Executive Pay : The Invasion Of Supersalaries

In “The Overpaid CEO” Susan Homberg and Mark Schmitt bring to attention how CEO pay in America is ridiculous in numbers as opposed to other parts of the world. Looking back, in the nineteen hundreds CEO pay was relativity average. As businesses and companies began to expand there was a demand for higher pay. Between 1978-2012 CEO pay increased by 875%! Many rules and regulations were put in to place to limit the pay of a CEO, such as the Securities Exchange Act that I will explain later on, regardless CEO pay kept getting higher and higher as many loopholes were found. Bonuses pay a large part in the salaries of CEOS’, as an effect CEOS’ tend to partake in risky behavior in order to score those big paychecks.

This paper will discuss the reasons why CEOs are not being overpaid. It will apply the utilitarian ethical principle to many a few aspects to CEO compensation and whether or not it is justifiable for such pay. The paper will look at whether or not their performance is justifiable for the pay because they play such a big role in the livelihood of the company along with the principle agency theory and how it is being addressed for the benefit of the shareholders and others involved with the company, the supply and demand of the CEOs, and the paper will describe the comparison of other professions to help link the idea of CEOs being fairly compensated.

Executive Compensation. I’m in agreement with Thomas Piketty that the one cause of rising inequality in the United States “the rise of supersalaries” for top executives (Piketty & Goldhammer, 2014, p. 298). The average American estimates CEO to worker pay ratio at about 30-to-1, which is more than 4 times what they believe to be ideal. The career review site Glassdoor reported from 2014 data that the average pay ratio of CEO to median worker was 204-to-1 and that at the top of the list, four CEOs earn more than 1,000 times the salary of their median worker with the very top pay ratio of 1,951-to-1. In some cases a CEO makes in one-hour what it takes the average employee six-months to earn. In comparison, the Washington Post reported for the

The CEO’s compensation should be set on how well the firm performs and should be awarded based on the performance of the stocks in the long run. It is easier to measure performance by the growth rate in the profits that have been reported since intrinsic value cannot be fully

Executive pay – excessive pay for top executives is one problem that will not go away. It is a response to public concern about pay rises that are unrelated to effort, plus a number of high-profile cases of failed executives getting pay-offs of up to US $100 million and others having stock options backdated to give them a share of earlier capital gains. This at least tells shareholders exactly what their top executives are earning.

The economic downfall of 2008 illustrates the impact of unbridled corporate pay structures on our economy. Securities fraud, committed as a result of incentive packages offered to executives to create quick profits, had a detrimental effect on the overall economy. As observed during the Bank and Loan bust of 1989, CEOs take greater risks when offered stock options in their compensation packages. The 2008 Financial crisis, sparked by subprime mortgage market and hedge funds, was driven by banking executives making short term risks that served detrimental to stockholders in the long run. Furthermore, many compensation packages offered Golden Parachute clauses with no claw backs to both performing and underperforming executives.

One reason I can agree with this reasoning which happens if you compare the work of someone beneath an executive their pay grade is going to be significantly lower. If you compare the pay rate of a school teacher who has a major impact on lives daily to an executive they are getting paid way below standard. The average pay for an executive is $100,000 as to a teacher’s salary of $50,000 now you do the math on that one. I can clearly say in this event, I do believe that executives remain paid too much in comparison to a

According to Matsumura and Shin (2005) the ratio of executive to worker pay has climbed from 42:1 in 1982 to 301:1 in 2003. This has invited a lot of criticism from the shareholders, employees and has attracted the attention of restrictive regulators. Perel (2003) tried to assess the issue by examining both the claims that CEOs are overpaid for the value they add to an organization and that CEO pay is inherently

The practice over overpaying company CEOs in contrast to the general employee population is not considered a valid reward distribution system. As reported in the “The State of Working America”, the ratio between CEO salaries and average company wages was approximately 19.2 to 1 in 1965. In 2011, this ratio was nearly 220.2 to 1 (Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz, 2012). Per Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz (2012), this ratio has experienced a 177.15-point decrease from the year 2000, when the

If the current pay structure remains in place, it tends to demotivate workers, and production and its quality will be affected. The current policies must change. Corporations should begin to chart new plans to reduce the compensation gaps between their CEOs and the ordinary workers. The world is changing every day for the better. Wages of employees are lower than in 10 years ago (Mishel, L., Bivens, J., Gould, E., & Shiertholz, H.

It was reasonable for a CEO’s compensation to increase as the company expanded and became a larger entity, and the newly-granted shares and increasing stock options further aligned the CEO’s personal interests with those of the company and shareholders. In this sense, the second compensation package was also well-structured and not excessive. Seeing Sunbeam’s revenue rising and stock price climbing steeply upwards, Sunbeam’s shareholders and directors were fully convinced by Dunlap’s leadership, so they might perceive the increase in compensation amount necessary to retain and better motivate Dunlap to enhance the company’s value. Nonetheless, they neglected the fact that the increased portion of the equity-based compensation also further motivated the CEO’s dangerous behaviors pertaining to improper earnings management.

This report explores the issue of the pay that top executives make, and the reasons why they do. It also suggests improvements that can be made to make the system better. High Pay Seems Small When Compared To Company Profits Many companies pull in profits that are extremely high. When an employee of such a companies salary is compared to the amount of profit that the company earns, it starts to seem reasonable. It only makes sense that if the employee is directly responsible for the success of their company, then they deserve to get their payback. It seems ironic, but many salaries even look small once compared with a companies profits. Top Executives Are Under A Lot Of Pressure Being the CEO of a

Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages

In any job, there is a pay scale difference between entry level positions to managers and to the highest executives. Many people assume that we are just paid solely based upon our position; where in some cases, not all, this is very true. This paper will focus on the question “Why do executives receive such high compensation and how it affects our democracy?” In corporate America bonuses and compensation differentiate amongst the working forces; the most important factor in the recruiting and hiring process of the best talents are the compensation policies and packages. Also, the attractiveness of salaries and bonuses incentivize potential candidates to seek out these top corporations for employment. Given that the money

Our reading this week shows that one important motivating factor for an employer has to be aware of is the financial/economic interests of their employees. Today many observers and employees are concerned about the gap between CEO salaries and average employee pay. Is it ethical for CEOs to be paid so much more than other employees? Does this practice use a valid reward distribution system? Should companies be considering ways to reduce the gap to improve the overall moral of their employees? Do you think CEO and upper management salaries are subject to ethical consideration?