Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 12, 2014

Economic Policy Institute: Average CEO compensation in the U.S. was $15.2 million in 2013, using a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers CEOs of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, up 2.8 percent since 2012 and 21.7 percent since 2010. From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker's compensation over the same period.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this? Wasn't this why OWS was all occupying and what not? No change and no hope. Great leadership the libs selected for country.

#1 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-06-12 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

No surprise.

#2 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-06-12 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this?"

And you'd be all singing his praises if he had, of course?

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-12 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

In his defense, Obama didn't specify whether he meant "hope and change" for average people or CEOs.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-12 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"No change and no hope. Great leadership the libs selected for country. "

Doesn't get more hypocritical since you supported Willard, who wanted to give even greater tax breaks to the rich.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-12 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

If the company's stock goes up in value then the CEO presumably gets rewarded by direct compensation and/or bonuses. Not unsurprising because the market, as a whole has risen, a lot due to the Fed's pumping more money into the system, so you could say that indirectly the government has caused their pay increases.

#6 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-12 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't get more hypocritical since you supported Willard, who wanted to give even greater tax breaks to the rich.

#5 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Please Nulli, I see nothing wrong with more tax breaks at this point, the end is near right? Might as well let the people spend it........

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-12 11:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"the end is near right? "

Unlikely. The Roman empire declined for centuries. The U.S. might have a few decades in it left.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-12 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Roman empire declined for centuries. The U.S. might have a few decades in it left.

#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

We work at a much faster rate these days, I am guessing 5yrs... technology and all, you know the stuff you hate.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-13 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Nihilists are such cheerful people, eh?

"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
Winston Churchill

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I am guessing 5yrs... technology and all, you know the stuff you hate."

But I bet you're still putting money in your 401K so really you don't even believe your own posts.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-13 06:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

This can't be fixed. The owner of the Hornets might cry racism.

#12 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-06-13 07:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If the company's stock goes up in value then the CEO presumably gets rewarded by direct compensation and/or bonuses. Not unsurprising because the market, as a whole has risen, a lot due to the Fed's pumping more money into the system, so you could say that indirectly the government has caused their pay increases."

So you are a Fed worshipper... The Fed only does this because most of use are willing to believe it will work. It's takes a ridiculous amount of optimism to believe that manipulating debt and currency will have a effective, long-term, positive influence on the economy. If people stopped buying the stock market right now, the Fed would have no power to make it go up. Not to mention that all the markets except the S&P 500 have basically gone sideways or down since 2011 or so. The market is also only up nominally. Divided by inflation, it is still below the 2007 and 2000 highs.

"But I bet you're still putting money in your 401K so really you don't even believe your own posts."

What makes you thing he/she has one. I don't think the country is ending, per se, but I have stopped putting money in a 401k. Am I allowed to write doom and gloom messages? :-P

#13 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-06-13 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | Posted by MSgt

Except the Fed isn't the government. Remember the Federal Reserve is private and owned by the mega rich.

#14 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-13 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is a direct result of the Democratic Party changing their allegiance from private sector labor unions and working Americans, to amnesty for illegal immigration, more cheap labor for big business CEOs, bailing out Wall St. and arresting OWS protesters.

Fundamentally where it really counts for most Americans there is no difference between the leadership in either Party. They are both corporatists beholden to the same interests, and play (and divide) the voters as saps for their pet causes.

#15 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-13 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That DAMN Bush and all thoes republicans in congress!!!!!

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-13 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Isn't anybody else's pay up that much too?

anybody here? anyone?

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-13 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another in the "who cares" department.

The Government should have NOTHING to say about how much a corporation pays it's CEO. That's between the company shareholders and the CEO.

#18 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-13 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Government should have NOTHING to say about how much a corporation pays it's CEO. That's between the company shareholders and the CEO.

Ebil gub'ment blah blah blah.

Can you analyze anything from a different perspective? Like how this trend has been going on for decades while the actual producers, the millions of people working for these guys, are getting paid the same (at best) or less for more work and ever increasing expectations of more efficiency and output.

