one another and thereby boost ones own salary. But your question is really inane. It's not about the individual choice to accept compensation, it's about a system for corporate advancement that creates such pressure for outsized wages at the top.
  - spurdoman77 6y ago
    The boards try to maximize ownership value, and I think they genuinely believe thar if they give CEO the stock options that is also making the stock price to go up on average.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Pointing to a single person and declaring that to be where the failing is and that to be the source of the inequality we're seeing here is insufficient. There's a real chance that the board has actively refused to allow increase in the lower level people's wages at the company. It's not just that the guy at the top makes a lot extra, but also that the people at the middle and the bottom don't.
- specialist 6y ago
  Hand-selected by the CEO from a surprisingly small of cadre of cronies. The FOAF graph of board directors is Hapsburg level inbred.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I certainly would. But I love the idea of worker co-ops. Hell, I'd be looking for ways to select suppliers based on their CEO comp ratios.
- hogFeast 6y ago
  If you were CEO that was worth $50m/year why would you work for anyone else? I have met almost no CEOs who were actually skilled AND were happy working for someone else. If you are worth $50m/year to the company, you are worth substantially more if you take that money and started your own company (the reason why most CEOs don't, and all the good ones do is because most CEOs are terrible).