Do you believe multimillionaire CEOs should take less of a salary and instead distribute that money among their hard-working employees who make minimum wage?
I don't think many understand how many CEO salaries work.
They may make $1 (yes $1, many top CEOs like Google make $1) That doesn't matter, where they make their money is stock dividends, stock options or bonuses.
In fact the CEO can't receive a dime until all salaries and other expenses are paid. Get off Fox and MSNBC and get in a business classroom
That's exactly how it should work. I also think that even the most humble employee of any corporation should be offered stock options as part of his compensation package. Nothing like being personally invested in your company's success to motivate your best work!
Their salaries are ridiculous. Are they worth it? No. They work hard blah, blah, blah.
I know many people who work that hard. Even if CEO's are replaced due to poor numbers, their exit package could feed Haiti. I honestly can't understand people who think this is fair and just.
First off all, I work under a CIO she puts in 16 hour days EVERY day. When was the last time you enjoyed a weekend? She hasn't. Vacation? Only when Markets and courts are closed. Worked until 4:30am after starting 6:30 am? I worked that shift with her last Saturday -> Sunday. Unless you do the job you have no idea the stress and work put in. Oh, the CEO works more than my boss does.
That's because CEOs have a vested interest in making the company succeed. The rest of these commenters just want to reap that benefit without putting in the work.
Yes, I think they should. It's the right thing to do and it's good for business.
I agree, but I object to them being forced to
The fact is it will probably make the CEO wealthier to distribute some of their money among the workforce. They will have happier more loyal employees. Many people will respect the position and will support the business.
And the overall business will do better.
agreed. are there any examples to cite? ben Franklin comes to mind. he prided himself on being able to help another man support his family for many years. but he was not the head of a large corporation.
Walmart and McDonalds both did this in the past year, and both reported profits going up as a result.
I think they should if they want to do so. I think giving bonuses or incentive pay to your best employees is a great decision. But I don't believe the government should force them.
Oh, i should have clarified that i mean it in a moral, not a legal, sense.
In that case, I changed my answer.
Nope. The CEO probably worked hard for what he's got. I believe employees should be paid commensurate with the value they bring a company. I'd be insulted to be paid more than I'm worth out of some misguided sense of charity. I would rather get stock options anyway - a more tangible and satisfying way of measuring what my hard work does.
On principle, perhaps, but it would make little difference in their salaries.
Sure they should. It would be nice of them, but they don't have to and I won't judge them if they don't..
The CEO is the one who created the job for the minimum wage worker. The CEO is the one who holds all the risk. The CEO is the one who worked hardest to start the company, and worked smartest. Everyone thinks CEO don't deserve to be super rich, but they do.
A few problems with this statement: for one the CEO of a company was not necessarily the founder of the company as you stated, further CEO's are not necessarily job creators and many CEO's have negative job creation and fire a lot more people than they hire, also you said CEO's have face more risk than the average worker and that's pretty funny considering that when a CEO gets fired or runs a company into the ground they get multi-million dollar severance packages. That doesn't seem to risky. No one is saying the don't deserve to be rich, but they shouldn't have their salary raised 100x over while everyone else's wages have completely stagnated.
In a capitalist society persons work effort is worth what somebody is willing to pay. That goes for the CEO and the line worker
So should movies stars and athletes and actors and app designers.
Should they? Probably. But that's the companies choice.
Top earning CEOs in the UK got a 10% pay ruse this year, meanwhile most peoples wages have stagnated over the last 5 years (i think the average is a 1% annual pay rise)
yes, same here. is this ok with you?
Not at all
I definitely have more respect for companies that do this. The better you treat your employees the better moral is for your company and makes it a more desirable place to work for.
No. What they do with their money is their business
Yes. I don't mind CEOs making money, but when they can afford to pay their workforce more, they should. Seriously... When you can't do without $20 million and settle for $10 million to keep worker morale high, increase productivity, and give yourself more customers because they can afford to buy stuff... That's just unreasonable.
Should people that make a lot but support few workers like athletes and movies stars contribute more the CEO since they add little to the economy of most people.
As long as they're not exploiting others, I don't really give a crap about their salary.
Why am I working hard only to have to give part of my salary to people who haven't achieved what I have through years of schooling and experience, etc. Is a big salary 50k, 100k, 250k, 2million? Where does it end?
Why are your employees working hard to provide you that huge salary while they struggle just to put food in their kids mouths...
Again, there is no mandate for them to work at my business. I've been in the position of crappy salaries while My bosses made infinitely more. I went elsewhere.
"If my employees don't want to be treated like s**t peons, then they can go elsewhere. Their kids can eat garbage for all I care".....
Think of the children 😭
You're assuming that a CEO is paying people well below value. How much does the fry cook vs manager vs ceo make?
Well, you already stated you worked for some companies that didn't pay you what you believed you were worth, so yes I believe that a lot of CEO's pay as little as they can. Considering it is the physical work and hours spent by these employees that produces the profit then yes they are under valuing their employees. ..
I didn't say they didn't pay me what I was worth. I said they made infinitely more. I went elsewhere for better pay.
Why would you go somewhere for better pay if they were paying you what you were worth? What you deserve? You just sound hypocritical. You deserved more money, but your employees don't.
No. I didn't deserve more. I was paid market rate. I elevated myself to several better positions. Why would you begrudge someone who was doing better than you instead of finding a way up. Unless you are one of these spread the wealth guys that thinks a trade making $18/hour (market rate) should all of the sudden be bumped up to $70/ hour because the CEO is making 200k a year. When the government starts mandating salaries of private businesses, that affects everyone.
First, I don't begrudge someone for risking giving up $18 an hr to better themselves, but to imply (as if to place blame) that everyone can make that same move is ludicrous. Second, I believe that the disparity between the working class pay and the CEO or top "brass" pay is destroying the working class. Sense the working class is the backbone of this country, I believe if not addressed it will eventually destroy this country. Based on your words (attitude) there are not enough CEOs (top brass) willing to voluntarily make a little sacrifice to safe the working class......so what's the answer?
I don't believe it's possible for everyone to make an upward move for many reasons, however, saying its the employer's problem to make sure you are making enough to support your family and should be mandated to do so is a very bad idea. We are either for private business or we aren't. We can't mandate maternity leave with pay, CEOs to give employees more money, etc. that's something that should be solely at the discretion of the company. Does anyone take personal responsibility anymore? And no, I'm not a CEO and have no desire to be one but we need to be real clear about how much government regulation we want in private business. And if you have an issue with private business, let's talk about government run entities and the too heavy salaries of those places. I don't have a solution but to put the responsibility on the worker to find a better job. Eventually losing talent will impact the business negatively. Let the market sort it out.
Let the market work it out....lol
The market is part of the problem. The market doesn't control society/economy. The market is controlled by the rich and powerful in order to control society/economy. ....
False! The market is controlled by consumers, not producers. The demand of the consumer influences the supply produced by the producers. The ratio of demand to supply produces the cost and quantity of products. You then compare that to breakeven points when factors (variable (like labor and raw materials) and fixes (machines and buildings) costs) are added in. The more your costs go up, the more you charge for goods.
There is a whole study of what controls the market. It's called "economics"
DRJ are you a socialist?
MJ, I figured saying something negative about the "market" would get a response. After all, thats like blasphemy to a greedy capitalist. Also, thinking that the market isn't manipulated by the rich and powerful is as naive as thinking government/politicians aren't manipulated by the rich and powerful. ...
Mrscrayon, if wanting to remove some of the selfish, money worshipping greed thats imbedded in capitalism from society and add a little compassion, caring, and morality, makes me a socialist, then call me socialist. ...
But you want to force it by law, not allow it to happen organically and I ask, how much is too much? What's your definition of the lowest threshold of a ceo making too much? Eventually, that spreading of wealth comes down to you as well and you may also be viewed as greedy for making $3 more than someone else. Would you be ok with sacrificing in the name of compassion when you're trying to feed your kids?