In other words, can't you see you're being had by bigger takers than those evil welfare recipients you've been duped into hating so much?

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-13 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The Government should have NOTHING to say about how much a corporation pays it's CEO. That's between the company shareholders and the CEO.

#18 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-13 10:23 AM

Except that governments make the rules that neutralize the common stock shareholders when it comes to proxy votes for directors and these types of issues. Votes not submitted are typically counted as management votes instead of no vote.

The establishment historically wants the established status quo to have the power. They make rules where the entrenched Parties and incumbents are able to keep out new comers and win by default..whether it be in real or corporate world.

#20 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-13 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Retail big box stores are discovering that their strategies of importing cheap Chinese made stuff, instead of demanding that suppliers make it in the USA using Americans, are now impacting their bottom lines.

Americans are still a big consumer market but we're losing it. Had the USA been led by patriots instead of traitors joined at the hip with globalist CEOs and Wall St, they could have used our USA market clout to demand trade concessions that benefited America.

Instead they gave the farm away to the CEOS and Wall St that used their financial gains at the expense of the USA to justify compensation gains.

#21 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-13 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Like how this trend has been going on for decades while the actual producers, the millions of people working for these guys"

Doesn't matter... What are you going to do about it? If a company offers a CEO $15 million a year... so what? Don't buy their products if you don't like them.

You can't blame the CEO for taking it. Would having Bill Gates run a company be worth some major bucks? He knows how to make it sing and produce profits.

It's none of anyone's business what a company pays a CEO. If they pay too much they will realize it and get rid of the guy. If they think it's worth it to the bottom line, they will keep paying.

You price police are ridiculous.

#22 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-13 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corporations are people who are allowed to own other... people.... rwingers are just fine with that.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Corporations are people who are allowed to own other... people"

Moronic statement.

If you don't like the corporation or your pay.. leave. Own other people indeed. The right freed slaves. Liberals still want people enslaved to welfare, socialist ideas, obamacare, and want to dictate prices.

#24 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-13 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Factual statement. Corporations are allowed to own other corporations.

If, "corporations are people,too, my friend", then corporations are allowed to own, "people".

"The right freed slaves."

rofl! Would never admit that the party of Lincoln was moderate/liberal at the time.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

One requirement for government bailouts should be capped upper management salaries for x amount of years following bailout. One could use the local median times x amount. Nothing is more disheartening to know that a bailed out company is awarding is uppermanagement millions in bonuses for their shortcomings.

#26 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-13 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So you are a Fed worshipper... "

No I am not, but I do recognize that it is a driving force in the current stock market through it's Quantitative Easing [which I do approve of and is eventually going to bite us in the a**] I do believe in the market for accumulating wealth so my spouse's 401k is in mutual funds whereas my Cash Management Account is in individual stocks, ETFs, MLPs, etc. I have avoided the bond market for a number of years now. It is the market which has allowed me to get ahead in life as I started investing as a young NCO.

#27 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-13 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The right freed slaves."

Utter nonsense, the right owned and then fought to continue to own slaves.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-13 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Maybe the Robinhood tax is needed more now than ever.

#29 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-13 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Take away the right for CEOs to take their compensation as stock options and raise the highest tax rate on wages over 1,000,000 to over 50% and I think you would see CEO salaries decrease as it would become more beneficial to avoid the taxes by expanding the business and paying average workers more.
Why should a CEO face a maximum of 20% on his compensation but a worker faces 39% if he makes enough to fall into the highest bracket? Ronald Reagan agreed with me, it's unfair.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-13 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#28 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-13 02:18 PM | FLAG: FUNNY. Guess you never heard of Southern democrats.

ALSO: Look up the Congressional Record of the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You will find that too few dems voted for it and it was the Republican votes that passed it.

#31 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-13 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#31 - Do we really have to have this stupid discussion again? Are you just being obtuse? Nobody believes that the democrats of old were liberals, certainly not by the modern definition. Republicans and Democrats are political parties. They have not always represented the voting blocks that they represent today. To imply otherwise is intellectually lazy.

