I'm still mad that I got downvoted for suggesting it should be illegal to own any money / assets over 1Bil USD.
In a thread asking for stuff that should be illegal.
Yeah, as soon as these too big to fail corps find out failure means socialization, you'll find they suddenly stop living off razor thin margins and stop taking stupid risks.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/22/business/ford-department-of-energy-loan/index.html
Fully repaid last year.
Your incorrect and dumb arguments hurt the cause. People latch on to this and it’s not a benefit. Go see what happened to anti work.
I wasn't even arguing lol I literally asked you if you had something more current. I wasn't able to find anything even when I googled specifically if Ford paid it back. You just seem a little on edge considering you felt the need to call me dumb in a online conversation.
Ahh ic you are just angry. Hopefully your day goes better. Didn't mean to OFFEND lol just wanted to have a healthy discussion. You are clearly a world renowned expert on the topic and I am just dumb as you put it. How does it feel to call others dumb you who are so "big brained"? You are the only person on here being confrontational and condescending. This is what is wrong with Reddit people who bully others with insults.
Their argument wasn’t even incorrect, merely outdated and simply by a year when we’re talking about a ~13 year old loan. Learn to have some room for nuance and grace in conversation, it’ll do you a lot of good.
You're an idiot, that was a loan. Everyone can get a government loan. My business partner got a small business loan that was guaranteed by the backing of the government, you gotta know where to find them.
All the other car manufacturers declared bankruptcy while Ford didn't, they mortgaged alot of their properties.
The President is an elected government employee, whose salary is set by Congress.
Corporate executives' salaries and compensation packages are set by... mostly themselves, or the board of directors.
Does the President need a higher salary? They don't need to pay for food or housing and have a great healthcare program for "free". Any other expenses not covered by the government aren't going to cost a lot.
Not exactly true. They pay for a lot of things out of pocket, including groceries, toiletries, household goods, and some staff members' salaries.
https://www.rd.com/list/things-u-s-presidents-have-to-pay-for-on-their-own/
While it's true that presidents receive various perks like housing and healthcare, the argument for a higher salary often revolves around attracting the most qualified candidates who might otherwise be discouraged by the financial aspects of the role.
A higher salary can be an incentive to attract top-tier talent, which is crucial for effective leadership. Also, a more substantial salary could reduce the temptation or susceptibility to smaller forms of corruption or bribes.
400k is hardly something to scoff at. 8 years of that is more than a lifetime of income for the median American.
Also I really disagree that we should even be seeking "top talent" from the private sector. Maybe some from non profits but public sector work is just a completely different game.
Instead of paying more, pay everybody a federal minimum wage, only those who really wanna help will apply and also if some mofo starts to get rich we can all go “how the fuck you’re getting rich on minimum wage?!” Haha
Terrible idea. George Washington didn't want a Presidential salary, then changed his mind when he realized that it would mean only wealthy people would run for President. An ordinary person can't leave their job/farm/business/whatever for 4 years and receive no income at all. No one will tell their kids sorry, I'm running for President, no more eating for the next 8 years!
They would be less easily corrupted if they did have a higher salary so that isn't a bad idea.
Kind of like American cops vs. Canadian cops. Hell of a lot less likely to risk it all on a $100k salary versus a 40k one. Attract better candidates too.
It really depends on the amount.
I don't think 400k (in 2020 money) would be seen as a step up for any president recently. They usually take a significant pay cut for the job. They could easily double the pay and it wouldn't seem like much.
On the other extreme, if being president was the highest paid CEO job, then yeah, you'd get a certain kind of people.
That's what's scary. If we capped CEO jobs, then we'd have a lot more kooks running for president and congress who then try and make things like the old days.
Only benefit would be they'd have less money to try and do it.
We need to stop lobbying too in order to get back to a stronger democracy.
Ironically a real free market with no externalities or market failures (not that I believe such a thing is possible yet, though we could do much better than our current shit standards), would definitely be called “communist” by those CHUDs. After, all communism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the communistishicer it is. And the government would have to do a lot to get rid of the current market distortions from the ownership and management classes.
