This will make your holiday brighter: CEO pay up 36.5%
GMI Ratings, a corporate governance watchdog, has released the results of its latest survey of CEO pay for fiscal 2010. It found that CEO compensation for companies in the S&P 500 rose by a median of 36.5 percent. Three of the 10 highest paid CEOs work in the health-care industry, including the top two.
According to the GMI survey, the best-compensated CEO in the country in 2010 was John Hammergren at McKesson, the world’s largest health-care company, with a total compensation package of $145 million. Under Hammergren’s contract, he will also collect $469 million as severance. Quite a “reward for performance” system there, when your “penalty” for getting fired is almost half a billion dollars.
Here are the Top Ten:
“The 36.5 percent increase in realized compensation is particularly notable when it’s put in context of the modest growth of the economy in 2010 and general public company performance last year,” according to Paul Hodgson, chief communications officer and senior research associate at GMI.
“Particularly notable.” Yes, I suppose that’s one way to describe it.
And as GMI further notes, “In several notable cases, performance objectives that were not met in 2008 and 2009 were satisfied in 2010, though often only because the targets had been reduced. For that reason, during 2010, a modest economic recovery led to a rebound for many CEOs resulting in the annual cash bonuses.”
When you can’t meet performance targets, you merely lower the targets and ka-ching!! Gotta love it, right?
And the best is yet to come. According to The Guardian, GMI Ratings “is expecting a rash of massive stock option bonuses as many firms awarded their top executives big option deals when the stock markets hit their lows in 2007-2008.
“There’s still a lot of money just waiting in the market,” said Hodgson. He described the upcoming awards as a “bombshell” likely to dwarf this year’s figures.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
374 comments Add your comment
zeke
December 16th, 2011
2:28 pm
anyone believe someone in health sector can make that kinda of money for basically stealing from citizens? short of finding a cure for cancer, health insurance execs are just overhead most of the time.
Thulsa Doom
December 16th, 2011
2:29 pm
Taxpayer,
And if one is broke they also give in non-financial ways. Lets see how they stack up from the same report.
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
They BOTH suck
December 16th, 2011
2:30 pm
RB
“You do know one of the tenents of communism is complete control over the media, right?”
Guess Morning Joe, most of Fox News, the right leaning pundits on Fox, the numerous radio pundits are who center right to far right are just acting that they have a right leaning ideology…………. Moonie TImes, WSJ, the numerous right leaning editorials written daily in national papers including this one
Yeah boy the “left” runs it all…
You are smarter than you play on this blog…. I will grant you that much
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
2:32 pm
zeke – What do they steal and how do they steal it? Are they not citizens themselves? Also, what does a health insurance company have to do with finding a cure for cancer?
Welcome to the Occupation
December 16th, 2011
2:36 pm
(ir)Rational: “I don’t understand how you can see someone who has obviously been so successful in life and not want what he has. I know that’s one of the reasons I get up in the morning.”
There are many ways to define “success”, (ir)Rational. I see wealth accumulation that does not necessary see itself as obliged to help the society in which that wealth was accumulated (”richesse oblige” if you will) to be a pretty narrow and cynical way to think of success.
By the way on a side note, that statement seems to qualify as an expression of “wealthy envy” by the conservative definition. Whether you resent the person’s wealth or decide to set it as an ideal for yourself as something to strive for, you’re still envying it. For me, it’s different.
On to this: “Hey, one day that could be me. All I have to do is work hard, get a good education and maybe I’ll get to be one of those guys that has it all.”
Because when the system is rigged to concentrate and consolidate power where it already is (capital gains tax elimination, for ex.), then those things you mention by definition become less and less accessible to those outside the circle of existing wealth. Besides, when you say “maybe I’ll get to be one of those guys that has it all”, what if I don’t want to be someone who “has it all”? Maybe instead of that what I want is just to live in a society where everyone in theory has a reasonable ability to share in “all” the society’s prosperity. Banana republic living just doesn’t appeal to me, but maybe that’s me.
