What you are failing to understand is that these men earn their salaries. If they were not giving the guidence the companies need in order to be successful, their salary would be much less.

Just how many people in the entire country have the training, experience and education to be the CEO of McDonald's? Very few is the right answer, perhaps less than 100 people in the entire nation. It's like being the current football star quarterback - there's just one and he can ask for the wage he is paid because he gets the job done.

Also, being the CEO of requires a certain lifestyle and also certain security arrangements. There are people who will hunt these CEOs and do harm to them, just because they are rich.

The fact that they have limos and drivers to ferry them around inflames some, but keep in mind that as they are being driven to the office, these guys are working. The limo is a mobile office mirroring what they have in the brick and mortar building. You and I waste time being stuck in traffic, but these guys are to valuable to waste their time like that.

Lastly to envy and begrudge the income of somebody with greater skills IS the matra of the liberal left as they yell for income redistribution. If a person doesn't want to share the title, don't make noises like one.

So buy from a different company.

Let's see, value of an employee that knows how to put mustard and a pickle and a patty on a bun on one hand vs. value of an employee that knows how to run a company that employs thousands of others and still make a profit for the owners?

I just don't see the problem, other than there are way too many poor victims that want as much as everyone else without having to put in the years of education and hard work that it takes to become an individual worth what they think they're worth.

In simpler terms, if you believe that you're worth more than I offer you for the work you can do, I'll agree with you. Go on home, watch your large screen TV on cable, wait until I have a job opening that you're qualified for that pays what you think you're worth, I'll call you on your smart phone when that occurs.

Ok, I do not want you folks to think I am a flaming liberal or somesuch, I am pointing out that the system is corrupt in many ways, only one of which is this ridiculous salary bit. No, no regulation, or law or anything else just as ineffective. The problem is of course, way to big, and has the momentum to carry it forward despite any efforts to stop it. It is just that while we talk of freedom and fairness, and equality. Is there an answer? I don't know, but the costs of all theses CEOs is being passed onto you and me.

whether sound or not, I believe it is called "competitive"
I am all for breaking the mold. and the top heavy multi-nationals would be too-if they weren't too big to fail

Good questions. I would like to hear the answers to them also. The rich can't take it with them; they spend their money on high ticket items that people are employed to produce. It re-enters the economy to the benefit of others. When government gets involved we see what happened to the yacht building business in the states thanks to a luxury tax. Whether you take it from them on the front or back end it makes little difference. If you don't let the market set prices or wages, you must be ready to accept the bad things that come from a command economy... equality in poverty... If you look at this as if the CEO is making too much relative to the employees of the corporation, are you saying the market is inferior to an "omniscient governing body"? That is an oxymoron... Aside from the cases of cronyism what better system is there? The shareholders and board members are responsible. They expect a return on their investment. They do what they do. They pay what they must to attract the management they want. I recall a study, probably on the Stossel show that looked at this and found that the CEOs of America's largest corporations made very large salaries indeed, but, if they were paid nothing and their wages were distributed evenly among the employees, most wouldn't receive enough to make any difference due to the numbers... I am sure there are some outliers...

How and who would be better off? And what bothers you so much about an idiot spending HIS money, in any amount, in anyway HE chooses? How does this have ANY affect on YOU? I don't get the outrage and I don't like ever increasing laws to try and control personal choices....which is where your outrage is headed. OR is there some other solution I'm missing?

So then the solution is what? Make it illegal...pass more laws on businesses, more regulations?? I am opposed to the gov calling business shots. If you don't agree with the CEO's pay then do not do business with those companies...you still have THAT freedom..exercise it!

"A Picasso is only worth millions because someone will pay it."
Yes, and the stupid shall be punished. That works on the straight up law of supply and demand, in a artificial environment. If a bunch of "art critics" hadn't decide he was great and blathered about it, and the mindless rich then bought his stuff for much more than they were worth, and then it becomes a self perpetuating machine. There were 1,000 other artists in his time just as bad as he was...but did not get picked. So they died in ignominious and debt, broken, unknown. I don't follow sports or athletes, and only laugh at celebs and their bizarre lives. NONE of them are worth what they get, and I refuse to pay for it. Value for Value. It is the "Why not?" question that is behind a lot of this nonsense: just like the corrupt looter politician, who says "why not? to the bridge to nowhere, just so he can bring my money into HIS state, and get the re-election to a position he does not belong in. Why not is not a satisfactory answer and should be replaced with "NO!". We would be much better off at all levels.

Nope, find a large company making the offer. Remember, they don't put these ads in the papaer "CEO wanted, cheap". The people running Americas companies are as stupid as all the rest of the idiots, they will contact a "headhunter", pay them thousands, maybe millions (you never know we can't disclose), to bring them 3 or 4 candidates. They have to members of the business elite, have good breeding and manners, and know a little something about management. No specific knowledge of our business is needed. Go look at what Intel did, they did all that, then hired an insider, they have always hired an insider, because they wanted a competent CEO, and they still ended up with a couple who missed the boat. You think "CEO" is some mysterious priest thing, no specific knowledge rewired, which is exactly what I am trying to tell you. These idiots are part of the problem, along with the boards who hire them: They are just schmucks with connections, breeding, degrees from useless colleges, etc, or a name they made on the backs of others. They are NOT worth more that 250K a year! ( I will even up it to 400K a year to match our distinguished CEO of the USA) Can you tell the the United States of America hires on the basis of intellect, brilliance, leadership? Do you think Companies have some special immunity to the same stupidity the people seem to have caught? No, it is a systemic thing. No President is worth it, and NO CEO is. Anything more is a ripoff of the shareholder, if you can find them...

