- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CEOs make too much money
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:28 am to Bunkie7672
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:28 am to Bunkie7672
quote:
This is a dopey comp because although I think we can all agree that athletes/actors are insanely overpaid, they are the workers who generate the money for the leagues they play in.
Not really. What’s the league minimum in the NBA? How many minutes are those guys playing?
It’s a completely accurate comp. If your company is generating billions, the leaders of the organization are going to be making millions.
A more interesting question is around market consolidation and leveraged buyouts.
1
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:29 am to Bunkie7672
quote:
they are the workers who generate the money for the leagues they play in.
....and a good CEO brings tremendous value to shareholders.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:36 am to TDTOM
quote:
This whole Nation is infested with mindless victims.
Have you not seen the video evidence either from the internet or cable news in the last decade or so?
Everyone and everything is a victim of either racism, cronyism, nepotism. favoritism, or some other -ism. Circumstances are NEVER the result of choices made by the individual.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:39 am to PetroAg
I tend to agree to an extent when it comes to publicly traded companies. The CEO of United Health, for example, doesn't deserve $60 million. That money should be going back into the company or to the shareholders as dividends. But for closely held companies, to each their own.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:40 am to the808bass
quote:
Not really. What’s the league minimum in the NBA? How many minutes are those guys playing? It’s a completely accurate comp. If your company is generating billions, the leaders of the organization are going to be making millions. A more interesting question is around market consolidation and leveraged buyouts.
So by that logic the top stars like Lebron and Curry should be paid even more than they are because that’s who the fans pay to see and watch. No one is shopping at walmart because they love the CEO.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:41 am to PetroAg
You support a maximum wage?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:44 am to Scruffy
quote:
LeBron double dribbles, walks and shoots a basketball and he is a billionaire.
Fify
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:45 am to Bunkie7672
quote:Determined by who?
That’s not the case for the CEO of a company.
Is Musk worth the pay?
Was Bill Gates worth the pay he received? Hell, I think he pulled in $1 billion during one year at one point.
Steve Jobs?
The argument is always based around what someone is willing to pay.
Also, the as previously discussed, if you split the Walmart CEO pay among every employee, they would gain only a few $100 per year.
So, I’ll ask you, what should the CEO of a mega-corporation make?
The median CEO salary is only ~$200k anyway.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 7:46 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:45 am to PetroAg
The problem is there are a lot of mediocre CEO’s making ridiculous money.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:46 am to Bunkie7672
quote:
No one is shopping at walmart because they love the CEO.
They are shopping there because of the CEO.
Oh, and his actual salary is $1.5M. The rest is stock and bonuses.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 7:50 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:47 am to EasterEgg
quote:
The CEO of United Health, for example, doesn't deserve $60 million. That money should be going back into the company or to the shareholders as dividends. But for closely held companies, to each their own.
These takes are terrible. There's really one fact in this world, talent follows the money. If you want the most talented and capable, you have to be able to pay them. The most talented are going to find the ways to make the most amount of money.
By capping their pay, all you are doing is telling your staff that you don't want the best and that the best can go work elsewhere.
CEO and exec pay trickles down in that everyone is working to get closer to the top, doing a better job.
When you take away that hope, you are taking away the motivation for the best talent to work for you.
We could argue, that many of these top companies are at the top because the CEO's got them there.
ETA: Before you say, they don't need $50 mil a year when $25 mil is plenty. The simple response to that is they may not need $50 mil, but if they can make $30, or 40, or $60 or $75 mil somewhere else that is all the motivation anyone needs to either be there or be somewhere else.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 7:49 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:47 am to PetroAg
It is a nice carrot to make people work harder. But, the better employees will leave to try and climb the ladder.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:48 am to EasterEgg
quote:
The CEO of United Health, for example, doesn't deserve $60 million. That money should be going back into the company or to the shareholders as dividends.
This is a great example. Andrew Witty was a mediocre CEO at GSK, yet UNH paid him excessively.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:48 am to Figgy
quote:
Bernie Sanders posts here?
We know him as SFP on this board
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:49 am to Free888
quote:How many is “a lot”?
The problem is there are a lot of mediocre CEO’s making ridiculous money.
Are you discussing only the s&p 500?
That means there are 500 of them out of 340 million Americans (we could do global population).
That is .000147%.
So, is that too many?
Define “a lot”.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:52 am to Scruffy
quote:
Also, the as previously discussed, if you split the Walmart CEO pay among every employee, they would gain only a few $100 per year.
It's not even a few hundred. I said earlier it was around $13, and it is
quote:
If Walmart's CEO Doug McMillon's $26.9 million compensation were divided equally among all 2.1 million Walmart employees, each employee would receive about $12.81 extra for the year.
That's one lunch at McDonald's.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:54 am to PetroAg
quote:
The average CEO of a top 500 fortune company makes $20-$30M. The average 20 year employee is making $80k-$150k.
Piggy backing of the trickle down economics thread. I’m not anti capitalist or pro communist, but I don’t see how some individuals are worth 300x more than a tenured employee that is producing value. Not burger flippers or pencil pushers, but engineers, accountants, sales reps, high performing individual contributors.
The CEO to employee ranking use to be 30:1 in the 1980s which I can understand but it is now approaching 300:1 in some companies. Seems like things are out of whack.
I don’t think government intervention is ever a good solution, but it does seem like a glaring issue with the wealthy getting wealthier and the upper middle class shrinking. $100k ain’t what it used to be.
Top 500 Companies.
Think about the rest.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 7:55 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:54 am to baldona
quote:I disagree.
CEO and exec pay trickles down in that everyone is working to get closer to the top, doing a better job.
There are bad CEOs who are paid handsomely.
The only real argument here is that these individuals are paid what the companies believe they are worth and no one, beyond stockholders and employees, have any right to challenge that.
This entire argument is simply a smokescreen.
The amount the CEO of a major corporation is making largely has zero impact on the salaries of the 1000s of employees.
The argument should be that those at the bottom aren’t being paid enough, yet everyone spends time squabbling over how we should bring the pay of the CEO down.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:55 am to Freauxzen
quote:Exactly.
Top 500 Companies.
Top 500
There are 33.2 million businesses in the USA.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 7:57 am to Scruffy
quote:
Define “a lot”.
Probably at least 20% of the S&P 500, based on on performance of non mag 7 companies. That’s 100 CEO’s. And your argument as a % of population isn’t relevant. They are underperformers that are overcompensated, especially versus their staff. The solution should be highly correlated with long term stock performance, with a salary that is low millions max. Too many of the stock incentive schemes now are short term and are essentially grants that carry no risk whatsoever.
There are plenty of start up CEO’s that put up their own money as risk capital, face dilution, and wait for long term payoffs. I have much more respect for those CEOs.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 8:00 am
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News