Jack
December 16th, 2011
2:40 pm
Those gents that make the big bucks pay the big taxes: taxes that pay for things like the low income tax credits; things like the care and feeding of babies born in homes where no tax revenue is generated. And those gents will be paying an additional 3.8% surtax in the near future on Medicare. If the Bush tax cuts expire, those gents’ tax rate will become 39.6% plus the 3.8%; a total of 43.4%. I’m not really sure how much Bookman wants them to pay in order for him to stop encouraging chaos.
zeke
December 16th, 2011
2:40 pm
ir they set rates that are high and a monopoly….and you are right health insurance execs could really care less about the health of citizens…..but you sure are dense….the point is i’d bet half the mbas in the country could do as well as this overpaid chump at the top. this putz did not invent health insurance but he probably got his buddies on the board to scratch each others back and dole out high comp.
ever watch these folks appearing before cspan….
do you really think this guy’s contributions are commensurate with his compensation?
Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it
December 16th, 2011
2:44 pm
Well, I wouldn’t want to be a CEO and put in all the hours looking at fancy shower curtains and $800 trash cans for the office and then topping it off by going to a cocktail party and being nice to everybody. I’m just not the nice, polite type.
But I sure wouldn’t mind being a member of a Board of Directors or three or five or seven. I hear some of them get $50,000 just for attending a meeting and they even get told how they should vote, so not alot of thinkinig is required. And once you get on one board other cos. start asking you to be on their board too, and the money just rolls in.
So just in case there’s any CEO on this blog I’m letting everybody know I’m ready to be appointed to a Board. I’ll even go to K & G and buy a cheap suit, if the money’s right—maybe one of them two-for-$125 dealies. If the corp. is cheap and don’t want to pay that much then they’ll just have to take me in my coveralls with the big Budweiser label. I promise to vote however the CEO wants me to vote and it’s OK if my meeting check gets mailed instead of me getting it right on the spot.
Of course the work can’t interfere with my beer hauling. Maybe the board can meet at night or on weekends.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 16th, 2011
2:44 pm
Jack: “Those gents that make the big bucks pay the big taxes: taxes that pay for things like the low income tax credits”
They create no jobs, Jack, these “gents”. Apparently you don’t find it odd that there are greater numbers of unemployed even as these “gents” continue to hoard their wealth. Unlike you, I am struck by that, and I think it’s anything but coincidental.
“I’m not really sure how much Bookman wants them to pay in order for him to stop encouraging chaos.”
Well, Bookman — being the good centrist – won’t go along with me, but I’ll tell you what I think it should be: it should be a top marginal tax rate pushing 100%. That would finally be “enough” in my view.
Now. Since you’ve finally come face to face with a TRUE left perspective, what epithets do you have left in your quiver to throw at me? Something tells me the usual “liberal” or the standbys in the Hannity/Limbaugh lexicon won’t fit the bill.
Steve - USA
December 16th, 2011
2:44 pm
Congratulations to the CEO’s. I applaud success.
Hopefully some worthy charities will get some of that dough and I don’t mean a stripper named Charity.
Thulsa Doom
December 16th, 2011
2:47 pm
zeke,
There is only one health insurance company on that list and that was Aetna in 8th place I think. McKesson and Omnicare are not health insurance but health care companies- go to their websites to see what they do. And feel free not to buy from Aetna but from one of the many other health insurance companies that pay their execs less money.
Joseph
December 16th, 2011
2:52 pm
Jay its laughable that you try and defend the newest poll showing how attrocious Obama is doing. For a sitting President to look this bad and you defend it as good news. Wait till we get a nominee and ads start running about Obama’s record and lets see where he is…..
Stevie Ray
December 16th, 2011
2:52 pm
GETALIFE,
Agreed on the GOP folks you mentioned…I LOVE THIS…anytime we can get bi-partisan cronyism and corruption in the headlines the closer we get to meaningful reform…at the rate we are going, it may even happen in my lifetime..
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
2:54 pm
Welcome to the Occupation – I’ll go ahead and admit that I’m “envious” of their wealth, but only in the sense that I see it as a goal. As for the rest of your post. Maybe we can just agree to disagree? I don’t agree that a society that shares in the expenditures of someone else’s labors is a good thing. I take care of my own first, and others second. And I won’t apologize for it.
zeke – You missed the point exactly. I was saying that INSURANCE companies in general have 0 to do with research for cures, considering they only provide insurance. The guy at the top of the list, he is in charge of a company that raked in over $100 billion last year. As far as insurance rates are concerned, no one is actually forcing you to buy insurance. You can go to the doctor without it, you just have to pay for it yourself. And, insurance companies aren’t a monopoly in the simple sense that there are dozens of them. And their rates are regulated by the states in which they do business. Blame your state for the rates, not the executive who has no idea you exist. What makes you think his contributions to his company, in terms of energy spent for them, time away from family, profits and goals realized by the company, etc. wasn’t commensurate with his compensation? The company seems to think it was, otherwise they wouldn’t pay him that.
Thulsa Doom
December 16th, 2011
2:54 pm
Zeke,
Aetna has about 56 million members and is the nation’s 3rd largest health insurance company. If their CEO was paid 57 million that means that out of the thousands of dollars in premium that each Aetna member paid in over the course of the year- lets say $5,000 for the average family of 3 or 4, then all of $1 and a couple pennies went into the pockets of the Aetna CEO. If I were an Aetna member I would gladly pay that 1 dollar and change for a CEO who is going to make sure my health care plan doesn’t go under.
The most amazing thing about liberals is their complete detachment from being able to put things in perspective. Their emotional thinking just doesn’t allow for it.
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
2:56 pm
Thulsa – He can’t buy from anyone but Aetna, they’re a “monopoly.” I think Omnicare is a pharmaceutical company, but that doesn’t matter, they’re all “evil.”
LOL
December 16th, 2011
2:59 pm
These CEO’s are CEO’s of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, it is nobody’s business what they are paid. If you wish not to use their company’s services then so be it; but we have no right to set there compensation levels, that is entirely up to the companies that employ them.
zeke
December 16th, 2011
3:00 pm
thulsa, you probably think you make a big contribution to society too. since many business execs try to keep wages in check, really they need to look in teh mirror and ask the question…are they really worth what they are paid? what do they really do to earn such? maybe you can educate us???
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:00 pm
LOL – But, but, but, they make more than the guy flipping burgers at McDonald’s! That’s evil.
alex
December 16th, 2011
3:10 pm
@lol, you’re TOO stupid to respond to.. as for thulsa whatever, drive your leased benz into the closest source of water, please
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:10 pm
zeke – Say I’m the executive of ZYX Corp. I have my base salary, plus I get a percentage of any profits my company realizes. Oh, and the board comes to me and says, last year we operated at a net loss of $10 billion, so we don’t expect you to make any actual profits this year, but we’ll give you a percentage of anything we save over a net loss of say $7 billion. So, this year, I go in and take a hard look at everything, make the difficult decision to cut some jobs, move some people around, close this branch that isn’t performing and do whatever it is I have to do to try and stem the hemmoraging that the company is experiencing. I manage to cut it to where we only lose $2 billion, that’s $5 billion under what the board and stockholders were expecting. Do I deserve some of this savings I’ve helped the company to?
getalife
December 16th, 2011
3:13 pm
“anytime we can get bi-partisan cronyism and corruption in the headlines the closer we get to meaningful reform…at the rate we are going, it may even happen in my lifetime..”