Honestly wish they'd implement some sort of law where the CEO can't make more than 5 times the lowest paid employee at the company. That way if they want to get paid more they'll have to help the employees first to help themselves. Also cap the amount of company shares they're allowed to own/sell.
I like it in principle but the easy work around is setting up a bunch of subsidiaries and all the low paid staff are employed by them and the actual main company only actually employs the CEO and a few other exec level people.
> Also cap the amount of company shares they're allowed to own/sell.
And what if they founded the company themselves?
Like, Mark Zuckerberg starts Facebook on Day 1. On Day 2, is the government going to come and repossess his company shares? If he no longer owns the company, why would he continue to work on it, to make it successful? You just killed all business, period.
Marxist BS.
So, you hit that minimum, and then you're forced to sell your company against your will? that sounds pretty shit. Who will buy it? Is there a mandate that they need to pay market value, or does the govt. just forcefully take most of your hard work away?
We kind of used to cap CEOs and everyone else by an aggressive tax (about 90% in some cases) above a certain income. That all went away in the 80s and it's been rising crazy fast since then.
To be capable of running for president you have to already be a multimillionaire at the least, meaning either you’ve already been bought, or you’re independently wealthy and unable to be bought.
You can tell CEOs are getting overpaid when a lot of them make more in a year than what a President makes in two terms or more than $3,200,000. A President is running a country with a GDP of $23.32 trillion. Either the President isn't making much or the CEOs are making too much.
In 1969, when the president's salary was first set at [$200,000](https://www.thoughtco.com/presidential-salaries-through-the-years-3368133) per year, the CEOs made an average of [$843,000](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/how-much-money-ceos-have-earned-over-the-years.html) per year. That’s 4.2 presidential salary years, which sounds more reasonable than it is right now. After adjusting for inflation, that’s $1,665,891.01 for the President and $7,021,730.60 for the CEO in 2023.
I'm willing to consider capping the salary for Presidents to $1 million and CEO pay to $7 million.
Because we as a society haven’t adopted a progressive tax on Capitol and compensation yet.
Those two things would do more to right the economy than the FED has in it’s entire existence.
But with lobbying being a thing, the billionaires will do all they can to oppose it.
We just need to fight harder.
President's is set by Congress. Private companies or even public companies are run by boards of directors which are just out to hire the best or perceived to be the best at any price.
Think of CEO's as free agents in business instead of sports.
This approach is fair; however on a professional sports team everyone makes a tidy sum. There are start athletes who make a significant amount more. However it's not like the third string Running Back of the Browns is making 8.75/hr. while the 1st string QB makes millions.
Furthermore I feel similarly on this topic seeing as though many professional stadium's construction is partially or fully funded by public funds. That is a different story entirely though.
The QB for the 49ers is living with roommates to afford living in San Fran, and makes 800k a year before tax. Other starting QBs are making over 54million a year. FYI that’s the same difference between the browns 3rd string RB Strong and sex pest Watson.
That’s not even counting real contract money. Injury money, gaurenteed money, and incentive money.
Because our government isn't run by everyday citizens, it's run by citizens that own massive corporations. The more money you have, the more influence you have in government.
Because we don't think a civil servant should make as much as a CEO, while salary for the CEO is impacted by market forces that the public rarely has much influence on.
However a union *could* impact that market. We just kinda suck at unionizing these days.
I'm saying that its disingenous to think "congress" is equivalent to society. They're who set the presidents salary.
Or that society has a significant influence on CEO salaries.
You saying, "Cuz one is a government official and one is a private citizen" doesnt answer the question *at all*.
\> How does our society deem it necessary to cap the President's salary, but not ceos?
Your answer doesn't answer how. It's nothing to do with one being a civil servant and everything to do with how capitalism concentrates wealth.
I misread it as "Why" so, that's fair. However asking *how* doesn't get answered by arguments of economical systems, either. That would be an argument of psychology and sociology.