Well, I never said I "wanted" to force CEO's/owners to take a cut in pay to pay their workers more. I would prefer it if they realized it would be better for business, the economy and society as a whole, to take a smaller portion of the profit and pay their workers more. But I understand that discussing the disparity of pay with CEO's/owners is as futile as discussing the problems in politics with politicians. .....so its been fun, but good day.....
You can have yours and give a little bit more back to your employees whose work gives you your profits.
I dont want to make it a law, I just think it would be a good thing. Some companies do take care of their people and shockingly still turn a very good profit, it can be done.
No way, what's the point of desiring success if you're supposed to give it away.
I want mine.
Because your success is based on the hard work of your employees. ..
They're lucky to have a job. Success is based on employees but that doesn't mean they should be paid more just to make it more "fair". If they earn it, they'll get a raise. The CEO has to answer to the stockholders first. If their dividends go down consistently, the CEO gets fired. They make high risk decisions that determine the success of the stockholders and all employees, whereas the employee comes in, flips burgers, and goes home. If the employee doesn't like it, I'm sure other companies are lined up just to give them more money.
Flips burgers. ...ha ha... shows your ignorance. There are plenty of people working in jobs that require a lot more skill than "flipping burgers" that work 40+ hours a week and have for years without anything more than maybe .50 raise. Making just enough to live paycheck to paycheck. Check the stats and see the % of people living paycheck to paycheck. Of course people like you blame the victim.
Are you going to be ok? McD is a corporation, good try though. Keep crying, I'm sure you'll get that raise if you whine hard enough.
It's ironic that it's the people that feel they need to defend the "victims" of the world are the first to insult those that disagree with them.
Bbbbbut the children!
Yes, McDonalds is a corporation. One with huge profits that could afford to pay their employees more. But you use them for your argument because you mistakenly believe those jobs are being done by teenagers who don't need to be paid more. But the facts are that those jobs and most minimum wage jobs are being taken up by older people, over half are over 30, because there just aren't enough full time jobs out there they pay a decent wage thanks to CEO's that need to guarantee their huge salaries.
I never claimed that they're only done by teenagers, that's not my argument at all. If the people at the lower waged jobs want more money, they can negotiate a better deal, go elsewhere, or gain training. It's not up to the government, you, or myself to tell a company what they should pay. As someone who owned a business, saved, sold it, then used that money to buy a house and put myself through school - I'm a big fan of capitalism. You can write in Bernie if you wish, but companies don't need more regulations.
Well, if you were a CEO at one time then it was up to you to decide what your employees were paid. Your arguments put all the blame on the employee and none on the employer (CEO), of course being as you was one I can understand why......everone don't have the option of negotiation, leaving or the training. Plus, I've known several that have tried all 3. They were denied, out of work and no benifit from the training except in title only.....
I was a small business owner, not a CEO. There's similarities, but I just wanted to clarify. I don't "blame" anyone, but I believe in people taking responsibility for themselves. I don't want any handouts and I'd resent the government forcing me to give handouts to others. As MrsCrayonWax stated above, let the market sort it out.
Not talking about handouts. Talking about people with a conscience reevaluating the CEO's worth to a company and the workforce's worth to a company and adjusting (reducing) the insane/inhumane disparity between pay. CEO's taking personal responsibility for their part in the destruction of the working class.....
Who exactly "reevaluates the CEO's worth to a company and the workforce's worth to a company"? Are you against the owners (stockholders) that currently do this? Are you against the CEOs making those stockholders money?
I guess it would be the owners responsibility too evaluate. So, that would have been you. I don't know what size the company was you owned or how many "employees" you had, but I'm sure if all those employees walked out together it would take you longer to get your business producing again than it would if your ceo left.....
Of course it would be bad if either the workers or the CEO (or owner) walked out. It's a symbiotic relationship where both are needed. If I closed shop, the people would lose their jobs. If they walked out, I'd lose mine. There's no "bad guy" in the relationship. Sure, I got paid more, but I provided jobs for many people. They're thankful to me and I am to them.