You got that right,
I hope we do see it.
zeke
December 16th, 2011
3:14 pm
sure as long as all others in organization responsible for actually executing the day to day get theirs too….
be interesting to see salaries/comp of all in the food chain….
the head coach or gm of falcons doesn’t make what high contribution players make…
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:16 pm
zeke – Do you understand that these are private companies, who by virtue of the fact that they are private, don’t have any obligation whatsoever to disclose the pay of their employees? Or, if you think they should, why not set an example and disclose your salary, and everyone else in your family’s salary.
getalife
December 16th, 2011
3:18 pm
Whoa the feds charged six with fraud.
The plot thickens.
Ernest T. Bass
December 16th, 2011
3:20 pm
I wouldn’t mind their wages going up 36 percent if mine did as well.
They don’t.
Eventually that sort of discrepancy is unsustainable.
zeke
December 16th, 2011
3:21 pm
ir,you have an appropriate moniker
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:22 pm
Ernest – do you work for any of these companies? If no (and I suspect no) did your boss get a 36% pay increase? If no, and again, I suspect no, why does it matter to you that these particular CEOs did?
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:24 pm
zeke – I could care less, but I do that as a joke directed towards those who think I am completely irrational. Presenting a rational viewpoint seems to get that reaction a lot though, at least on the more left-leaning blogs, and people kept telling me how irrational I was when I called myself “Rational” so I added the (ir).
Erwin's cat
December 16th, 2011
3:28 pm
iR…I agree, I just don’t get why some company’s write in serious severance packages that are not performance based…and again short term stock options are bad too….the CEO may focus on short term gains at the expense of long term viability
Ernest T. Bass
December 16th, 2011
3:32 pm
Ernest – do you work for any of these companies? If no (and I suspect no) did your boss get a 36% pay increase? If no, and again, I suspect no, why does it matter to you that these particular CEOs did?
Frankly it doesn’t.
But when people are out there struggling and the middle class is dissapearing this becomes a problem.
We are approaching record levels of wealth inequality in this country and that sort of thing wont work for long.
Its sort of crazy that people would be so quick to champion the rich in this country and they are people who probably wouldn’t spit on you if you were on fire.
But the poor. Eh who needs em.
Sounds like the sort of thing Jesus would do.
Favor the rich over the poor.
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:32 pm
Erwin – That is up to the company and the board to rectify. Not saying it is a perfect situation, but it is something that you or I can’t control unless we find ourselves in a position to do so. I just don’t understand where all the hate and outrage comes from when it comes to people finding out what others make. I don’t consider it any of my business to know these things. Not that I’m not going to look if it is offered up before me, but it isn’t my business and it isn’t something I’m going to lose sleep over.
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:36 pm
Ernest – If it doesn’t matter, which you say it doesn’t, why do you seem to care? Like I said earlier, I see their wealth and position as a challenge to myself to try and get there one day. I realize that I may never (who am I kidding, will probably never) even get close to it, but I wouldn’t mind leaving my children better off then my parents left me. Still, I see it as a challenge, not as something that needs to be criticized.
alex
December 16th, 2011
3:44 pm
(ir) hate to burst your idiot bubble but some of these companies are not private, are you that stupid or are you a tea partier( any difference). Off with their heads, the sooner the better…
(ir)Rational
December 16th, 2011
3:56 pm
alex – Not that you would necessarily understand the difference, but not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or stupid. Also, unless they’re owned by the government, which unless I’m missing something, none of them are, they’re all privately held. Even if they’re traded on the stock market, they’re owned by private citizens, not by the government, which is the distinction I’m making when I refer to them as private.
Also, does anyone besides me find it odd that so many liberals, (who supposedly love peace and abhor violence) are so quick to advocate violence against those that have more than they do?
Nope
December 16th, 2011
4:18 pm
The cries of wealth envy are a joke. It wold be true if it were at all possible to move up in this world… but they way the 1% have structured it, the middle class is moving down, not up. And that is the way they want it…
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
December 16th, 2011
4:46 pm
At the end of the day, it is none of your business.
wally
December 16th, 2011
4:51 pm
Bookman: “My pay’s not up 36.5%! My pay’s down because what I do and the job I hold is becoming irrelevant. I’m so jealous of these guys! So I’ll stand on my little platform and shout insults!”
lovelyliz
December 16th, 2011
5:22 pm
I’m old enough to remeber whenn the justification for these humongous compensation packages was pay-for-play. Now the CEO’s get paid no matter what even after sinking the corporation into the toilet.
Bluecoat
December 16th, 2011
6:31 pm
That Thulsa one smart lady.Bet she makes big money.One classy lady.
GT/MIT
December 16th, 2011
6:45 pm
Bookman just what the hell business is it of yours???
marko
December 16th, 2011
6:54 pm
Just think Mitt and Newt don’t agree on much these days, but it’s safe to say that they agree the reason the economy’s in the crapper’s because Obama wants to tax these guys a little bit more. Not that he’s actually done it. They’re just upset that he might do it. Politicians spend so much time worrying about things that might happen, they just don’t have the time or energy to deal with stuff that’s already happened. People that respond so negatively to congressional approval polls are obviously to lazy to worry constantly about rotten things that could conceivably happen. This country would be a much better place if we just got off our lazy asses and worried our fair share.
Mama Says
December 16th, 2011
7:27 pm
I make 70,000 a year, struggle to make all my payments and have had to work several part time jobs. Thanks Jay, you have reassured me that hard work can pay off. CEO’s were , and most still are, hard workers who have attained the ultimate goal. Most Americans were raised to believe that hard work is the only path to success . Throughout our history we have risen to the occasion as Americans and improved ourselves . We all strive to be rich and live the good life, to say otherwise is a lie. The real problem is that at some point the liberals have managed to turn a segment of our population into crying children who sit in timeout watching the other kids play with the toys that the liberal really wants. The liberal then complains to the government to take it and give it to them.
This is the surest way to kill this country. The need to cry about what the other person has, while at the same time demanding that the government take more of everyone’s money is juvenile at best, sad at worst. Especially given the fact that the very liberals who exploit the issue live high on the per verbal hog off the tax payers dime. Private jets, penthouses and caviar all while telling the private CEO that he makes to much.
Simply promoting the CEO as what to strive for would be wonderful incentive to our kids. Rather the liberals argue that it should all be limited and shared. Or in reality taken away and given to those who rather live in a park and complain than go to work and improve themselves.
Then again the mega rich labor union bosses and liberal contributors can keep theirs, can’t they ?
ragnar danneskjold
December 16th, 2011
10:35 pm
The ten richest Americans are all leftists. It pays to have connections when the leftists run things.
ken
December 17th, 2011
12:36 am
99% of CEOs are good hard working people. Cathy Truit and many others.
ken
December 17th, 2011
12:38 am
Stop the class warfare Jay. It isn’t working any more.
Ol' Thimer
December 17th, 2011
6:36 am
The courses I took in critical thinking years ago make it impossible for me to understand the thought processes of some of these ol’ boys who wear the mantle of conservatism. They might check out that period of American history referred to as the Gilded Age to see where we’re headed and how wonderful a plutocracy is for the middle and working classes.
Hopefully a reincarnated Teddy Roosevelt will appear on the scene to save us from such a fate.
Buzz G
December 17th, 2011
8:32 am
Time to cut Bookman’s pay and raise his taxes.
StuBioge
December 17th, 2011
9:33 am
Total Realized income includes both most-recent-fiscal-year pay and any money earned on the exercise of stock and options during that same year. When the world became angry about executive bonuses, companies shifted income into performance-based short-term incentive programs. With the moderate market recovery, these (mostly) options are much more valuable and because they are now starting to vest, executives are exercising them, hence, big money. Close to 100mil of Hammergen’s money was in exercise of previously earned equity awards.
