# CEO's pay -- 300 times regular folks'! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259 "2015-06-23T16:59:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/81 "2015-06-24T17:28:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > He’s not talking about typical CEOs, if such a thing exists. He’s talking about all of them. It is true that all John has to do is offer one counter example and Dibbs’s point is undone. And while other arguments could have been made, they were not. In judging the quality of posts, you are giving more credibility to the person who thinks CEOs are some fat cat group of mustache twirling martini drinking evil doers whose first order of business is to screw over janitors, over the person who consistently demonstrates reasoned approaches to any multitude of issues, and has presented real world examples to illustrate the point being made. It’s your assessment to make, I just think it’s lopsided. I agree that Dibbs’ post was not very accurate. I’ve already said that. But that doesn’t mean John’s counterpost “won” the argument by default. Suppose the exchange had been: “It’s a fact that CEOs routinely sacrifice kittens to Baal and make their decisions based on reading the entrails.” “Louise Rainer became the first person to win consecutive Oscars by being named Best Actress for 1936 and 1937.” You could note that the first statement was false and the second statement is true. But that doesn’t mean that the second statement disproved the first statement. The second statement did not establish the logical connection with the first statement that would make it capable of proving or disproving it. As for your other point, I will readily concede to it. I was addressing the posts not the people who wrote them. ---
**Author:** ![Dibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dibbs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/82 "2015-06-24T17:35:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It certainly isn’t true that CEO compensation at large companies is proportional to their worth to the company. It might be correlated, but it isn’t proportional. If it were proportional, then a CEO who caused the company to lose money would also lose money. Not just get rich slower, but have to actually pay money back. If that were the case, if CEOs actually had a stake in the game, then I for one wouldn’t see any grounds to complain about how much they’re paid. Hmm that’s a pretty interesting comment there, thanks!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/83 "2015-06-24T17:41:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You could note that the first statement was false and the second statement is true. But that doesn’t mean that the second statement disproved the first statement. The second statement did not establish the logical connection with the first statement that would make it capable of proving or disproving it. I think this is the source of the disconnect. I think you are interpreting John’s dismissal in post #12 as him claiming he’s disproved Dibbs’s claim. Au contrair - I think what John was going for was dismissal as unworthy of time, rather than disproving. More like, someone saying the Earth is flat. If someone said that, I may ask them if they’ve completed a 1st grade level of education. I could ask if they were actually born in the year 1400 and have traveled here by time machine. If they aren’t a time traveller, or have not yet completed 1st grade level education, then I can reasonably conclude the discussion would not be fruitful. The concepts required to understand why the claim is false will not be understandable to such a person. I’m not claiming that I’ve disproved the claim that the Earth is flat - I’m saying the entire discussion is worthless. The question is a qualifier. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/84 "2015-06-24T17:45:46Z")
Ultimately this whole thing comes down to a conceptual difference in how people think workers should be valued in the workplace. On one side, you have the people who defend the status quo, and that’s basically that everyone should be paid what the market will bear, based on their skills and experience, subject to things like minimum wage laws. The really highly paid CEO is fine under that theory, in that clearly the board perceives these people to be worth that astronomical salary. The second school of thought is more collective, in that it has a sort of theory that workers are somehow equal in both dignity and in their jobs, and that pay should be a lot flatter as a result, or maybe more like equal profit sharing should be mandatory. This one, to me, seems a little underdeveloped, and more sour-grapesish than anything else. Essentially a variant on the “Crabs in the pot” problem. There’s also a separate concept going on about the idea that because they’re highly paid, that they should somehow be held more accountable than merely being fired if they underperform. This one also isn’t too developed, and seems to be just outrage that someone can get paid millions of dollars, suck at their job, and just get fired, the same as some minimum wage schlub. Again… sour grapes. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/85 "2015-06-24T18:33:23Z")
> [@Dibbs](#): > > Not so fast! Jobs CREATED (along with that other guy) And then he sold it to the market. And then the shareholders and the board asked him to come back and be the CEO. The shareholders elected the board and the board determined how much Jobs should make as the CEO. It wasn’t the customers nor the rest of the workforce or the general public. Those complaining about CEO pay have as much right to complain about a CEO’s pay, if they aren’t a shareholder, as any of you have a right to complain about the color of your neighbor’s underwear. ---