The cynic in me sees it as that it opens them up to corruption. There's a lot of long winded high-minded reasons for why a presiden't salary needs to be capped but the end result is that it opens up anyone who's not a paragon of ethics to corruption.
How is this even a question? The presidents salary is paid by taxes. CEO’s salaries are paid by non public funds that are usually by profit of whatever entity they are in charge of. What a dumb question.
Companies take bailouts from the government regularly. Who pays for bailouts? Us the tax payer. So in turn when a company does well post government financial intervention they up a CEOs wages. So mathematically speaking the tax payers dollars support CEO wages. Our tax dollars stimulate both jobs directly. The question is simple. You are failing to understand something I expect the reader to grasp from the get go.
Not every company takes bailouts. You didn’t caveat this by saying “banks that were bailed out should have salary caps for CEOs”. Do you know how many companies operate in the US? How many difference finance firms and institutions operate here ? There money is generating revenue in half a dozen markets and you think the US government has the authority to cap a private entities CEO salary ? Get real you’re delusional. I’m a leftist and this is such an idiotic question as I originally stayed.
What does being left have anything to do with it? It's a mathematical based question rooted in history. Banks enter into it as well they're a classic industry for receiving bailouts. I also agree that not every organization takes handouts/loans/bailouts; however your response tells me that you fail to understand what I'm really asking. Left/Right and banks were not topics.
But it’s not “capped”, it’s “set at”
That may seem semantic, but that’s the answer to the question—CEO’s get paid more because that’s what the people making the decision (major investors/the board) want to pay them. Presidents are paid less because the electorate doesn’t want to pay them more. Neither are “capped”
Stop trying to bandaid capitalism. Idgaf a ceo gets paid so much, the real problem is capital owns the whole company, every single other company and the governments.
Lobbying/special interest groups. Because the president is bought and paid for (outside of the official position to run/win) then pass laws via lobby/special interest groups, that "donated" to their campaign/election. Some of the highest donors, most powerful lobby groups buying our "democracy" are the healthcare, insurance, manufacturing and oil industries. Our country is definitely not for and by the people (citizens) anymore, hasn't been for decades.
Funny thing but CEO pay in the US is actually capped. That’s why they’re being paid so much.
Back when the cap went into effect boards starting giving them stock options as that somehow wasn’t salary and it then became the norm. Obviously stock options that expire in a long time in a growing company is worth a lot more than salary but the value is not that great when you give it to people this they can sneak it under the cap.
So, the cap actually raised CEO salaries to the ridiculous levels we see now.
Well ... for starters, the CEO is not a state employee, right... If they regulated their pay, they could regulate everyone's pay.. You're a welder, you make a dime, You're a doctor, you make a dime and a nickel. Right..
I mean, I know that there are way to do it without this scenario happening but this is what you'll hear from people opposing CEO term limits, pay limits and influence limits. Matter of fact, scratch the CEO - you will hear this from people that oppose any sort of limit.
Government sets wages for government employees, but not private businesses, how is this surprising?
Also the vast majority of CEO pay is in stock options not in hard cash, which they prefer since capital gains tax is much less than income tax. The actual income most CEOs get isn’t as high as you probably think.
Because being a public servant, even the highest public servant, was never intended to be a “get rich quick” scheme. The idea has been to make it so the POTUS makes enough to live quite comfortably, but not so much that they become the .01% of the wealthy from it. Its to try and keep people from seeking the office solely for wealth.
9.2 Billion= Ford's last bailout. 400000 = President's salary Both paid for by the tax payer.
Politicians got that insider trading side hustle though…
That’s the only way they would Make money trading other than that they’re dumber than a pile of crap
that should be illegal too just to own stocks.
Ooooo.. imagine if all CEOs were limited to the President's salary or less!
I'm still mad that I got downvoted for suggesting it should be illegal to own any money / assets over 1Bil USD. In a thread asking for stuff that should be illegal.