Retired Vet
December 17th, 2011
12:03 pm
@ Marko Dec 16 6:45 PM “but it’s safe to say that they agree the reason the economy’s in the crapper’s because Obama wants to tax these guys a little bit more”
Newsflash Marko, the economy was thrown in the crapper before Bush and company left town in 2008. You mean tax them at the same rate that Clinton did? But Marko, they did very well then also. Marko, are you drunk, blind or stupid? Maybe all three because the Republicans lost the White House in the Nov 2008 election, and since then people who espouse your philosophy say the most riduculous things.
Why does it matter
December 17th, 2011
12:22 pm
Why does it matter how much CEOs are getting paid? We cannot control what they get paid.
Retired Vet
December 17th, 2011
12:23 pm
CEO’s pay increase by 36%. Conservatives yell hooray! Working class see their pay flatline, and Republican voters cheer on the greedy and bash the OWSs. For the first time in the history of health insurance in America people can’t be dropped for getting sick, and unemployed young adults who do not have health insurance or may be in grad school working on a PhD. can stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. People with preexisitng conditions can get health insurance. Republican voters say bad Obama. Has the world gone mad?
captguitarman
December 17th, 2011
1:46 pm
Corporate governance, both jurisdictional and private, has been compromised so much over the last few decades that these numbers are no surprise, and they didn’t just pop up for the first time this year. The state of the economy doesn’t really affect them much any more either. Much has been said and written since the melt down in September of 2008 about the oligarchy, plutocracy,
or “plutarchy” now in full control of this nation’s economy and financial isntitutions and the federal budget. The now deeply rooted and ongoing entertwining of the interests of our elected politicians, lobbyists, government and enforcement agencies, banks, financial institutions, domestic and multinational corporations, and their boards of directors has much to do with the numbers on Jay’s chart.
I am no supporter of the OWS means and methods and their fuzzy goals and agenda, which has allowed them to be hijacked by professional lefitst agitators and protestors, and labor unions, but their claims about the continuing upward drift of the nation’s wealth to the very well off, super rich, etc. is dead on correct. CEO’s make ridiculously high and unjustifiable salaries vs. every one else in their companiesfor the work that they do. The middle class is in danger of disappearing unless we can get back and keep the jobs we have been exporting for almost three decades, mostly for the benefit of the guys on Jay’s list, and many others like them, and the members of the plutarchy.
But back to the lack of jurisdictional and private corporate governance. In my view, the change that has allowed this economic tsunami to occur is lack of accountability. Jay mentioned something about just moving the CEO’s performance targets lower when targets can’t be met. And while that is correct, the greater danger is the ability of the members of the plutarchy to act, take risks, and dream and scheme, and to do things only in their best interests, and if it all blows up, it is no skin off their teeth. No loss of job, no drop in salary or bonus . . . and in many cases more pay and a higher bonus. Boards of Directors are so compromised now by the senior managers of their corporations that the idea of governance by indpendent outside directors supervising senior management is a complete joke. By and large all of the major boards these days are in the tank, and accountability for performance in the upper corporate echelons is non-existent, and any if performance is so bad (or the taxpayers have to bail your company out) so that severance is the only option, a fortune awaits the unaccountable poor performer as he or she walks out the door. But in middle management on down, accountability and productivity are all important, and productivity is at an all time high, and people live in fear of losing their jobs and benefits, and the benefiting plutarchy is not anxious to see that situation end. Actually, today the reward for moving up the corporate ladder is shedding accountability. And of course, with so many elected Senators and Congressmen and the huge federal departments and agencies, accountability is impossible with the constant finger pointing at others when things go wrong.
And among the plutarchy mentioned above – Senators, Congressmen, government departments, enforcement agencies, government workers, lobbyists, banks, fincancial institutions, senior corporate managers, etc. which of them has suffered the consequences of what they unleashed upon this nation in the fall of 2008? Despite a scape goat that turns up here or there, they are really no longer accountable, and our system now shields those who should be most accountable, (public or private) from the risks they create while looking out only for their own self interest. As one small example, just ask Barney Frank about his role in the implosion of Fannie and Freddie . . . who, me . . you can’t mean me? It was those other guys. I wish it was just incompetence, but incompetence combined with ever increasing lack of accountability, and no fear of suffering any consequences is far worse.
