Is the average CEO Worth 169 Average Canadians?
andyt @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:39 pm
$1:
If everyone in Canada earned the CEO average, we could reduce the population of the whole country to around 202,000 (about the population of Saskatoon on the 2006 census) and still have the same total income.
This article is based on the percapita income of Canadians being 31k. Since grade schoolers don't earn near that much, and the CEO's are distorting the average upward, it takes a lot more than 169 average working Canadians to make what one CEO makes.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:50 pm
So what? How many average Canadians does it take to equal the incomes of actors, hockey players, CBC news anchors, and etc?
People get paid according to their abilities and their roles. If you don't like an average income then start doing exceptional work. 
andyt @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:00 pm
At one time we had a pretty good country, where neither CEO's, nor actors or hockey players made so much more than the average Canadian. Seems to me the country was a lot better place to live in then. Same for you guys. In the 60's the CEO's made 25 times more than their average employee in the US, (now it's 400 times as much). The country didn't collapse because no competent CEO's could be found to work for such a pittance. Actually the country ran a lot better than it does today.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:19 pm
andyt andyt:
At one time we had a pretty good country, where neither CEO's, nor actors or hockey players made so much more than the average Canadian. Seems to me the country was a lot better place to live in then. Same for you guys. In the 60's the CEO's made 25 times more than their average employee in the US, (now it's 400 times as much). The country didn't collapse because no competent CEO's could be found to work for such a pittance. Actually the country ran a lot better than it does today.
At the outset of the 1960's there was little reason for anyone in the USA to make too much money as we had a 98% tax rate on top incomes.
Arguably, the country (yours or mine) did not collapse because there was little fudge room between minimal and maximum economic output. With reduced tax rates (for the record, it was the Democrats under Kennedy who still have the record for the biggest tax cuts in US history) the economy surged but then what caused a recession in the 1970's was the foreign trade imbalance....something we're now going to have to deal with.
All of that aside, economic growth allowed for economies of scale. Professionals of all sorts earn radically more money now than they did in the 1960's.
But you seem to be singling out CEO's for your attentions, why?
hurley_108 @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:30 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
But you seem to be singling out CEO's for your attentions, why?
Because they seem to do little to no work of tangible value; always earn money hand-over-fist whether their company is growing or shrinking; whether their workers are employed or getting laid off, getting raises or wage-rollbacks or cuts to benefits; and even when they're engaging in illegal activities seem to stand an excellent chance of buying their way out of jail. Earned, or unearned, that's the perception.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:49 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
But you seem to be singling out CEO's for your attentions, why?
Because they seem to do little to no work of tangible value; always earn money hand-over-fist whether their company is growing or shrinking; whether their workers are employed or getting laid off, getting raises or wage-rollbacks or cuts to benefits; and even when they're engaging in illegal activities seem to stand an excellent chance of buying their way out of jail. Earned, or unearned, that's the perception.
Funny, but aren't you one of the chorus that always reminds me that I should not paint all muslims with the same brush? Yet here you are condemning all CEO's while it's a scant minority that have made headlines.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
But you seem to be singling out CEO's for your attentions, why?
Because they seem to do little to no work of tangible value; always earn money hand-over-fist whether their company is growing or shrinking; whether their workers are employed or getting laid off, getting raises or wage-rollbacks or cuts to benefits; and even when they're engaging in illegal activities seem to stand an excellent chance of buying their way out of jail. Earned, or unearned, that's the perception.
A few things...
1. I am not nor will I ever be a CEO.
2. I am not sure what all CEO's do, but I do know they have an extraordinary number of stress related diseases and I am sure I would not trade my job for theirs.
3. A CEO's principle job should be to grow their company and return a profit to their investors. A private firm is not a social welfare agency so the employment of labor is an aspect of a CEO's job, but not their main purpose. And bear in mind I've been laid off five times in the past ten years.
4. Illegal activities should be prosecuted and the failures of the government to treat CEO's the same way they would any other criminal is a failure of our justice systems and not private enterprise.
5. I've long advocated that the executives of any publicly traded company should be barred from raises or bonuses for five years after rank and file employees are laid off or have their wages reduced. They absolutely should not be rewarded for inflicting misery on their employees, even when it is the right thing to do.
Thanos @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:39 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
But you seem to be singling out CEO's for your attentions, why?
Because they seem to do little to no work of tangible value; always earn money hand-over-fist whether their company is growing or shrinking; whether their workers are employed or getting laid off, getting raises or wage-rollbacks or cuts to benefits; and even when they're engaging in illegal activities seem to stand an excellent chance of buying their way out of jail. Earned, or unearned, that's the perception.
Word. The CEO's and other slime in the executive ranks are the last ones to suffer when things go bad. And when things go bad, usually thanks almost entirely due to the idiotic decisions the executive ranks have made, they get bailed out with massive severances while everyone else is permanently laid off and the company is effectively destroyed. And then they get hired somewhere else by more of their frat brothers at another company where they do the same deliberate cannibalization there that they've done elsewhere.
Fuck 'em, and put the lot of them up against a wall somewhere.
bootlegga @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:42 pm
andyt andyt:
At one time we had a pretty good country, where neither CEO's, nor actors or hockey players made so much more than the average Canadian. Seems to me the country was a lot better place to live in then. Same for you guys. In the 60's the CEO's made 25 times more than their average employee in the US, (now it's 400 times as much). The country didn't collapse because no competent CEO's could be found to work for such a pittance. Actually the country ran a lot better than it does today.
