Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Not Wage Stagnation, It's Wage Robbery (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, VCLib, but you are utterly wrong. (9+ / 0-)

    1. "Free" stock to an executive means that the company is never paid, while diluting the value of stock bought that helped to grow the company.
    2. Stock going to a CEO is not a one-time payment like cash- it keeps paying dividends. The CEO has a claim on future profits of the company until the CEO decides to sell the stock. That means a CEO with a large chunk of stock gets paid in stock this year, and gets paid in dividends... forever.  How is that not a drain on the company's profits that could otherwise go towards worker pay?  That is if the CEO keeps the stock instead of going for the quick buck, which brings me to my next point.
    3. A CEO paid in stock has as much or more of an incentive to raise the stock price in the short term than an incentive to grow the company and keep it healthy and profitable for the long term.  This is why CEOs outsource rather than promote workers, and why regulation is a dirty word to the 1%/GOP.  How many people now think of CEOs as long term thinkers?  Damned few.  That's dangerous for the long term value of the company and for the health of the community in which the company is based.

    •  Jerry - I agree with you, but you missed my point (0+ / 0-)

      I had only one point, cash compensation to the CEO isn't holding down the pay of hourly workers.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:56:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Straw man (0+ / 0-)

        First, it's not just *cash", it's overall benefits--including long-term pension. Second, the context is the combination of factors driving down wages for workers. Lastly, actually, if  you took that one percent of payroll that goes TO ONE PERSON off the table, it has meaning in the context of bargaining negotiations where health care costs and wages are cut because, oh, gee, we have no's the entire picture.

        Follow me on Twitter @jonathantasini

        Visit Working Life.

        by Tasini on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:10:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tasini - it really depends on the size (0+ / 0-)

          of the company and the magnitude of the CEO pay package. In Fortune 500 companies, with billions of revenues, even the top five executives total compensation (which includes all those other elements you noted), less the equity component, is less than 1% of the total compensation expenses for the entire corporation. These companies have tens of thousands of employees and total salary, wage and benefit expenses that are in the billions.

          The spread between CEO pay and hourly workers is unconscionable and the actual amount of the total compensation is reprehensible. Lowering CEO compensation would certainly help the spread. My only point is that it wouldn't help very much lifting the wages or benefits of the hourly workers.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 06:01:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site