Dekalb comments
December 17th, 2011
4:00 pm
No one, not the person that discovers a cure for cancer or feeds every last hungry soul on earth has earned $145M in one year. These numbers are a perversion and immoral. When is enough, enough?
I don’t envy a CEO adequate compensation for the responsibility of running a significant business. But I challenge anyone to justify these numbers on any rational basis. These numbers are perverse enough if they are based on a company doing well…thank you Mr. Hammergen for raping people in need of medical services. But then you have to factor in the golden parachutes they get if their either strip down the company, lay off 20% of the workers and outsource them to India and sell the company or the company fails.
No wonder the issues raised by OWS are resonating with the majority of ordinary Americans. They may not agree with OWS tactics but they understand the outrage.
Batman
December 17th, 2011
8:13 pm
I notice that Jay had nothing to say about the earnings of Mr. Kennedy, the owner of Cox. What say we get a petition going to get Mr. Kennedy to give away all his assests, disband the corrupt AJC and become the monk that Jay and his judgemental minions want him to be.
After all, its all in the name of fairness, right?
And some on here may want to think about the fact that CEOs rarely determine their own saleries. That is done by a board of directors and it is done because that board believe that people who can lead a multi-billion dollar company are in high demand. If they don’t pay them the money, someone else will.
This class warfare crap is getting so old. Does anyone even dream that if those people were not so successful that the losers that are complaining would make an extra dime?
And Retired Vet, everyone I know is paying a LOT more for much less health insurance. Yes, there are some kids that now have coverage and people with pre-existing conditions have health insurance, but of course there is no limit to what the insuranbce companies can charge them, so the result is a profit incresae for the Health Insurance companies just this year of 41%. If you think that this abortion of a bill is good for the middle class, you are insane.
http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2010/11/15/insurance-company-profits-up-41-percent/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1
JIM
December 18th, 2011
7:04 am
No I don’t believe some of the commenters on the blog. There are lots of folks who would turn down 145M/year compensation.
I would. Not justifiable in any way. I would be CEO of Coca-Cola for 2M/year and a new car allowance. I would sell all their corporate jets and fly commercial every time. It’d be better for the company, the share holders, the employees, the environment, and the economy as well as set a great example. All this nonsense about “they earned it” is total, unadulterated BS.
Obscene excess always ends in obscene ways.
ken
December 18th, 2011
7:39 am
Jim, your statements show why you are not a CEO.
brother bill
December 18th, 2011
8:57 am
Given that CEO compensation doesn’t affect shareholders, employees or customers, how about we pay the CEOs 100% of gross profit. Imagine the growth of that company as the CEO now has the ‘incentive’ to grow the company.
The Carnivore
December 18th, 2011
9:53 am
1. I’m a CEO and my pay isn’t up 36.5% (your sample size is inexcusably small).
2. This is not a liberal issue … the CEOs are screwing over their own shareholders, who are generally not Democrats.
3. Why don’t you write an article about all the CEOs whose pay went down this year … they could form a union! Oh wait …
Bob
December 18th, 2011
10:14 am
The share holders and the elected Board are responsible for the pay of the CEO.
zeke
December 18th, 2011
10:22 am
apparently share holders are not doing their job, powerless or dumb as heck…and board members just part of the club of back scratchers
Russ555
December 18th, 2011
10:50 am
Giving raises to the CEOs without giving raises to all employees in similiar amounts is nothing short of criminal behavior. Raises should be the same across the board. Anything more than that should be reserved for raises for promotions.
