I was reading something on another site about executive compensation. I find it so hard to fathom why executives this day and age find it necessary to pay themselves such exorbitantly high salaries. Are they really that much smarter than the rest of us? And what is even more pathetic is giving bad executives huge payouts when their companies perform poorly. The whole thing really sucks and it sends the wrong message to the rank and file.

I appreciate that some executives are worth their weight and should be well compensated. But how much is enough?

And lastly, the incestuous nature of how this all works. Many of these executives sit on each other’s boards of directors, assuring record compensation for their fellow traveler. I wish the “free market” would step in and really take a look at this problem, but given the current make-up of the executive class, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

..."Many of these executives sit on each other’s boards of directors, assuring record compensation for their fellow traveler.

There's your answer.....

Plus they get huge salaries as excexs as well, Talk about double and triple dipping.

Their money makes more money than they can spend, but they have no trouble pink slipping some 8 dollar an hour schmuck then taking the bonus for meeting that arbitrary magic number.....

I guess you take what you can get

(then look at me with those big brown eyes, and say, you ain't seen nuthing yet!)

What's it to you if corporate execs get paid a bundle? If you want the same compensation, become a corporate exec!

If you were in the same position, would you turn DOWN that kind of compensation?

Speaking of the $8/hour schmuck, that's all he's worth! You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you. Unless, of course, you belong to a government union. . .

I question the logic of paying an executive outrageous sums of money and benefits for underwhelming the shareholders with consistently poor performances. Firms which own or manage large stock or mutual fund portfolios owe it to their investors to better scrutinize the compensation schedules of the executives managing the companies in which they are invested.

I’m more comfortable on the low end of the pay grade, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on the subject. If I own stock in a company, I have as much right as any other shareholder to voice an opinion on the matter. And too, morality comes into play. There’s a point at which some of these executive payouts become obscene. Especially in today’s world when cheap third world labor is being exploited. It doesn’t take a genius to ship a factory overseas and call it cost effective. What would be original is to find a way to keep it local while maintaining high quality standards and paying their employees a living wage.

Please note: If an executive and his or her team is serving the company well, they should be well compensated. But again, how much is enough?

......If you want the same compensation, become a corporate exec!

I was just looking at the Corporate exec job board........

As for the 8 dollar an hour schmuck..... Know plenty of people who I would consider UNDER COMPENSATED at that rate. Also know quite a few who aren't worth 5 bucks an hour.

.....If you were in the same position, would you turn DOWN that kind of compensation?....

MAYBE, Actually are some people who sign for less money than they could get elsewhere. Even in my lowly position, there are situations where I would take less money, and there are some places where no amount of MONEY would make me come aboard. I said most people take what they can get. Was A-Rod worth the initial 240 mil, or the new deal? To a team or two, but in general NO. What that irresponsible business decision did was raise the bar across the board. If you base salaries on performance, then plenty of people ought to refund some of their salary for UNDERPERFORMING.... The Corp world works the same way. Poor decisions don't draw refunds........

If Mega Corp decides to pay above market to secure a super CEO or officer, that's fine, but it also drives up salaries for what in some cases turns out to be a bad decision. Easier for a company to eat a couple mil for an exec who under performs than 40 mil plus for the same loser.
Easier for a guy to walk with that same 40 mil when he doesn't have to worry about landing a new job before the end of the month to cover the next electric bill.

Certainly the stockholders have a say, but your 1000 shares doesn't give much clout in the grand scheme, and usually the choices are FOR, AGAINST, or WITHHELD.... Go to the meeting and 1000 shares doesn't get you any floor time at the yearly meeting either.......

Unless, of course, you belong to a government union. . .

Like all the jokers in Congress???

Wobboh writes:
If you were in the same position, would you turn DOWN that kind of compensation?

Actually, you make a good point. CEOs stack the boards in their favor thus boards are made up of friends who are either too happy to hand it out or don't want to cross the CEO to stand up and make them justify that kind of compensation especially when working people are having such a hard time. This way, the CEOs can put it back on the board and say, "That's what they decided to pay me." making the board look like a bunch of idiots. I really think we need to do what the Brits do. When it comes time for the annual meeting, the board is forced to add advisory question on the shareholder's ballot telling them what the CEO is going to be paid and do the shareholders agree with that. Of course, the board can go ahead and pay the compensation anyway, but they can no longer say they didn't know the shareholders were against it. This has had success in Britain in bring down compensation packages.

Your initial question, would I turn it down? No, but let's keep it in perspective. They set it up that way. Some crooks rob banks, others run companies.

I've sold stock in particular companies because of this. As a shareholder, I see money being wasted on CEO's that could be used for higher dividends.