Stalin was such a maroon, he would be the outhouse bowl licker.... a more useless person has never been whelped, a true bully, dictator and single handed destroyer of a country. Ranks right up there with Hugo Chavez and his destruction of Venezuelan toilet paper manufacturing...

Rocy, their "wort5h" is determined by the board. The "marketplace" has NO input. Thats the point. Go look at the largest corporations in the us and even worldwide and who owns majority shares? Banks and Investment companies, 401K's and Mutual Funds, who invest on the fly, trade billions of shares daily, using computers. The day of the group of "majority shareholders" died 10-15 years ago, and no one noticed. There is no marketplace to control them, just trading programs. Come on wake up, Dagny is a character in a book, she represents the worker ethos where someone will do the best they can for their organization, despite its obvious corruption and deceit. She was the original enabler for her brother's dysfunctional behavior and basically a traitor, since she never got together the backing to remove the screwball. Remember their ultimate fate? She was not very successful... She didn't deserve any pay, since she presided over the companies destruction. In fact she was a successful as that dude who drove Home Depot into the ground, then got a whole bunch of money from the board to leave town, and then they spent a whole bunch more hiring some other guy. And that is a partially employee owned company.

Which is another dilemma entirely. Why have no boards ever been held accountasble for the faux pas of hiring some maroon at 10 million, then giving him 6or 8 million just to leave 6 ,months latwer, since he has imploeded the company? Then they do it again and hope for better luck? Remember, they also are paying several "hiring consultants", sometimes millions in addition, with bonus, to bring them candidates. It all speaks to the complete lack of respect management (boards, CEOs, Senior managers) have for both the companies they work for and the shareholders. I will see if I can find some numbers to back this up, I have heard so many stories in the past few years about the lavish spending boards can do, to "acquire" the right guy. I think it is BS along with the salaries.

CEO's don't 'punch' a clock....so this headline is meaningless (read:garbage), but functional, if you are a communist.

What say you, nickurisis?

hmmm. this is an interesting dilemma. I was just reading about the new CEO of GM. she came from HR. now what does someone from HR know about running a multi-national in heavy manufacturing and cutting edge(should be) technology arenas? Or, since GM is in the Govts pockets, has the employment base become the single most important part of a company's health. If that's it, then GM is doomed or you are paying to prop it up. So, a political game inside and outside the company.
On the other hand, surrounding yourself with highly competent people (by virtue of this fact means that many will turnover fairly quickly because they are on the heels of doing what you do), understand bottom line and have future vision, not only understand your market inside and out but what technologies on the horizon will disrupt your market and prepare to be offensive or defensive accordingly, constant travel, total hours worked where you do not see your family much and be ever prepared to bumped from your seat at the helm....that could definitely be worth more than 250k-which seems an odd number to be snatched out of the blue. lol The market bares what it bares....
I am more disturbed by the levels of parachute pay. It's kind of like make your mistakes with fewer consequences.

I hear what you're saying, nicursis, that the high pay might be the result of boards trading favors rather than actual value the exec brings, BUT consider this. If the exec can even bring a 1% increase in profits compared to other good business leaders out there, she/he is worth a huge amount. I bet $20 million is a fraction of the companies' profits. I know it looks suspicious, like interlocking boards helping each other take shareholder wealth, but I don't think that's always the reason for high salaries. If someone has a track record of increasing profits of a huge org by $100 million, then paying her $20 million is nothing.

I can think of a few other adjectives...

surprise

Good morning khalling,
Update: The government has just sold the last of it's GM stock. The tax payers only took a 10 billion dollar bath...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/0...
Regards,
O.A.

Where are these competent outstanding people who are saying, "No, I don't 9000 bucks an hour, just pay me what I'm worth, which is 250K. I'm obviously perfect for this position I just don't want to be over paid. Please don't pay me more than 250K...that's all I'm worth, but I'm excellent." Are they in hiding?

And WHY are they offering it? And why does that make them idiots?
As for pro sports.. if they can get it why not....the owners want the best players so they'll win which will bring more fans which will make them more money to pay higher salaries... Who's getting hurt? Worth is always determined by the buyer. A return on their investment. A Picasso is only worth millions because someone will pay it.

I believe that CEO's deserve no more, and no less, than what they receive. Anything else is unnatural...and goes against reason. Their 'worth' is determined by the marketplace.

The responsibilities of a CEO can never be started, or stopped, by a time clock...so there is no such thing as an hourly 'wage' for them. I challenge you to come up with a 'fair' hourly wage for Dagny....

You left out Stalin...? ;-)

I guarrantee you could find competent, outstanding people who WOULD do it for 250K a year. Why take that when you can get millions? It's like professional sports and actors, many of which have confessed to being very overpaid, but if the idiots are going to offer it, who are they to say "no"?

LOL, nice sentiment, and yes, I have been accused of such a basic outlook. Sorry.. Conan The Barbarian would be my Head of HR, and Admiral Halsey my Chief of Staff....

If you think that CEO's are poor overworked, abused people who are penniless altruistic heros, then I would say you have been observing our head of State too much. There are no jobs in this universe I can think of worth 9200.00 an hour, except nuclear waste taste testers, but then their tenures tend to be short. Other than that minor exception, I respectfully disagree here....