Janney
December 18th, 2011
11:27 am
(Ir)rational and I look at Jay’s blog and see two very different things. He sees wealth envy, I see greed. Regardless of the paradigm, the relevant question should be “is the fact that 92% of the wealth in this country controlled by the top 10% a good idea for our political system (democracy) as well as our economic system (capitalism)? We can argue over morality and fairness, but long term, can we sustain a system where the wealthy continue to aggregate more and more wealth along with power, while the middle and lower classes stagnate?
zeke
December 18th, 2011
11:58 am
that’s why he/she is irrational…
Hmmmmmmmmm
December 18th, 2011
1:35 pm
and your point…?
Hmmmmmmmmm
December 18th, 2011
1:35 pm
Oh, never mind…… You have NO point…
TallaDawg
December 18th, 2011
4:25 pm
All of you neo-con/Tea Party folks saying this does not have anything to do with the general public or anyone but the shareholders (at least the ones who own enough to have an effect with their votes): This IS a very deep commentary on our society as a whole, and the fact that most people cannot even hope to affect these situations shows the sad state of our “capitalist” system (which is NOT really capitalism, but a system of small sets of intertwined oligopolies).
Charles
December 18th, 2011
4:49 pm
Jay,
When you going to share the story about those folks in Seattle who live in a $1.2 million house taking food stamps from the taxpayers? (wait, wait, wait……) I didn’t think so!
Contractor
December 18th, 2011
5:11 pm
Envy is a stinky cologne Bookman.
JIM
December 18th, 2011
7:09 pm
Hey ken..As CEO my 1st order of business would be to fire pompous know it alls like you
KW
December 18th, 2011
8:03 pm
SYMBOL, Change in $/Share Over Past Year
MCK: 12.92%
OCR: 38.35%
TRW: (42.5%)
VRSK: 16.12%
CVS: 9.16%
GGP: (1.43%)
RL: 21.87%
VNO: (7.1%)
AET: 32.99%
GBL: 1.71%
With the exception of TRW, I’d be a pretty happy shareholder (and am one in AET) with each company’s performance over the last 12 months (when considering the industry of VNO and GGP).
Easy answers
December 18th, 2011
8:53 pm
You don’t like the numbers in the charts? Don’t invest in those companies (or buy any of their services if you think you are being ripped off price wise because so much compensation is allegedly being paid to the CEOs). I’m sure they could get people to do as good a job for a fraction of the price (I say the same thing about pro athletes, entertainers, etc.). Concert too expensive? Don’t go. CD too expensive? Don’t buy it. Think some (predominantly lower educated) pro sports athlete won’t play the game for $2 million a year instead of $12 milion? Then let them sit, hundreds can take their places (and would give a lot to get the $2 mil).
Look closely at what they refer to as compensation (biggest parts are things like ‘assume values of stock’….where the footnote says here is what something will be worth in 10 years at 8% annual return, etc.). Stock market lost you money in 2000s…anyone who made 8% a year for 10 years (not many) would be labeled a genius.
Fire the boards of these companies, who give the ridiculous comp packages (you’ll find most of these places run by board members who are buddies with the CEO, etc.).
Chris
December 18th, 2011
9:56 pm
How about doing a little more research for us Jay. How about listing the money these CEO’s donated to charity? How about listing the salary and benefit packages paid to their employees? Maybe list the total revenues for these corporations so we can get a little perspective?
Maybe explain to me why I should care how much these people make… Or why there isn’t the same furor over money amounts paid to top actors in Hollywood or top performers in sports or music? How about the insane amount of money paid to lawyers? Or the insane abuse of power for profit committed on both sides of the aisle in Congress?
Seems you only care to demonize the evil rich capitalists who run corporations… You sound like a broken record.
dcb
December 19th, 2011
7:26 am
I’m sorry to get in late on this – number 400 almost will most probably be overlooked. But bottom line Jay, is that I’m surprised you didn’t include in this piece how many of these CEO’s are Republicans and how many are Democrats. I mean after all a good Democrat certainly wouldn’t accept such lofty compensation, correct? And isn’t it only the greedy GOP and their desire to have spending cuts in entitlement programs rather than increased taxes to help offset our financial woes the root of all evil?