**Author:** ![Dibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dibbs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/86 "2015-06-24T18:38:40Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > OK, so do you agree that a horrible, no good, very bad CEO could completely ruin a company and potentially destroy billions of dollars of value? We all seem to be in agreement that there are plenty of absolutely horrible CEOs who have caused a lot of harm for everyone, right? > > Now, if someone came to you and said they were able to 100% absolutely guarantee that they were not a horrible, no good, very bad CEO, how much would you pay them to run your company? It would be a lot, right? Because you could be avoiding Billions of dollars in losses with a guarantee like that, we all agree that person should be hired, instead of the awful CEO, even if they cost a lot, right? Like, hundreds of millions of dollars a lot, right? That’s an absolute bargain even at $100M! > > Now, of course, nobody can make that guarantee or the world would be a lot simpler and we wouldn’t have any horrible CEOs but what if a person came to you and said he had even 10% less of a chance of not being a horrible CEO and you believed her? Even if she’s only 10% less likely to be a horrible CEO than the next guy, that’s still stillworth, potentially, $10M and still be a bargain. > > That’s the reality of the situation, the job is hard enough and luck plays a big enough part that all the best CEO can promise you is they might be 10% better than the next guy at not fucking up. They’re still going to screw up and, in the benefit of hindsight, you’ll still be able to pin the blame on them for not making the right moves but they’re marginally better than the last guy at not fucking up. > > But it’s because the stakes are so high that the pay is so high. A janitor, no matter how bad they are at their job, can’t cause more than a few thousand dollars of damage before they get fired. A bad CEO could potentially cause [billions of dollars](http://fortune.com/2015/02/26/sears-earnings/) in damage and so you’re willing to pay millions for the guy who’s just a hair better than the other guy. Actually, that’s not quite right. A janitor of the malcontent variety has the power to undermine the morale of a company over the course of time by means of using “feelers.” Bathroom situation: Jim the office worker walks in to pee while Gibbs is removing gum from a urinal. Gibbs: Morning, Jim. Jim: Good morning, Gibbs. What’s new? Gibbs: Not a lot, other than I’ve been thinking about what the new CEO did and I’m just not sure what to think of it. Jim: Do tell. Gibbs: Well, I overheard some folks at the time clock this morning grumbling about how she apparently got with her fellow board cronies recently and they determined that she should be rewarded $6.4-million for her contributions. Jim: Judas priest!! Tell me you’re joking! She’s only been here for six-months and hasn’t done a thing other than have all those silly “A Peak Performer Goes the Extra Mile to Make sure the Job is Done Right” quips plastered all over the frinkin’ place! Gibbs: That’s what I heard. I guess they feel she’s such a genius that they needed to make sure she doesn’t look for greener pastures. Jim: My gosh, what’s this world coming to? Gibbs: You got me buddy, why I’m just a humble janitor. I just hope that we keep our cheerful attitude around here and not let the greed of those filthy disgusting pigs at the top get the best of us, after all, we’re so lucky to even have jobs in these tough economic times. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/87 "2015-06-24T18:56:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So you assertion is that no CEO’s pay is worth 300x the lowest paid in the company. Do you think you’ve supported that claim? I don’t. No. In fact I said: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am sure there are examples of CEOs worth their weight in gold. Same as we have seen some truly outstanding generals and political leaders in the past. I maintain most of them are not outstanding and at best competent and do NOT deserve 300x the average salary. Those few standouts sure…they deserve it and maybe then some but they are a rare breed. And yes, I have supported my claim. > [@](#): > > I think you have to define how you are determining worth. Some days, I think a Venti Mocha Frappachino is worth the $5 it costs. Other days I think it’s a rip off. What criteria do you use to determine if 300x is worth it or not? Purchasing a coffee is not the same as hiring a CEO. The coffee is paid for with your money. The CEO is paid for by the investors and to some extent the people who buy their products. As has been noted already there is a too cozy relationship with the Boards of Directors of many of these companies and they set the salary. > [@](#): > > You cite a Disney example, but then say that profits surged. Isn’t that a counterexample to the claim you’re making? No. Disney made record profits for fiscal 2014 THEN they went and fired their tech staff to replace them with foreign workers. In the meantime the CEO cashed some of his stock options for a hefty sum. > [@](#): > > If some companies succeed like Apple, Google, or Facebook, why don’t all companies enjoy the same level of success? Do you think it has nothing to do with leadership? Could Microsoft have succeeded without Gates at the helm? It seems silly to think that if the CEO of every company left their position that no company would falter. As I said some CEOs are worth their weight in gold. Apple was turned around by Steve Jobs so Jobs deserves a huge payday. Does Tim Cook who is coasting on the success and inertia left by Jobs deserve a [$100 million payday](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-tim-cook-raked-in-over-100-million-in-2014-2015-1)? Sure Apple is doing very well but I submit it has almost nothing to do with Cook and everything to do with Jobs and the legacy he left. A few weeks ago I [asked about U.S. president Warren G. Harding](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18404440) and suggested he presided over a pretty good time in the US so maybe he got an unfair bad rap as one of our worst presidents. The answer was that Harding was not a good president and he just happened to be president when things were going well anyway. Same kind of idea here. As for Facebook and Google I have no quarrel with the people who started a company enjoying all the success they can get from it. Zuckerberg is CEO of Facebook and he started it and the CEO of Google is Larry Page who co-founded it. More power to them. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/88 "2015-06-24T19:04:22Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > I think this largely comes down to the mismatch between what the general public thinks a CEO is promising and what a CEO is actually promising to a hiring board. No CEO believes they can completely insulate a company from risk or guarantee they won’t lose money, the same way that no poker player, no matter how talented can promise they will win a tournament. So when they fail at doing so, it’s not viewed as a bad thing because it was an expected possible outcome. I think the mismatch comes when a CEO turns in a bad performance (as I have noted previously in this thread) and still gets a big payday…not just big but got a raise (see Jamie Dimon). Or, in an even more tricky way, CEOs can make decisions that can be hugely profitable in the short term while making the company woefully ill prepared for the future (see Dick Fuld). They cash out big time and then retire. Or worse still, actually destroy the company through likely malfeasance (see Jon Corzine) and still expect an $8 million paycheck. (Corzine was eventually found innocent but people think he is about as innocent as OJ Simpson). If their salaries were in lockstep with the health of the company over the long term (say ten years) then I’d have little problem with these salaries. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/89 "2015-06-24T19:12:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think the mismatch comes when a CEO turns in a bad performance (as I have noted previously in this thread) and still gets a big payday (see Jamie Dimon). > > Or, in an even more tricky way, CEOs can make decisions that can be hugely profitable in the short term while making the company woefully ill prepared for the future (see Dick Fuld). > > If their salaries were in lockstep with the health of the company over the long term (say ten years) then I’d have little problem with these salaries. [Yahoo Finance](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/ceo-pay-circus-2013-214028626.html) says that average term at the top is under 5 years: > [@](#): > > First, let’s set some framework. As an important data-point, it has been reported that the average tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO is 4.6 years – about the length of a presidential term. And, the average tenure of all CEOs according to published reports is 8.1 years. [Conference Board](http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2014/04/09/study-ceo-tenure-on-the-rise/) says average tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO was 9.7 years in 2013. [Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2013/03/long-ceo-tenure-can-hurt-performance) says that long tenures are bad: > [@](#): > > New research examines the causes of this cycle and shows that it’s more nuanced than that. We found that CEO tenure affects performance through its impact on two groups of stakeholders—employees and customers—and has different effects on each. The longer a CEO serves, the more the firm-employee dynamic improves. But an extended term strengthens customer ties only for a time, after which the relationship weakens and the company’s performance diminishes, no matter how united and committed the workforce is. So long-term analysis and long-term payout analysis gets difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/90 "2015-06-24T19:14:54Z")
> [@bump](#): > > There’s also a separate concept going on about the idea that because they’re highly paid, that they should somehow be held more accountable than merely being fired if they underperform. This one also isn’t too developed, and seems to be just outrage that someone can get paid millions of dollars, suck at their job, and just get fired, the same as some minimum wage schlub. Again… sour grapes. I think the problem is not that they get paid a lot and then get fired, but they get paid a lot, screw up, and then get fired with massive severance packages. BTW, Bill Gates was worth what he got paid, but is Satya Nadella worth $84 million a year? Maybe wait until he does something useful? Maybe he could scrape by with $20 million a year until then? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/91 "2015-06-24T19:19:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think the problem is not that they get paid a lot and then get fired, but they get paid a lot, screw up, and then get fired with massive severance packages. > > BTW, Bill Gates was worth what he got paid, but is Satya Nadella worth $84 million a year? Maybe wait until he does something useful? Maybe he could scrape by with $20 million a year until then? The severance packages are part of the negotiation. I have a change-in-control agreement in place in case my company gets bought. That way, if they buying firm does not want me, all of my shares will immediately vest and I get 100% of my bonus, pro-rated. I would not have taken the job without that agreement, and most CEOs do the same. Its like complaining about public sector pensions - they were part of the original hiring agreement. If you want to eliminate them, you will be paying more in annual costs to compensate. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/92 "2015-06-24T19:24:41Z")
I don’t see it mentioned above (might be there and I’ve missed it), but it seems like far too many “genius CEOs” work on the principle of taking over, making every change possible to blow the bottom line and stock price through the roof, taking their platinum handshake, and moving on to the next “challenge”… leaving a critically hulled company behind to slowly sink from broken production, manpower, policy and financial choices. Here in Nwingland, a boy genius took over the power company and kicked its financial performance through the roof… in part by effectively eliminating line-maintenance and tree-trimming, which resulted in widespread disaster (10-day power outages for hundreds of thousands of people, repeatedly). He was blustering about how well he’d done and his performance stats all the way into forced early retirement with only part of his parachute. ---