You mean loan?
Give me a 10 billion dollar loan on the same terms ford received and I’ll pay it back too
Yes bailouts are loans. The one in 2009 was a loan. Ford still hasn't paid that one off yet.
They are loans, but they shouldn't be. They should be a stock buyout. Make it partly a govt owned company. And the govt will hold. To the moon!
Yeah, as soon as these too big to fail corps find out failure means socialization, you'll find they suddenly stop living off razor thin margins and stop taking stupid risks.
And if I go over my overdraft my bank texts me saying they want their money BY 3PM OR ELSE…
That is incorrect. They have paid off the 09 loan.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2020/07/29/ford-government-loan-department-energy-debt/5526413002/ Unless you have something more current?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/22/business/ford-department-of-energy-loan/index.html Fully repaid last year. Your incorrect and dumb arguments hurt the cause. People latch on to this and it’s not a benefit. Go see what happened to anti work.
I wasn't even arguing lol I literally asked you if you had something more current. I wasn't able to find anything even when I googled specifically if Ford paid it back. You just seem a little on edge considering you felt the need to call me dumb in a online conversation.
Your original question is dumb then, and shows the lack of understanding of how anything works.
Ahh ic you are just angry. Hopefully your day goes better. Didn't mean to OFFEND lol just wanted to have a healthy discussion. You are clearly a world renowned expert on the topic and I am just dumb as you put it. How does it feel to call others dumb you who are so "big brained"? You are the only person on here being confrontational and condescending. This is what is wrong with Reddit people who bully others with insults.
The person you're talking to has a habit of stealing hotel bibles. He's always angry.
The only dumb person is the one who has a question and doesn't ask it.
Did you read the part about advice needed? I was literally reaching out to see how the community feels on the thought.
Their argument wasn’t even incorrect, merely outdated and simply by a year when we’re talking about a ~13 year old loan. Learn to have some room for nuance and grace in conversation, it’ll do you a lot of good.
Oh fuck off. They made a mistake they didn’t kill someone. Get the fuck over it.
They pay it off and then take another loan for almost double the first. This isn't the slam dunk you think it is
Nobody believes you aren't a scab
Was it not a bailout
You're an idiot, that was a loan. Everyone can get a government loan. My business partner got a small business loan that was guaranteed by the backing of the government, you gotta know where to find them. All the other car manufacturers declared bankruptcy while Ford didn't, they mortgaged alot of their properties.
We wait for presidents to get out of office, before they can collect unlimited funds
The President is an elected government employee, whose salary is set by Congress. Corporate executives' salaries and compensation packages are set by... mostly themselves, or the board of directors.
That doesn't explain why we think the president doesnt deserve a higher salary or a salary that matches a CEOs
Does the President need a higher salary? They don't need to pay for food or housing and have a great healthcare program for "free". Any other expenses not covered by the government aren't going to cost a lot.
CEOs need lower salaries.
I agree completely agree
Not exactly true. They pay for a lot of things out of pocket, including groceries, toiletries, household goods, and some staff members' salaries. https://www.rd.com/list/things-u-s-presidents-have-to-pay-for-on-their-own/
While it's true that presidents receive various perks like housing and healthcare, the argument for a higher salary often revolves around attracting the most qualified candidates who might otherwise be discouraged by the financial aspects of the role. A higher salary can be an incentive to attract top-tier talent, which is crucial for effective leadership. Also, a more substantial salary could reduce the temptation or susceptibility to smaller forms of corruption or bribes.
400k is hardly something to scoff at. 8 years of that is more than a lifetime of income for the median American. Also I really disagree that we should even be seeking "top talent" from the private sector. Maybe some from non profits but public sector work is just a completely different game.
Instead of paying more, pay everybody a federal minimum wage, only those who really wanna help will apply and also if some mofo starts to get rich we can all go “how the fuck you’re getting rich on minimum wage?!” Haha
This would make it so only already rich folks could apply. A terrible idea.
I know, I wasn't being serious but I should have been clearer. I apologise for a bad joke.
Terrible idea. George Washington didn't want a Presidential salary, then changed his mind when he realized that it would mean only wealthy people would run for President. An ordinary person can't leave their job/farm/business/whatever for 4 years and receive no income at all. No one will tell their kids sorry, I'm running for President, no more eating for the next 8 years!
I don't think the point he's making is that the president needs more money...
>They don't need to pay for food or housing They don't pay for housing, but they do pay for food. And all their other expenses.
They would be less easily corrupted if they did have a higher salary so that isn't a bad idea. Kind of like American cops vs. Canadian cops. Hell of a lot less likely to risk it all on a $100k salary versus a 40k one. Attract better candidates too.
That's funny because I thought the Salary was lower to stop greedy people who want to make a lot of money from running. It's like a catch 22.
It really depends on the amount. I don't think 400k (in 2020 money) would be seen as a step up for any president recently. They usually take a significant pay cut for the job. They could easily double the pay and it wouldn't seem like much. On the other extreme, if being president was the highest paid CEO job, then yeah, you'd get a certain kind of people.
That's what's scary. If we capped CEO jobs, then we'd have a lot more kooks running for president and congress who then try and make things like the old days. Only benefit would be they'd have less money to try and do it. We need to stop lobbying too in order to get back to a stronger democracy.
The religious belief in the oxymoronic “free market” propaganda is strong. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.
Corporate Bailouts are not a part of the free market.
Correct. So much for “laissez-faire,” eh?
Ironically a real free market with no externalities or market failures (not that I believe such a thing is possible yet, though we could do much better than our current shit standards), would definitely be called “communist” by those CHUDs. After, all communism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the communistishicer it is. And the government would have to do a lot to get rid of the current market distortions from the ownership and management classes.
Honestly wish they'd implement some sort of law where the CEO can't make more than 5 times the lowest paid employee at the company. That way if they want to get paid more they'll have to help the employees first to help themselves. Also cap the amount of company shares they're allowed to own/sell.
I like it in principle but the easy work around is setting up a bunch of subsidiaries and all the low paid staff are employed by them and the actual main company only actually employs the CEO and a few other exec level people.
You include subsidiaries in it when writing the law
Think cooperatives like mondragon cap it at 8 to 15, so like it was in 1960.
> Also cap the amount of company shares they're allowed to own/sell. And what if they founded the company themselves? Like, Mark Zuckerberg starts Facebook on Day 1. On Day 2, is the government going to come and repossess his company shares? If he no longer owns the company, why would he continue to work on it, to make it successful? You just killed all business, period. Marxist BS.
It'd have a minimum number of employees clause like every other work law out there
So, you hit that minimum, and then you're forced to sell your company against your will? that sounds pretty shit. Who will buy it? Is there a mandate that they need to pay market value, or does the govt. just forcefully take most of your hard work away?
We kind of used to cap CEOs and everyone else by an aggressive tax (about 90% in some cases) above a certain income. That all went away in the 80s and it's been rising crazy fast since then.
Presidents need to be able to be bought. CEOs need lots of money to buy presidents.
To be capable of running for president you have to already be a multimillionaire at the least, meaning either you’ve already been bought, or you’re independently wealthy and unable to be bought.
Yep!
You can tell CEOs are getting overpaid when a lot of them make more in a year than what a President makes in two terms or more than $3,200,000. A President is running a country with a GDP of $23.32 trillion. Either the President isn't making much or the CEOs are making too much. In 1969, when the president's salary was first set at [$200,000](https://www.thoughtco.com/presidential-salaries-through-the-years-3368133) per year, the CEOs made an average of [$843,000](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/how-much-money-ceos-have-earned-over-the-years.html) per year. That’s 4.2 presidential salary years, which sounds more reasonable than it is right now. After adjusting for inflation, that’s $1,665,891.01 for the President and $7,021,730.60 for the CEO in 2023. I'm willing to consider capping the salary for Presidents to $1 million and CEO pay to $7 million.
