CEOs Must Demand Raises—the Market Depends on It

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The problem with CEO salaries is they are determined by the Board of Directors. Most Board Members are puppets and do what all good puppets do, what the CEO wants! They are equivalent to barbarians inside the gate!!!

whs806 of TX 7:32AM July 27, 2008

I have a question for Ms. Kellaway. How many other 38% raises was the Bank of England handing out?
It's not the fact that he was getting a raise, but the fact that his raise was probably 5 to 10 times [in percentage] what other employees were receiving.
I agree with the first comment, but would go further. What we need in the United States is not a minimum wage, but a maximum wage.
Don't start telling me it won't work. Every union contract ever signed has a wage at which each job tops out.
We need to stop the ever escalating CEO salaries, which are totally disconnected from results.
If you say not so, then explain the situation where the CEO of Home Depot was making more money than the CEO of Exxon-Mobil a few years ago, even though they were being badly beaten in business by their main competitor, Lowes.

Dave Wolff of TX 6:18PM July 26, 2008

This particular CEO is making less than what we're "steamed" about in the U.S. private sector----what we've seen with some pulling down tens to hundreds of millions a year. Those Brits can do whatever they wish, but the solution to our problem here is a return to good ole high income tax rates rates for astronomical incomes---including those derived from capital gains. Boards did not, do not and will not vote to compensate their CEOs several hundred times as much as the average worker if they know in advance that 60% - 90% of it is going to income tax. And, yes, we SHOULD still have rates that high for incomes in tens of millions per year and up.
It's not to "soak" the rich. It's to prevent the excesses in the first place. We're so Republican dumb in this country that we "forgot" that the only reason the highest flying of the CEOs get those is because they duped customers, employees, suppliers, investors, or some combination of all four.
Don't tell me about "creating value" as a justification. Look under the hood and you'll find out that "value" usually comes from customers (higher prices via patents), employees (lost jobs in "cost cuts") or suppliers (oops, they sourced abroad) or investors (buying high and selling low.)
You want better? Think OPPOSITE what you've been told by Republicans and their eco-gurus about taxes.

Daniel David of NM 4:40PM July 24, 2008