**Author:** ![Dibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dibbs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/93 "2015-06-24T20:01:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > FWIW, what John is saying is pretty clear to me and it seems like you’d have to purposley misunderstand to not get it, but I take you at face value that you are interpreting it in the way you say. > > Dibbs made an outlandish comment about what CEOs do, John responded by asking if Dibbs thought Jobs did that too. If he thought that, then John could reasonably conclude that Dibbs wasn’t prepared to have a discussion at the level John is accustomed (John works in Silicon Valley dontchaknow). This doesn’t mean Jobs is a typical CEO - this is later reinforced since John exhalted the skills of Jobs to save Apple and stated that very few people could have done what he did. > > That is why it’s odd that you would infer John believes that Jobs was typical. It’s not a reasonable interpretation of John’s statements. That’s why he responded so incredulously - because in his mind - and mine btw - your inference is absurd. > > I’m not John, but that’s my take. Like I said, I take you at face value. Might you be a sport and cite the specific “outlandish comment about what CEOs do”? ---
**Author:** ![Dibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dibbs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/94 "2015-06-24T20:05:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I responded to you point for point (or near enough) with citations making my case. > > I have not made empty claims. I have backed them up and engaged in reasoned debate. > > You are the one trying to hand wave it all away as a mere witch hunt. Probably because you’ve got nothing. > > You are defending the indefensible and got called on it. Well said, again.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/95 "2015-06-24T20:09:43Z")
> [@Dibbs](#): > > Might you be a sport and cite the specific “outlandish comment about what CEOs do”? “Those are all good comments. But isn’t it true that CEOs merely get data from someone that collected it and then, after pondering it (with a couple of martinis in the belly), they throoow the dice?” I assume that is the reference. I could be wrong, however. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/96 "2015-06-24T20:14:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think the problem is not that they get paid a lot and then get fired, but they get paid a lot, screw up, and then get fired with massive severance packages. > > BTW, Bill Gates was worth what he got paid, but is Satya Nadella worth $84 million a year? Maybe wait until he does something useful? Maybe he could scrape by with $20 million a year until then? Microsoft’s market cap is 369 Billion, if Nadella is worth .05% to the stock than the next choice for CEO that is worth 185 million to the stockholders. Why put that at risk for a measly 60 million dollars? On the day Steve Ballmer resigned as CEO Microsoft stock increased in value by 18 billion dollars. That shows investors think who the CEO is matters alot for Microsoft. Given the tens of billions of dollars involved trying to save 60 million on a CEO seems penny wise and pound foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/97 "2015-06-24T20:24:03Z")
I still don’t get what sort of standing anyone has to complain about CEO pay. Unless you are a shareholder or a member of the board of directors it’s really none of your business. If you are another employee, then you are just jealous. The only reason the CEO’s pay of publicly traded companies is made public is for shareholder’s and potential investors to understand how the top members of management are compensated to assist in their investment decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Dibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dibbs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/98 "2015-06-24T20:31:07Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > “Those are all good comments. But isn’t it true that CEOs merely get data from someone that collected it and then, after pondering it (with a couple of martinis in the belly), they throoow the dice?” > > I assume that is the reference. I could be wrong, however. Hmm I’m not sure either. But if it is, I framed it as a question and not as a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/99 "2015-06-24T20:37:19Z")
> [@Dibbs](#): > > Hmm I’m not sure either. But if it is, I framed it as a question and not as a statement. Putting “Isn’t it true” in front of it doesn’t mean it’s not an outlandish comment. It represents a ridiculous notion of what CEOs do, even if you were just asking questions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259/100 "2015-06-24T20:46:00Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > I still don’t get what sort of standing anyone has to complain about CEO pay. Unless you are a shareholder or a member of the board of directors it’s really none of your business. If you are another employee, then you are just jealous. > > The only reason the CEO’s pay of publicly traded companies is made public is for shareholder’s and potential investors to understand how the top members of management are compensated to assist in their investment decisions. I posted this before but if you missed it I will post it again: > [@](#): > > The rallying cry of the Occupy Movement was that the richest 1 percent of Americans is getting richer while the rest of us struggle to get by. That’s not quite right, though. The bottom nine-tenths of the 1 Percent club have about the same slice of the national wealth pie that they had a generation ago. The gains have accrued almost exclusively to the top tenth of 1 Percenters. The richest 0.1 percent of the American population has rebuilt its share of wealth back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties. And the richest 0.01 percent’s share has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since the eve of the Reagan Revolution. > > SOURCE: [Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches - Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-03/top-tenth-of-1-percenters-reaps-all-the-riches) So, when 0.01% of the population has the wealth of the bottom 2/3 combined and wages are stagnant and have been for years and jobs are shipped overseas I think it is in everyone’s interest why that 0.1% deserve essentially ALL the benefits while the rest of the population barely holds steady or backtracks. Oh, and you can [see it here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg) that productivity has risen while wages remain stagnant so it is not as if the CEOs are the only ones working hard. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceos-pay-300-times-regular-folks/723259.md?page=6)