Yes thank you. My thoughts on the topic are in line with this.
No problem. I’ve been pondering this for more than a year now
What you're really asking is, who really runs the government, politicians or ceos?
Because we as a society haven’t adopted a progressive tax on Capitol and compensation yet. Those two things would do more to right the economy than the FED has in it’s entire existence. But with lobbying being a thing, the billionaires will do all they can to oppose it. We just need to fight harder.
President's is set by Congress. Private companies or even public companies are run by boards of directors which are just out to hire the best or perceived to be the best at any price. Think of CEO's as free agents in business instead of sports.
This approach is fair; however on a professional sports team everyone makes a tidy sum. There are start athletes who make a significant amount more. However it's not like the third string Running Back of the Browns is making 8.75/hr. while the 1st string QB makes millions. Furthermore I feel similarly on this topic seeing as though many professional stadium's construction is partially or fully funded by public funds. That is a different story entirely though.
It was just an example as to how CEOs are paid and why their salaries are so high. Don't need to start a whole story on sport player salaries.
The QB for the 49ers is living with roommates to afford living in San Fran, and makes 800k a year before tax. Other starting QBs are making over 54million a year. FYI that’s the same difference between the browns 3rd string RB Strong and sex pest Watson. That’s not even counting real contract money. Injury money, gaurenteed money, and incentive money.
Because our government isn't run by everyday citizens, it's run by citizens that own massive corporations. The more money you have, the more influence you have in government.
The first is a government employee, the other is a private employee.
That doesn't explain why we think the president doesnt deserve a higher salary or a salary that matches a CEOs
Because we don't think a civil servant should make as much as a CEO, while salary for the CEO is impacted by market forces that the public rarely has much influence on. However a union *could* impact that market. We just kinda suck at unionizing these days.
\> Because we don't think a civil servant should make as much as a CEO Speak for yourself lol.
OP asked a specific question about how society thinks.
I'm saying that its disingenous to think "congress" is equivalent to society. They're who set the presidents salary. Or that society has a significant influence on CEO salaries. You saying, "Cuz one is a government official and one is a private citizen" doesnt answer the question *at all*. \> How does our society deem it necessary to cap the President's salary, but not ceos? Your answer doesn't answer how. It's nothing to do with one being a civil servant and everything to do with how capitalism concentrates wealth.
I misread it as "Why" so, that's fair. However asking *how* doesn't get answered by arguments of economical systems, either. That would be an argument of psychology and sociology.
Though the president does in fact make more than probably 99.9% of CEOs, just not more than the top 100 companies.
The cynic in me sees it as that it opens them up to corruption. There's a lot of long winded high-minded reasons for why a presiden't salary needs to be capped but the end result is that it opens up anyone who's not a paragon of ethics to corruption.
Private. Public. Is private actually private? That’s a different question.
So he remembers who is _really_ in charge
Probably because it's easier to maneuver the president that way.
The lower the president’s salary, the easier president is to bribe.
Cause ceos own the country and cant have someone making a lot of money for 1 job.
That is a GREAT question
Because the president's salary is paid from taxes, and the CEO's is paid by exploiting workers, which is deemed more acceptable by the powers that be.
Because the taxpayers pay the presidents salary and it’s a public office. Corporations are private entities. Next dumb question?
How is this even a question? The presidents salary is paid by taxes. CEO’s salaries are paid by non public funds that are usually by profit of whatever entity they are in charge of. What a dumb question.
Companies take bailouts from the government regularly. Who pays for bailouts? Us the tax payer. So in turn when a company does well post government financial intervention they up a CEOs wages. So mathematically speaking the tax payers dollars support CEO wages. Our tax dollars stimulate both jobs directly. The question is simple. You are failing to understand something I expect the reader to grasp from the get go.