#32 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-06-13 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

ALSO: Look up the Congressional Record of the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You will find that too few dems voted for it and it was the Republican votes that passed it.

Right. And since Lincoln was a Republican it's impossible for Repubs now to be racist!

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-13 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"To imply otherwise is intellectually lazy.": As intellectually lazy as branding a whole group of millions of people racist, and being stupid enough to believe it - LOL

#34 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-13 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

As intellectually lazy as branding a whole group of millions of people racist, and being stupid enough to believe it - LOL

Just as with the whole "Messiah" garbage, this is much more projecting than reality.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-13 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"rofl! Would never admit that the party of Lincoln was moderate/liberal at the time."

I knew some fool would start that nonsense again. The word Liberal didn't mean the same thing back then. Today it just means "stupid"

The part of Lincoln was founded to free people from slavery, but if you want to get nit picky and deflect, you must be liberal.

#36 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

-get nit picky and deflect

Otherwise known as stating actual history.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Abolitionists were the, "liberals", btw.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Abolitionists were the, "liberals", btw."

Only in the true sense, as in classical liberal. They had nothing to do with the modern totalitarian "liberals" of today.

#39 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-13 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you analyze anything from a different perspective? Like how this trend has been going on for decades while the actual producers, the millions of people working for these guys, are getting paid the same (at best) or less for more work and ever increasing expectations of more efficiency and output.

#19 | Posted by jpw

Can't you understand that it is the old supply and demand? Too many worker bees and not enough work for them to do.

WTF si so hard to understand about that?

Too many people want to watch the super bowl and a limited number of seats. Same damn thing.

#40 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-13 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40 It's cute that you think real world economics apply to CEO pay.

#41 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-13 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#39

You mean like rwingers are to conservatives these days?

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-13 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can't you understand that it is the old supply and demand? Too many worker bees and not enough work for them to do.
#40 | Posted by Sniper

CEOs are worker bees for the Board of Directors.
Can you explain why CEO pay has gone up?

Do right-wingers have anything to contribute to this discussion beyond "It's none of your business" with a side order of "You're only complaining because you're jealous?"

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-13 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#40 It's cute that you think real world economics apply to CEO pay.

#41 | Posted by 726

Why don't you tell me how it works.

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-13 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

CEOs are worker bees for the Board of Directors.

#43 | Posted by snoofy

The board of directors don't do much of anything. Most are rubber stamps for the CEO.

#45 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-13 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well of course they are sniper. The board doesn't want to call the CEO into account for anything because that CEO is on the board of their company.

Interlocking directorates hide the true power in this country.

#46 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-13 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why don't you tell me how it works.
#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-13 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

CEOs are worker bees for the Board of Directors.
#43 | Posted by snoofy

The board of directors don't do much of anything. Most are rubber stamps for the CEO.
#45 | Posted by Sniper

I think you just explained it to yourself.
As you just stated, it's not market forces determine CEO pay. It's rubber-stamp boardrooms.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-13 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

As you just stated, it's not market forces determine CEO pay. It's rubber-stamp boardrooms.

That was so easy you almost have to feel bad about yourself for doing it.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-13 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

^

YAAAAAAAAAY!

We learned something!

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-13 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"ALSO: Look up the Congressional Record of the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You will find that too few dems voted for it and it was the Republican votes that passed it."

And then pretend that the southern Dems didn't become Republicans and help Nixon and his successors from the Republican Party take advantage of resentment of civil rights among white in the south. The Republicans in Congress in 1965 would have nothing to do with the haters from the Tea Party. Even right wing extremist Barry Goldwater wouldn't give today's TEa Partiers the time of day. I may have disagreed with Goldwater but he still put country before party.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-13 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

You all can say whatever you want, but as long as the CEOs of the companies I invest in continue to make me money then I am quite elated with their compensation. I dare say that those who have a problem with CEO compensation are also those who are for raising taxes in the idea that it will better their lives - LOLLOLLOL. [In other words, ones who have no money to invest to better their future and 'HOPE' the govt will hand them something taken from others].

