Why do American CEOs get paid so much?

Journals won't publish papers that say in effect that the sky is blue.

 

Crikey, you'd make a great Trumpster!

 

Because with their guidance, American companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonald's etc turn over billions, so why shouldn't they get paid so much?

 

So they deserve more for market power and making abnormal profit levels? Interesting.

 

It's their job to steer companies into profit.
What do you abject to?

 

I just find the irony delicious. Such high profits refer to market power and therefore economic inefficiency (by definition). But you think such inefficiency deserves reward...

 

Yes, such fairness does make its own reward.

You know how efficient the USSR was? Look how that turned out.
Streamlined neat little box 1 size fits everybody everybody gets pigeon holed...
I think such high profits deserve such rewards.

 

People who want to streamline public services into a system often lose sight of humanity in the name of efficiency to an end that serves nobody.
'least CEOs of successful companies getting their fair share (a bigger piece of the pie) is fairness over equality, and that's something Communism doesn't have, is fairness.

 

Can you try relevance? Economic acceptance that market power drives economic inefficiency provides no excuse for USSR ramble. That you think such inefficiency deserves rewarding neatly advertises how right wingers are herd for big business.

 

Because the statistical correlation between CEO compensation and corporate financial performance is NEGATIVE.

 

There is no credible evidence that CEOs are particularly relevant to profitability. They are mainly paid millions to warm their chairs while the Fed kites the stock market for them.

 

You earn exactly what your time is worth unless you work for the government.

 

RECKLESS RONNIE!

You earn EXACTLY what the law permits you to earn. And the law is a matter of the will of the people. (Which they often sacrifice to those who manipulate to their own purposes - and that started a long time ago with Reckless Ronnie Raygun. See how the Upper-income Tax Rates came tumbling down during his tenure - here))

Americans are in love with millionaires/billionaires, and WOW! are the paying the price with the shafting they get for it:
*"The [poverty threshold figures] in United States are updated and used for statistical purposes. In 2015, in the United States, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was an annual income of US$11,770; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$24,250."
*"According to this measurement, there were 39.7 million Americans living in poverty last year. The official poverty rate in 2017 stood at 12.3 percent, a slight improvement from the 2016 rate of 12.7 percent. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 2.5 percentage points, from 14.8 percent.(Oct 1, 2010)"

See here, the historical record lower- and upper-income taxation here:


Which leads to this:


That above is one helluva rip-off of the American public by its topmost echelon. The Top 20% are "raking it in" and leaving it to their offspring ... !

PS: Those upper income rates must go back to where they were before Kennedy and the Raygun butchered them!

 

Economics always disagreed with that. Traditionally, it would refer to the Principal-Agent problem. Due to asymmetric information, the managsr would always find mechanisms to ensure overconpensation to the detriment of shareholders. However, its moved on from that as the deterioration in CEO-worker compensation can't be understood. The behavioural response is that it reflects peer effects. The manager cares about their compensation relative to others. Thus, when compensation levels are revealed, we get a ratcheting up of compensation.

No matter the economics used, mind you, your statement is kack.

 

So, what will happen then? No catastrophe for the rich and super-rich. They will continue live in massively expensive mansions like Mar-a-Lago in Florida (aka Trump-Heaven on the seaside).

But the added taxation will bring in the money that could pay for a decent National Healthcare System or send your kids at very low annual costs* to obtaining a Post-secondary Degree. (If we seriously diminish the Great Waste being spent on the DoD for expensive toyz-for-our-boyz-'n-galz to play with.)

That's what ... !

*Today the average annual Tuition Cost (at a state school) across America of $14K a year is far, far beyond the ability of anyone below the Poverty Threshold earning $25K a year!

 

<yawn> I guess that must be why Richard Fuld -- a man so completely evil, he actually looks like Voldemort
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...sible-for-losing-employees-savings-2016-03-18

-- took hundreds of millions from his employer, Lehman Brothers, even as he was piloting it and its employee pension fund into bankruptcy...

 

A fellow who calls Unions rent seekers whining about a right winger whinging. Got to laugh!

 

Anyone who is legally entitled to deprive others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible has the power to collect rents, and few can resist the temptation.

 

A Union which reduces underpayment reduces rent. Bit obvious really. However, I just found it amusing that you'd ramble on against a right winger when you actually already agree with right wing ponce and prance

 

Nope. If higher taxes equaled a thriving society, California would be a utopia. In spite of having the highest taxes, CA is the poverty capitol of the US, and has the biggest gap between the rich and poor. Schools rank with the lowest and roads are crumbling. High taxes chase business away and discourage growth.

 

Actually its the social net that matters with entrepreneurial spirit. You have that net and more people will be risk takers. Low tax, low social net economies are skewed towards big business.

 

That would also mean that the same CEOs would leave for a better offer. Having a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders means holding on to those who are capable of increasing profits. I don't know what kack is, but top CEOs don't work for less than they can get. Do you not have investments?

 

There's no evidence that the ratcheting up of CEO wages, relative to workers, reflects job offers.

Its really quite simple: your position is alien to economic reality.

 

How much is he making now?

 

Why do you imagine that could be relevant? He has already pocketed hundreds of millions.