facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Arguments for sky-high CEO pay fall flat in face of stark evidence



Published: Fri, May 9, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Arguments for sky-high CEO pay fall flat in face of stark evidence

Debates over whether CEOs for U.S. corporations get paid too much are re-emerging and rightfully so. U.S. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are compensated over 200 times that of their employees.

There are two arguments in defense of these gross salaries. The first is that of supply and demand: very few people can do what CEOs do, so paying them 200 times more than their employees is justified. That’s true. But what this argument fails to note is that executives are paid in the form of salary and equity (ownership in the company).

Given the huge ownership stakes executives have, any salary is excessive. The perfect example is Larry Ellison of Oracle. He owns $45 billion worth of Oracle stock, and is paid $78.4 million in annual salary ($10.74 per second!) on top of that.

The minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. For Larry Ellison and other similar CEOs, a mere $1 of salary is excessive; Ellison can simply sell 1 percent of his shares and retire for life.

Another argument in defense of these salaries is that shareholders and the board set the salaries, and a company is free to choose whatever it wants. But when too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of one class of society (e.g., the top 1 percent, including CEOs), economies stagnate and fail to deliver.

Here are a couple of examples how these salaries are unfair and detrimental to our economy: $78.4 million is 1,742 salaries at a wage of $45,000 year. Ellison’s salary, divvied up among 1,742 families, is far more beneficial to our society than giving it to someone who doesn’t even notice it in his bank account.

And in 2011, the board of JP Morgan voted to increase its CEO’s bonus by 20 percent and slash the wages of thousands of bank tellers by 50 percent. This is called “reverse Robin Hood” — taking money away from those who live paycheck to paycheck and giving it to someone who doesn’t notice the difference.

Kenneth Feinberg, special master of executive compensation, noted that the “populist outrage” over executive compensation has unfortunately made CEOs the “victims”. But he has it backwards. The CEOs aren’t the victims. We the people are.

Hanna Kassis, Chicago

Kassis is a certified public accountant, former Girard resident and former adjunct professor in economics at Youngstown State University.


Comments

1billdog1(1804 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Staggering numbers. I said something similar when a local CEO had a pay increase of 40% and the workers were told the institution didn't have the funds to give them (approximately 300 full time employees) any raise at all for a few years.

Suggest removal:

2tnmartin(311 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

fine. And yes,, it is a big difference. So Bill Gates should be limited to, say, twice what a receptionist makes, is that it, in the interest of "fairness"? And LeBron James should only have been paid the NBA average? YSU's new president should only make twice what an adjunct instructor gets?
We all have encountered people who don't contribute a lick to an organization's success -- any success happens in spite of them, not due to them. They should earn the same as the COO or CEO, is that what I hear?
By the way, the stock options Larry Elison etc get that are noted above are there because that approach was the "judicious recommendation" of "experts" like the writer of the letter. Excuse me if my skepticism shows, but then I've spent more than 30 years fighting the idiots in Accounting and Finance.

Suggest removal:

3Youngstown(19 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The author never really mentioned anything about NBA athletes or YSU's new president. Nor did the author say anything about paying those who "don't contribute a lick of success" the same amount as the COO or CEO. So no, that is not what you heard, that is what you think you heard. The author makes the argument that CEO pay is excessive, and a strong argument at that. What is your argument that those gross salaries are not excessive? Make the argument - don't make straw man arguments and put words in the author's mouth.

Suggest removal:

4youngspartanrepublican(92 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The CEO is the CEO. Who's to say that the leader of a private company isn't allowed to make x amount of money?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes