A few questions about income inequality for the board

[WVPATX]

Hillary frequently complains about CEO pay and the fact that it is far too high as a percentage of the lowest paid at the company. In addition, libs in general complain about equal pay for women. A few questions.

1. Why does Hillary on focus on CEO pay? What about athletes or entertainers? They both earn considerably higher incomes than the lowest paid in their respective organizations?

2. What about female athletes vs. their male counterparts? Shouldn't WNBA players earn as much as NBA players? They both perform the same duties, right? Shouldn't female soccer players earn the same compensation as their male counterparts? Shouldn't actresses earn the same amount as actors?

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Hillary frequently complains about CEO pay and the fact that it is far too high as a percentage of the lowest paid at the company. In addition, libs in general complain about equal pay for women. A few questions.

1. Why does Hillary on focus on CEO pay? What about athletes or entertainers? They both earn considerably higher incomes than the lowest paid in their respective organizations?

2. What about female athletes vs. their male counterparts? Shouldn't WNBA players earn as much as NBA players? They both perform the same duties, right? Shouldn't female soccer players earn the same compensation as their male counterparts? Shouldn't actresses earn the same amount as actors?

 

[mule_eer]

I think the answer is fairly easy to your first question. Athletes and entertainers aren't paying people below them on the totem pole. They are employees, highly compensated employees. They don't make decisions about the pay scales of folks at Sony or Disney or for the Cowboys or 49ers.

I also think that the first portion of your second question - WNBA salaries vs NBA salaries - is easy. The players in those leagues are paid based off negotiated contracts that bear some connection to the money the league makes. The WNBA makes far less money than the NBA. I have no idea what sort of equity there might be in pay between female and male tennis players or female and male golfers. Those are harder arguments though because those sports pay based on how you perform as an individual.

There has been some recent talk about the relative pay of male and female actors. Jennifer Lawrence did an essay on that after the Sony leak revealed the salaries of other stars in the film American Hustle.

 

[Airport]

Hillary frequently complains about CEO pay and the fact that it is far too high as a percentage of the lowest paid at the company. In addition, libs in general complain about equal pay for women. A few questions.

1. Why does Hillary on focus on CEO pay? What about athletes or entertainers? They both earn considerably higher incomes than the lowest paid in their respective organizations?

2. What about female athletes vs. their male counterparts? Shouldn't WNBA players earn as much as NBA players? They both perform the same duties, right? Shouldn't female soccer players earn the same compensation as their male counterparts? Shouldn't actresses earn the same amount as actors?

 

[Airport]

Hillary frequently complains about CEO pay and the fact that it is far too high as a percentage of the lowest paid at the company. In addition, libs in general complain about equal pay for women. A few questions.

1. Why does Hillary on focus on CEO pay? What about athletes or entertainers? They both earn considerably higher incomes than the lowest paid in their respective organizations?

2. What about female athletes vs. their male counterparts? Shouldn't WNBA players earn as much as NBA players? They both perform the same duties, right? Shouldn't female soccer players earn the same compensation as their male counterparts? Shouldn't actresses earn the same amount as actors?

Well, it's easy to talk about CEO pay cause it's public knowledge and fully 80% of the people thinks it's high. However, if you work for a company like that, you want someone in charge that can get the job done and can keep you employeed and not layed off. The problem is, The gap in pay is now at the highest it's been since 1925. It's really a specious argument. Suscessful people build new houses, buy new things creat jobs for other people. Govt creates ghettos and welfare recipents. I guess is all equals out.

 

[mule_eer]

Well, it's easy to talk about CEO pay cause it's public knowledge and fully 80% of the people thinks it's high. However, if you work for a company like that, you want someone in charge that can get the job done and can keep you employeed and not layed off. The problem is, The gap in pay is now at the highest it's been since 1925. It's really a specious argument. Suscessful people build new houses, buy new things creat jobs for other people. Govt creates ghettos and welfare recipents. I guess is all equals out.

I think the problem gets created when you have some fairly bad CEOs still making that kind of money. When you have CEOs tanking companies so badly that the government steps in to save them - and the CEO still gets his bonuses - that's a bad set up. You also have CEOs who turn their lay offs into bonuses for themselves - they saved the company money even though most people are now working 70 hour weeks instead of 60 hour ones.

When it comes to being job creators, a handful of rich people can only build so many houses, buy so many cars, etc. Those people are still going to buy things if they make a little less. If they make a little less and the folks who work for them make a little more, suddenly millions of people can afford to build a house or buy a condo, buy a new car, etc. Which helps the overall economy more, a few at the top making a handful of big purchases or a bunch in the middle making purchases? I think the answer to that is easy.

 

[WVPATX]

I think the answer is fairly easy to your first question. Athletes and entertainers aren't paying people below them on the totem pole. They are employees, highly compensated employees. They don't make decisions about the pay scales of folks at Sony or Disney or for the Cowboys or 49ers.

I also think that the first portion of your second question - WNBA salaries vs NBA salaries - is easy. The players in those leagues are paid based off negotiated contracts that bear some connection to the money the league makes. The WNBA makes far less money than the NBA. I have no idea what sort of equity there might be in pay between female and male tennis players or female and male golfers. Those are harder arguments though because those sports pay based on how you perform as an individual.

There has been some recent talk about the relative pay of male and female actors. Jennifer Lawrence did an essay on that after the Sony leak revealed the salaries of other stars in the film American Hustle.

An athlete is part of the organization just as a CEO. The CEO doesn't determine his/her own pay in publicly traded companies. The BOD does. There is no difference between a CEO and say Labron, both are a part of organizations.

Hollywood entertainers are frequently employed by studios. Why doesn't Hillary talk about their pay differential?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that equality of pay is very, very difficult. Most well run companies pay based on value that employee brings to the company. Just as sports clubs pay based on value delivered. Lebron delivers a great deal more value than any WNBA player since he puts many, many more butts in the seats and on TV. Same is true in Hollywood. Male actors tend to put more butts in the seats.

But for the low information crowd, it doesn't matter.

BTW, I think sports is one of the greatest example of capitalism. Players are not chosen based on any factor other than ability. You can be any color, any creed, any religion, it doesn't matter. Compensation is based on perceived value created by the player. You can be the ugliest, shortest, fattest person and if you can throw a 100 mph fastball, you will get your due.

 

[mule_eer]

An athlete is part of the organization just as a CEO. The CEO doesn't determine his/her own pay in publicly traded companies. The BOD does. There is no difference between a CEO and say Labron, both are a part of organizations.

Hollywood entertainers are frequently employed by studios. Why doesn't Hillary talk about their pay differential?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that equality of pay is very, very difficult. Most well run companies pay based on value that employee brings to the company. Just as sports clubs pay based on value delivered. Lebron delivers a great deal more value than any WNBA player since he puts many, many more butts in the seats and on TV. Same is true in Hollywood. Male actors tend to put more butts in the seats.

But for the low information crowd, it doesn't matter.

How much overlap is there between CEOs and members of BODs? You don't think there's not some back scratching going on there? Regardless, your argument is bad in regard to people paying employees based on value added when you have folks making decisions that nearly bankrupt entire companies still getting their bonuses with bailout money. It's not always what you know. Sometimes it's who you know. That's the hard fact of life. I don't think that people should just sit back and accept that as a bad hand dealt by fate though.

I made the same argument as you with regard to your NBA vs WNBA example. Those players are paid based on how much money their respective leagues make. The WNBA is not going to pay any player, star or otherwise, a star NBA salary. You'll see the same sort of situation with respect to what coaches are paid in those respective leagues, regardless whether the coach is male or female.

I can name several female stars that put a lot of rears in movie seats, and Jennifer Lawrence is one of them. I can only name 2 stars off the top of my head from American Hustle, and she's one of them. How much money has she made for the studio that produced the Hunger Games films? Name any other major star in those. You can add Sandra Bullock and Angelina Jolie to the list of women who draw people into theaters.

 

[op2]

I think the amount entertainers and athletes makes is more market based than what CEOs make.

 

[dave]

I think the problem starts when you start worrying about what everyone else makes instead of worrying about yourself. JMO.

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't begrudge anyone whatever they make. People that do have an agenda. And most of those agendas are not ones I would support.

Now how those are taxed after they earn their income, now that is a different discussion and is what many politicians tend to discuss and individuals and commentators with agendas will take their talking points and turn it into something else. It happens on this board constantly and it may be happening on this thread.

I do believe there is an inequality of pay between races and more frequently, gender. Should government get involved? That is a discussion in its own.

 

[WVPATX]

How much overlap is there between CEOs and members of BODs? You don't think there's not some back scratching going on there? Regardless, your argument is bad in regard to people paying employees based on value added when you have folks making decisions that nearly bankrupt entire companies still getting their bonuses with bailout money. It's not always what you know. Sometimes it's who you know. That's the hard fact of life. I don't think that people should just sit back and accept that as a bad hand dealt by fate though.

I made the same argument as you with regard to your NBA vs WNBA example. Those players are paid based on how much money their respective leagues make. The WNBA is not going to pay any player, star or otherwise, a star NBA salary. You'll see the same sort of situation with respect to what coaches are paid in those respective leagues, regardless whether the coach is male or female.

I can name several female stars that put a lot of rears in movie seats, and Jennifer Lawrence is one of them. I can only name 2 stars off the top of my head from American Hustle, and she's one of them. How much money has she made for the studio that produced the Hunger Games films? Name any other major star in those. You can add Sandra Bullock and Angelina Jolie to the list of women who draw people into theaters.

Overlap between CEO's and their Boards? I'm not even sure what that means. Most CEO's are compensated based on performance. Their salaries generally make up a pretty small percentage of their overall compensation. Most CEO's are also shareholders and have a great deal of incentive to maximize shareholder value and indeed much of their total compensation is in the form of stock/stock options. Many CEO's are also Board members and have Board relationships but that doesn't mean they control the Board. I would suggest the Board is more influenced by their largest stockholders.

I must say that I have not read about a CEO bankrupting their company and still getting bonuses. I think the bankruptcy judge would have some claw back action to undertake. If somehow that happened, my guess is that there are contractual obligations involved. I realize there are "golden parachutes", but many Board's make those decisions as part of the hiring negotiation, not the CEO. And I think these examples are very much the exception. Most CEO's that are successful, became successful because of the value they brought to their organization.

Hillary vilifies CEO's because most people don't really know how they are compensated and who makes those decision and conversely they don't believe there is inequity in how much entertainers and sports figures earn. They realize it is due to how much value those people create.

I think most companies will compensate based on value delivered for fear of losing key employees. That includes studios. If Jennifer Lawrence thinks she is underpaid relative to her male counterparts then she is a bad negotiator. She doesn't have to take the acting job and can wait for better opportunities that pay her fairly. But to claim compensation should be the same even though people doing the same work create very different value is a false argument.

 

[dave]

I don't begrudge anyone whatever they make. People that do have an agenda. And most of those agendas are not ones I would support.

Now how those are taxed after they earn their income, now that is a different discussion and is what many politicians tend to discuss and individuals and commentators with agendas will take their talking points and turn it into something else. It happens on this board constantly and it may be happening on this thread.

I do believe there is an inequality of pay between races and more frequently, gender. Should government get involved? That is a discussion in its own.

I dislike the class warfare, but more importantly I get sick of listening to people bellyache because someone else makes more, whether it is some mega rich CEO or our interns. If someone wants to make more money, complaining and especially complaining to me isn't going to help.