The Controversial Issue of Executive Pay in America

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.

CEO compensation has been a heated debate for many years recently, and it can be argued

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

CEOs usually get paid a lot more than any of their employees and it is believed that the ratio between the CEOs salary and the average employee salary has continued to increase throughout the years (Mackey, 2014). The increase in the CEOs salary is mainly attributed to two factors: First, the required skills and the high responsibilities that are associated with this position. Second, the number of qualified people who could fill such a position is really limited (Executive Compensation, n.d.). This does explain the

According to the article The More Factor by Laurence Shames states "Let's keep things in proportion: The country is not running out of wealth, drive, savvy, or opportunities" (pg. 83). I concur with Shames statement because America is always on a progressive route from the earlier period of the Frontier to the twenty-first century with high tech technologies. For example, Howard Choset invited the "Snake like robot" which performs invasive surgeries that reduce recovery time and decrease costly procedures. As much as society has progress with technologies we still have room for more growth. for instance, every year there is always going to be a newer and better Iphone, it's the same concept but just a few minor development. Society teaches

See, Bob Reich isn't the just a single to notice disparity. Indeed, even most corporate chiefs are worried that soaring CEO compensations are askew with corporate benefit, and also normal worker wage. As working mom Nancy Rasmussen says, it just doesn't seem right. "I took a pay cut of $12 an hour. My benefits have gone down," Rasmussen says. Her voice cracking with emotion, she asks, "If you have millions of dollars, why do you need that little bit that I have?" We see it all around us: A CEO gets a huge bonus the same year he lays off hundreds of

I do not believe that just because American CEOs are paid much more than rank-and-file employees suggest that they are overpaid. Many CEOs whose salaries and compensation packages are discussed in the news are the CEOs from the largest American corporations and likely do not represent the average American CEO. Also, many times when CEO payouts are discussed in the news it is not a one year payout but instead a multi-year payout. Plus, many companies need to pay high salaries and incentives

While these citizen protests and legislative actions could be an overreaction to a few isolated cases of executive compensation excess, the data suggests otherwise. According to the AFL-CIO (2013), executive pay has increased dramatically over the past several decades compared to worker compensation. In 1982, the pay ratio between executives and workers was 42:1, but by 2012 it had increased to 354:1. This 8.4-fold differential in compensation suggests that the productivity of executives has also increased 8.4-fold relative to productivity of workers. If executive pay is positively correlated with a firm's bottom line, then higher pay should predict success. Unfortunately, researchers have found the opposite to be true.

Directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and hold on to executives and have rewarded even poorly performing executives. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees. Furthermore, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company. Excessive CEO pay is essentially a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists' call "economic rents" from shareholders (Economic rent is distinct from economic profit, which is the difference between a firm's revenues and the opportunity cost of its inputs). The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these costs. At approximately two-thirds of US companies, the CEO sits as the board's chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.

To start with, executive compensation has been a major and main target for criticism by the stakeholders as well as academics over the time of last several years. “Liberty Mutual’s longtime chief earned an average of nearly $50 million a year from 2008 to 2010, making him one of the highest-paid corporate executives in the country, according to state insurance filings reviewed by the Globe (Wallack, 2012)”. At first glance at this question I think; well we live in a capitalistic society where there are no limits on how much money people can make. Also if this CEO started the business and why shouldn’t they be entitled to that much money from the company, right?

We are living in a decade of increasing conveniences for the middle class. Some examples of inventions that are making life easier are... refrigerators, The Model T, washing machines, radios, phonographs, electric razors and irons, and vacuum cleaners. These new products make household chores a breeze, and they are giving people more down time to do leisurely activities. Products previously too expensive are now becoming more affordable.

ABSTRACT. I broadly explore the question by examining several common criticisms of CEO pay through both philosophical and empirical lenses. While some criticisms appear to be unfounded, the analysis shows not only that current compensation practices are problematic both from the standpoint of distributive justice and fairness, but also that incentive pay ultimately exacerbates the very agency problem it is purported to solve. KEY WORDS: executive compensation, distributive justice, pay disparity, incentive alignment

Many people argue that excessive executive compensation creates extreme unfairness between senior managers and employees. In other words, many executives are way over-paid than they should be. According to Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Apple Inc., Tim Cook’s 2015 total compensation was valued at $10.3 million (“Apple CEO Tim Cook 's 2015 Compensation: $10.3 Million”, 2016) – almost 200 times of an average salary-based worker’s compensation. The U.S. government has been making some effort facing this situation. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed his first budget that was later enacted by Congress as section 163(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Over 20 years has passed now, does this significant limitation in tax code actually worked?

First of all, American public is very reluctant to accept the assertion that CEO pay is fair as it is largely determined by the free market for talent. When CEOs claim that they receive their fair share of benefits in a system of fair play, people are ready to express their deep dismay at the way of how the companies and CEOs distribute the profits and benefits to their workers unfairly. In her article, “These Companies Have the Biggest CEO-Worker Pay Gaps”, Dr. Michal Addady, a well-known reporter at Fortune Magazine, reveals that in 2014 “the average CEO earns around 204 times what the company’s median worker receives… The highest CEO-worker pay ratio was found at Discovery Communications DISCA, where

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