#51 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-14 01:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yellen could fix this by raising interest rates

#52 | Posted by sackie1 at 2014-06-14 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

How would that work sac?

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-14 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You all can say whatever you want, but as long as the CEOs of the companies I invest in continue to make me money then I am quite elated with their compensation.

Regardless of the cost to the employees of the company?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2014-06-14 02:53 PM | FLAG: Yes.

#55 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-14 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

[In other words, ones who have no money to invest to better their future and 'HOPE' the govt will hand them something taken from others

It doesn't have to be the government. It could be someone offering a better job. But it's good that you realize the poor have a harder time building a better future, simply because they have less money.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-14 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You all can say whatever you want, but as long as the CEOs of the companies I invest in continue to make me money then I am quite elated with their compensation."

Same sentiment was very popular in 1928. If the workers don't have money to spend they can't buy things, your stock market values can collapse overnight when investors realize many of these companies have lost their customer base. We need growth, real growth, not stock market bubble growth.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-14 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Same sentiment was very popular in 1928. If the workers don't have money to spend they can't buy things, your stock market values can collapse overnight when investors realize many of these companies have lost their customer base. We need growth, real growth, not stock market bubble growth.

#57 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-14 07:03 PM | FLAG: Has the mistaken belief that all employees out there are underpaid. The CEO pay, high or low, has nothing do do with the pay the individual decided to accept when they were employed.

#58 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-14 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The CEO pay, high or low, has nothing do do with the pay the individual decided to accept when they were employed."

Blah, blah, blah, destroy unions, outsource jobs, bring in immigrant labor and then pretend that the employer/employee negotiation is really an opportunity for an unemployed person to negotiate for a decent wage.
It's not just ridiculous but it is disgusting to even suggest that disproven meme of the right who continually impress me with their mean spirited thoughts. I'm glad I don't know you.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-14 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Of all the jobs I have ever had I was only successfully able to negotiate higher pay once.

Every other time it was this is the pay take it or leave it. On occasion I have left it but for the most part when you need a job the option to leave it is not really on the table.

So yeah I have to agree with Danni here the employment is not a negotiation for the vast majority of workers. Trying to pretend like the workers actually have a choice is silly. The choice workers have is the pay you are offered or no job.

#60 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-14 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

The CEO pay, high or low, has nothing do do with the pay the individual decided to accept when they were employed.
#58 | Posted by MSgt

You're right, the situations are nothing alike.

Unlike the CEO, the line worker doesn't have a rubber-stamp board of directors giving him a 21.7% raise since 2010. For what? The stock is going up due to QE, I keep hearing.... the CEO has literally nothing to do with it.

Instead, the individual worker has a manager, and that manager has someone from finance breathing down his neck to lower costs. So companies can use the savings to buy back stock. It makes a ton of sense if you're the CEO and you get paid more when the company stock goes up.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-14 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Our corrupt Obama DOJ (and predecessors) allows the free market to be whittled away and destroyed with mergers and acquisitions that eliminates competition not to mention lost innovation and losses for employees. CEOS then use these mergers to justify their increased compensation. It's a merry go round of corrupt government destroying legitimate competition and politicians expecting corporate payback and consumers finding those competitive options evaporating.

David Brat of VA who just beat Cantor enumerated exactly this as a Republican, while the Dems are trying to call him a TP nut. The two Parties are basically anti-American. The partisans are too busy pressing their blue or red shirts to notice.

#62 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-15 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Has the mistaken belief that all employees out there are underpaid. The CEO pay, high or low, has nothing do do with the pay the individual decided to accept when they were employed.

If all too often has nothing to do with company performance, either. So despite the fact that those on the bottom are squeezed, blamed and suffer the most during the period of time a company is going under, CEOs are often making out the best.

There's a word for a 'profit for myself against all costs' sort of mentality. It's "greed". Those exhibiting it are known as "greedy".

Although I'm young, there was a point in my life when both those terms had a negative connotation. I hope to see that time return.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-15 01:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort