- 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 8:48 am to PetroAg
Posted on 8/6/25 at 8:48 am to PetroAg
If you spend you life looking at what other people have you'll never be happy with what you've accomplished in life.
How's the saying go, If a fish judged himself on how well it climbs a tree it would live life thinking it was useless and a failure.
How's the saying go, If a fish judged himself on how well it climbs a tree it would live life thinking it was useless and a failure.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:16 am to PetroAg
The 1st thing to do is say good for him/her because they made it. 2nd to do is quit worrying about other people and work on yourself. If you want more money like a CEO, figure out how to do it and make it happen. Worrying about others does nothing for your outcome.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:17 am to APHA
quote:
The 1st thing to do is say good for him/her because they made it. 2nd to do is quit worrying about other people and work on yourself. If you want more money like a CEO, figure out how to do it and make it happen. Worrying about others does nothing for your outcome.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:24 am to stout
quote:
but I have all of the risk
People who have never taken financial risk to start a business will never understand that.
IMO, willfully so.
I don't think they want to know—it's either that or they simply can't comprehend what it is like—to start something from scratch when you're leveraged up to your eyeballs knowing that if it fails, you lose everything.
The willingness to do that is worth a whole lot, because not many people relatively speaking are willing to do it, and it provides jobs for over half the country (over half the country is employed by small businesses).
But I have attempted to explain that to countless people only to watch it go in one ear and right out the other. You can almost see it happening in real time.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:32 am to PetroAg
quote:
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.
Companies can afford it, or they can't. While I think it's out of whack, I also understand the math that those complaining about it don't seem to get. Let's get into it...
The average annual salary of a Fortune 500 CEO is ~$18.9M per year.
The average number of employees a Fortune 500 company has is 62,000.
Let's say we take all but $1M from the CEO's salary, spreading that $17.9M out among 62,000 employees comes out to ~$288.71 per year for each of them.
Generally, 1%-2% of that staff is management. We'll err on the side of caution and go with 2%, meaning we subtract ~1,240 from that 62,000, leaving us with 60,760 and that brings us to a whopping $294.60 extra per year per employee.
But maybe all managers are making too much, so let's put them into the equation as well. Averages are that of that 60,760 left, another 1%-2% are non-executive management, leaving us with around another 1,215 employees removed from the equation, bringing us to 59,545 employees now getting an extra $300.61 per year.
Assuming someone gets paid every two weeks, there are 26 pay period each year, breaking that down to an extra $11.56 per paycheck. That's barely a Happy Meal.
Cutting back on the salaries of other executives could boost that a little, but the math simply isn't there to make the downstream impact many think it would.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:38 am to PetroAg
It’s really none of your fricking business what salary a company negotiates with its CEO. Do you have a problem with trade collectives threatening to shut an entire industry down in order to squeeze 30% more than the market rate for their services? I bet you don’t.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:43 am to Bunkie7672
quote:
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.
It's not really debatable that someone like LeBron is WAY underpaid and has been for nearly all of his career. The economic impact LeBron has on the teams he plays for is MUCH MUCH greater than pretty much all of the other players who make similar money.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:44 am to PetroAg
No the problem isn't the initial money. The problem is when the companies do really well the employees rarely see financial gains only the stakeholders do. It's like removing the rewards and giving to people who aren't doing the work.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:50 am to USAFTiger42
quote:
The problem is when the companies do really well the employees rarely see financial gains only the stakeholders do.
You mean those financially at risk?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 9:53 am to FooManChoo
quote:
As with any job, it is worth whatever an employer is willing to pay.
Problem is, in a lot of cases, it is a club consisting of incestuous boards of directors that do the hiring and approve the pay packages. A lot of, If we hire you and get you this deal, then you also get on this board and hire this other person and it goes on and on. If you look at the biggest companies, their boards consist of people who do a lot of "you scratch my back, i scratch yours". The institutional shareholders that control a bulk of the shares on behalf of the public are also behind the scenes and have many former members on boards as well. I am not sure it is as clean of an supply/demand situation as they want to make us think it is.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 10:28 am to PetroAg
quote:
What has changed in “supply and demand” to justify why CEO’s make 300:1 the average employee, when it was 30:1 in the 80’s? At what point is it unacceptable regardless of the “free market” says? 3000:1? 30000:1?
The market ain’t free anymore. Government involvement, activist hedge funds, and buddy buddy BoDs have made a nice little honey pot for themselves. Everyone’s getting rich except the middle class that executes the plan that the consulting firm hired by the CEO comes up with.
But if you don’t agree, you’re a neck beard, communist who’s jealous and doesn’t understand the market.
more companies fighting for limited talent that can handle that level. are you dumb enough to think that companies are just giving away their money for clout?
Posted on 8/6/25 at 10:34 am to PetroAg
It’s a matter of morality. Today’s CEOs are scumbags wanting to be billionaires as opposed to being mere multi millionaires! It’s a disgusting personal trait. Board members are scumbags too. The USA has allowed the destruction of teaching morals in schools. It’ll get worse. Keep pandering to the lowest denomination as you’ll see what you’ll get. Society as a whole is of decreasing intellect and values. The future is dim.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 10:38 am to PetroAg
I don’t spend time worrying about what others earn. I’m only concerned with my own financial situation. Envy and hate don’t improve my life at all.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 10:51 am to PetroAg
quote:Simple. With advances in mechanization and automation manual labor has gotten less valuable over time. The ability to locate, secure and close on CAPEX investment has become far, far more value over time.
What has changed in “supply and demand” to justify why CEO’s make 300:1 the average employee, when it was 30:1 in the 80’s?
quote:What do you think happens when we hand MORE power to those same people to
The market ain’t free anymore. Government involvement, activist hedge funds, and buddy buddy BoDs have made a nice little honey pot for themselves.
police themselves?
quote:Horsehocky. Take CEO salaries and divvy them up between the workers
Everyone’s getting rich except the middle class that executes the plan that the consulting firm hired by the CEO comes up with.
and it would amount to… very little. Take GM, their CEO makes about $25 million, and they have 157,000 employees. Distributed, his salary equals $156/employee per year. Or about $0.07/hr.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 10:52 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 10:54 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Perhaps, but not necessarily.
manual labor has gotten less valuable over time
Posted on 8/6/25 at 11:03 am to Picayuner
quote:
The USA has allowed the destruction of teaching morals in schools. It’ll get worse. Keep pandering to the lowest denomination as you’ll see what you’ll get. Society as a whole is of decreasing intellect and values. The future is dim.
You’re close.
The USA has actually forbidden teaching morality and endorses debauchery instead. And the future is unknown and depends on the time frame. There will definitely be some pain in the not too distant future but I think yet again the pendulum will keep swinging.
As far as pandering to the lowest common denominator I think you nailed it. Only leads to the bottom.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 11:13 am to PetroAg
Then...if you don't like it, vote with your purse and don't buy what they sale.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Thst doesn’t really tell the story. Wages only reflect part of the “value”—the downstream value. Those worker are worth higher wages because they are more productive via tech, automation, etc. that CAPEX provides.
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
Think about a construction company. In the early 80s we built a house. The carpenters used hammers. and the framing crew was like 10 guys. When was the last time you saw a framer not using a nail gun? Today 4 dudes can frame a house in a couple of days. Much more valuable.
This post was edited on 8/6/25 at 11:14 am
Posted on 8/6/25 at 3:23 pm to dickkellog
quote:
is not w0rking for you it worked great for me and that's all i care about.
Brain rotted boomer alert.
frick everyone else I got mine.
Rest in piss.
Posted on 8/6/25 at 4:12 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:Sure, but LeBron couldn’t play if not for the people who run the stadiums, clean the courts, maintain the equipment, etc.
It's not really debatable that someone like LeBron is WAY underpaid and has been for nearly all of his career. The economic impact LeBron has on the teams he plays for is MUCH MUCH greater than pretty much all of the other players who make similar money.
Why are they paid less?
Then you could get into the film crews.
If the cameraman, who is making magnitudes less than LeBron, wasn’t there to film the game, you wouldn’t have broadcasting and subsequent ad revenue.
It isn’t fair that these athletes are paid more than them.
Yes, that is sarcasm, but it goes back to the stupid basis of the thread.
People are paid based on what others deem that they are worth and their replaceability.
Popular
Back to top



0








