4 ms·

i think you could do a bit of searching and find your ansewr if you were curious. “It used to be that in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, CEOs made 3.3 times what a to

i think you could do a bit of searching and find your ansewr if you were curious. “It used to be that in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, CEOs made 3.3 times what a top 0.1% earner made. Now, it’s more than six times,” says Mishel. “CEOs now are making 351 times that of a typical worker, but back in 1978, it was only 31 times. In 1989, it was 61 times.” My background is financial services. So here's a question for you. If the banks are big on outsourcing, and a Canadian bank CEO makes 10+ Million a year while the CEO of the largest banks in the world earns just $185,000 Would it make sense to remove the $10 million dollar CEO and outsource the position? Why does the CEO of a bank which is 10x the size earn less? How many "low level" positions need to be outsourced to equal the CEO's compensation? It isnt up to the employees to determine CEO compensation, it is the board of directors job. The issue is they all sit on one another boards and it is highly nepotistic. Also, once one CEO gets a hike, everyone knows becaues this is public info and they all want matching hikes. Lastly, COVID19 resulted in a lot of companies losing a lot of money, many people losing their jobs, buy why was CEO salary up?

missedthecue 4y ago
A CEO's job is to build and maintain relationships with Wall Street, the customers, and the government. Outsourcing makes all of that harder or impossible.
- kennend3 4y ago
  Explain how they were meeting anyone during the COVID19 lockdowns? Video calls? those can be done offshore... Using your logic, they accomplished nothing during the covid19 lockdowns as hey were unable to meet anyone? it is rare a bank CEO meets anyone, they sit in their podium, out of reach of all but the top most layer of management. This is why they have a CFO, who often does the shareholder meetings, etc.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    Covid-19 was an exceptionally difficult time. Many weren't able to do these things. This is why most CEOs of fortune 500s are back on the road again.
eesmith 4y ago
I think that highlights a missing factor in daenz's question. If the highest tax bracket is 100% then there's no reason for a CEO to want a higher income, as it will all go to taxes. In 1960, the highest tax bracket was 91%, for incomes above $200K (that's $5.6M in Y2022), or filed single or separate) or 300K ($2.9M in Y2022) for married+joint. A CEO in the highest bracket would have to justify a $10K raise that cost the company $100K. While the highest bracket now is 37%, for those making $314K or above. Asking for a $100K raise only costs the company $160K. I think that's an easier sell. So another way to affect CEO compensation is to raise the income (and wealth) tax rate.
- dlor 4y ago
  You're assuming the pay is cash. Most CEO (and high level executive) compensation is stock, which is taxed much differently from salaries. The tax brackets have very little effect.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    While you are right (salary, bonus and other cash compensation was $4.1 million, while total pay package is $14.7 million), A) I did write "income (and wealth) tax rate", B) capital gains taxes have also decreased, and C) my main point is that if we tax the rich more, then daenz's question effectively disappears.

missedthecue 4y ago

A CEO's job is to build and maintain relationships with Wall Street, the customers, and the government. Outsourcing makes all of that harder or impossible.

kennend3 4y ago
Explain how they were meeting anyone during the COVID19 lockdowns? Video calls? those can be done offshore... Using your logic, they accomplished nothing during the covid19 lockdowns as hey were unable to meet anyone? it is rare a bank CEO meets anyone, they sit in their podium, out of reach of all but the top most layer of management. This is why they have a CFO, who often does the shareholder meetings, etc.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Covid-19 was an exceptionally difficult time. Many weren't able to do these things. This is why most CEOs of fortune 500s are back on the road again.

eesmith 4y ago

I think that highlights a missing factor in daenz's question. If the highest tax bracket is 100% then there's no reason for a CEO to want a higher income, as it will all go to taxes. In 1960, the highest tax bracket was 91%, for incomes above $200K (that's $5.6M in Y2022), or filed single or separate) or 300K ($2.9M in Y2022) for married+joint. A CEO in the highest bracket would have to justify a $10K raise that cost the company $100K. While the highest bracket now is 37%, for those making $314K or above. Asking for a $100K raise only costs the company $160K. I think that's an easier sell. So another way to affect CEO compensation is to raise the income (and wealth) tax rate.

dlor 4y ago
You're assuming the pay is cash. Most CEO (and high level executive) compensation is stock, which is taxed much differently from salaries. The tax brackets have very little effect.
- eesmith 4y ago
  While you are right (salary, bonus and other cash compensation was $4.1 million, while total pay package is $14.7 million), A) I did write "income (and wealth) tax rate", B) capital gains taxes have also decreased, and C) my main point is that if we tax the rich more, then daenz's question effectively disappears.