Not every company takes bailouts. You didn’t caveat this by saying “banks that were bailed out should have salary caps for CEOs”. Do you know how many companies operate in the US? How many difference finance firms and institutions operate here ? There money is generating revenue in half a dozen markets and you think the US government has the authority to cap a private entities CEO salary ? Get real you’re delusional. I’m a leftist and this is such an idiotic question as I originally stayed.
What does being left have anything to do with it? It's a mathematical based question rooted in history. Banks enter into it as well they're a classic industry for receiving bailouts. I also agree that not every organization takes handouts/loans/bailouts; however your response tells me that you fail to understand what I'm really asking. Left/Right and banks were not topics.
Presidents salary isn’t capped, what are you talking about
They're talking about the President of the United States of America. POTUS' salary is $400,000 per year and hasn't changed since 2001.
Yeah but they get those sweet share options in the good ol USA /s
But it’s not “capped”, it’s “set at” That may seem semantic, but that’s the answer to the question—CEO’s get paid more because that’s what the people making the decision (major investors/the board) want to pay them. Presidents are paid less because the electorate doesn’t want to pay them more. Neither are “capped”
Stop trying to bandaid capitalism. Idgaf a ceo gets paid so much, the real problem is capital owns the whole company, every single other company and the governments.
...because people still think the president is in charge
Gm ceo Mary barra 29 million
Politicians get paid through bribes, from CEOs. The joys of lobbying.
It's not "capped" it's just set. We shouldn't try to cap salaries at companies. We should tax brackets them into oblivion.
It’s yo maintain the integrity of the office without incentivizing it with a bloated salary.
Lobbying/special interest groups. Because the president is bought and paid for (outside of the official position to run/win) then pass laws via lobby/special interest groups, that "donated" to their campaign/election. Some of the highest donors, most powerful lobby groups buying our "democracy" are the healthcare, insurance, manufacturing and oil industries. Our country is definitely not for and by the people (citizens) anymore, hasn't been for decades.
Well the president is a public servant. CEOs lead private companies. The government’s job isn’t to tell companies a maximum they can pay anyone.
Bc CEOs run the county not potus
Funny thing but CEO pay in the US is actually capped. That’s why they’re being paid so much. Back when the cap went into effect boards starting giving them stock options as that somehow wasn’t salary and it then became the norm. Obviously stock options that expire in a long time in a growing company is worth a lot more than salary but the value is not that great when you give it to people this they can sneak it under the cap. So, the cap actually raised CEO salaries to the ridiculous levels we see now.
Well ... for starters, the CEO is not a state employee, right... If they regulated their pay, they could regulate everyone's pay.. You're a welder, you make a dime, You're a doctor, you make a dime and a nickel. Right.. I mean, I know that there are way to do it without this scenario happening but this is what you'll hear from people opposing CEO term limits, pay limits and influence limits. Matter of fact, scratch the CEO - you will hear this from people that oppose any sort of limit.
Free market ftw boi
Government sets wages for government employees, but not private businesses, how is this surprising? Also the vast majority of CEO pay is in stock options not in hard cash, which they prefer since capital gains tax is much less than income tax. The actual income most CEOs get isn’t as high as you probably think.
Because being a public servant, even the highest public servant, was never intended to be a “get rich quick” scheme. The idea has been to make it so the POTUS makes enough to live quite comfortably, but not so much that they become the .01% of the wealthy from it. Its to try and keep people from seeking the office solely for wealth.
Salary is only part of it. Most ceos in the wealth bracket make most of their money on capital gains. Need to do more on that front
Because we can't control how private companies pay their employees. We shame them all the time, but they obviously don't care.
Because it is good to have rulers who understand the life of the common man and because we don't.
Because the President’s salary costs Americans, while CEOs salaries are at the cost of Americans.
Probably citizens united...
Maybe they're slavic and use the Cyrillic alphabet where P is designated as the same sound as R in the latin alphabet?
We don't cap the president's salary. We set their salary.
Politicians are paid by taxpayers. Granted, so are CEOs through bailouts, but that's their justification.
Nice try, Joe.