Hockey players might have been paid the same salaries as everyone else, but they weren't happy about it. Back then, owners paid the players (and studios paid actors) peanuts and made millions off of their hard work. The only difference now is that workers share in some of the spoils.
Given your attitude of re-distributing wealth (in the immigration thread), I'd expect that you think the current situation is better than it used to be.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:46 pm
Thanos Thanos:
Fuck 'em, and put the lot of them up against a wall somewhere.
Including these four guys?
• Fuad El-Hibri is CEO of BioPort, the only U.S. maker of anthrax vaccine.
• Houssam Salloum is CEO of Axiolog, a Detroit firm developing a high-tech system for tracking international cargo into vulnerable U.S. ports.
• Nafa Khalaf is CEO of Detroit Contracting, which after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 secured the five major treatment plants that supply water to 4.5 million residents of the Detroit area. Khalaf, 50, emigrated from Iraq in 1986, and his company is now working to protect water plants in Iraq.
• Ahmad Mesdaq, owner of businesses in San Diego including a coffee lounge and cigar factory, this summer will launch an auto registration system in his native Afghanistan that will help authorities stop widespread shipments of explosives and drugs by warlords. Getting Afghanistan back on its feet brings security to the USA, he says.
Oh, and while you're at it be sure to line up some of the girls...
•Catherine Elizabeth "Cathy" Hughes
•Muriel "Mickey" Siebert
•Mary Kay Ash
•Marjorie Scardino
•Shelly Lazarus
•Meg Whitman
•Andrea Jung
•Cathleen Black
•Anne Mulcahy
•Brenda Barnes
desertdude @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:12 pm
I know a few CEO's of some decent sized companies and owners of meidum sized bussiness and a vice president of a bank. Most have worked hard throughout their life to reach where they are today. Thats why you wont see many mid 20's to mid 30's CEO's excluding the people who came up with a fancy website at lunch time and sold it for billions six months back. Those are the exceptions rather than the norm.
Usually they are very good at what they do and think differently than you and me and can handle high stress, tight deadlines and so a billion things at a time. And experince does count for a lot. Some of might think they don't do much work or any real hard work but they do just in a different way.
Having said that I do agree there are some nicomp poops out there and also agree that those huge bonuses and bail outs they get are ridiculas. And thats what kind fucks it up aswell I think.
Most are so well cushioned that even if they fuck up big time that they still end up with a lot of stash even after getting fired. Not to mention all the stash they have collected over the years. So I guess that could lead them to becomming careless " Hey whats the worse that can happen and even if it does I'm all good "
Tony Hayward anyone ?
andyt @ Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:54 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
At one time we had a pretty good country, where neither CEO's, nor actors or hockey players made so much more than the average Canadian. Seems to me the country was a lot better place to live in then. Same for you guys. In the 60's the CEO's made 25 times more than their average employee in the US, (now it's 400 times as much). The country didn't collapse because no competent CEO's could be found to work for such a pittance. Actually the country ran a lot better than it does today.
Hockey players might have been paid the same salaries as everyone else, but they weren't happy about it. Back then, owners paid the players (and studios paid actors) peanuts and made millions off of their hard work. The only difference now is that workers share in some of the spoils.
Given your attitude of re-distributing wealth (in the immigration thread), I'd expect that you think the current situation is better than it used to be.
Oh right, my heart bleeds for high income earners while saying fuck you to the poor guys at the bottom who are worse off than they used to be. I say redistribute wealth from the bottom up, but you seem to have bought into that necon bullshit that the rich are suffering - like those billionaires that are funding the Teabaggers.
CanadianJeff @ Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:10 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So what? How many average Canadians does it take to equal the incomes of actors, hockey players, CBC news anchors, and etc?
People get paid according to their abilities and their roles. If you don't like an average income then start doing exceptional work.
People get paid according to their abilities and their roles. If you don't like an average income then start doing exceptional work.
Oprah gets paid more then the President of the united states.
I'm sorry but this argument fails before it even begins. The people making the big bucks do so because they have connections or got the lucky card.
there are some for sure that have earned their way to the top of the chain but it's ignorant to paint them all with the same brush.
It's more accurate to say that the "average" paycheck is no longer really enough for people to get by sometimes and that's a total issue that deserves to be addressed.
Chumley @ Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:42 am
To the original question. No, they aren't worth it.
bootlegga @ Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:00 am
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
At one time we had a pretty good country, where neither CEO's, nor actors or hockey players made so much more than the average Canadian. Seems to me the country was a lot better place to live in then. Same for you guys. In the 60's the CEO's made 25 times more than their average employee in the US, (now it's 400 times as much). The country didn't collapse because no competent CEO's could be found to work for such a pittance. Actually the country ran a lot better than it does today.
Hockey players might have been paid the same salaries as everyone else, but they weren't happy about it. Back then, owners paid the players (and studios paid actors) peanuts and made millions off of their hard work. The only difference now is that workers share in some of the spoils.
Given your attitude of re-distributing wealth (in the immigration thread), I'd expect that you think the current situation is better than it used to be.
Oh right, my heart bleeds for high income earners while saying fuck you to the poor guys at the bottom who are worse off than they used to be. I say redistribute wealth from the bottom up, but you seem to have bought into that necon bullshit that the rich are suffering - like those billionaires that are funding the Teabaggers.
You're the one who talks about wealth re-distribution all the time...well, these days the NHL has it. The players take home about 46% of revenues and the owners get the rest.
I'd think you would look at it as a step in the right direction. Or do you actively want workers to control the means of production, comrade?
