Let’s not forget their sweet retirement packages and tax shelters.

Jealous, much?

Out of control? So who in your view should be controling it?

@@lee9650 He thinks he should control it, just like everyone else.

Lovely, I caught three brainless right-whinge trolls.

@@lee9650 You sound like you have a small salary

Found sanity in the comment section

@@BimsaraHerath thank you

Or a 100% tax on every penny above that, including bonuses and free car rides.

Wow this makes sense. I like it.

@Sean Downey if they started the company and got it into the 500 they can get whatever they like. If they walk into Apple and haven't created a single product why should they get paid 100x more than any worker? Prove it to earn it. They can get bonuses, but the base annual pay shouldn't be more than 10x that of the workforce imo. A good example of this is Elon Musk. He didn't start Tesla, he bought his way in. He gets bonuses based on the company's value, which he achieved under his leadership. That's fair. Pretty sure Musk doesn't actually take an annual wage from Tesla at all...

So... a DAO?

I had 5 CEO's in a row, all failing and all out with golden parachute, ie £1mill++ salary plus £1Mill severance pay. After 5 CEOs in 6 years the chairman of the company said 'the problem with this company is that there is not enough financial incentive for the executives'' Then they got more pay and the only thing they did to boost the share price was fire half the staff and sent technical operations (a lot in a telco) to India. Long after redundancy the company was pretty much dissolved but at least the CEOs and execs got rich.

@@stephanguitar9778 They are stupid. In the long run the results it’s a social disaster and people bagging in the streets.

WHY THE HECK SOME ONE WANT TO SHARE WEALTH WITH PEOPLE Just LIKE YOU ?

The number of super yachts is growing exponentially, that is yachts, both motor and sail that are big enough to legally have a professional crew. More on order this year than ever before.

We can change the world

As are you

It did for around 40 years, from the end of WW2 until about 1980 when we got lumbered with neoliberalism in the form of Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. They hated the way working people had progressed with a slightly larger share of what they had made for their companies over the decades. Since then the swing back to capital has been enormous. Only a handful of European countries is doing the right thing by their people. Not the US and not the UK for sure.

We all know you don't.

Shouldn't it be up to businesses what they decide to pay their CEOs? These are private sector companies not funded by the taxpayer.

It's a free job market. The best managers will simply go to someone who will pay them the most money. This applies from bottom to top.

@@lee9650 you rarely get what your paying for. I have found the higher the salary the lower the marginal return. You also have to look at the power structures and how they got these jobs in the first place. Usually it's either a big fish or shareholder friend and they bribe the management or board in either future job prospects and or bonuses of their own. It's a repeating cycle its not a job you post on a job board it's a connections game and who can offer the powers to be the most.

@@samsonsoturian6013 it's a very inefficient market. It's not a job you post on a job board. Usually the position goes to a lacky or friend of a big fish/shareholder and they bribe the powers to be with their own bonuses or less obviously future job prospects.

@@wilfredpeake9987 Depends on the company. In companies where the founder or his son run the show, the brass is usually a family affair. But the majority of execs are employees like most people, and these hirelings are overhelmingly workaholics and cheapskates because that's what brutal business math incentivizes.

No one cares😂

Yup the millionaires make the cost of living go up

why

Jealous, much? Who cares if someone is rich, what matters is if it's a drag on company operations.

@@samsonsoturian6013 Like in the US half the population dont count as good enough to have a life. This is the problem, when a company profits are more important than millions of people. They have to work ok but not every penny at the expense of real people.

@@stephanguitar9778 that reflects your worldview, not ours Greedo

yes it is valid.

Fed minimum wage has needed to go up to $15 an hour for the last five years

eat your leftovers Jimmy

@@chiquita683 Not always. Like most peoplee, many execs prefer their pay in cash and spend it all as soon as they get it. This costs more in taxes and it takes from company operations whereas shares can be generated from thin air.

Not at all, many of these maggots get share options, they are priced at a certain point and if they go up the execs can buy them at the original price. They then manipulate the company for the share price to go up. One of the ways they do it is by not investing profits back into the company or dividends but in share buybacks, this pushes the share price up which in turn fills the execs pockets. This used to be illegal but like many of todays excesses was liberalised some years ago. In fact the last big company I worked in was only interested in the share price and not running the company, this caused the company to slowly go broke, not to worry the many CEO's in the path to failure and their execs made out like bandits.

@@stephanguitar9778 that's not how exotic stock options work.

Unlike CEOs, whose pay is directly tied to their company's performance driven by the collective efforts of their employees, actors and athletes derive their earnings from a different source: the support of their fans. These fans , willingly invest in various areas like tickets, merchandise, and media content, ultimately fueling the financial success of these individuals. While actors, athletes, and CEOs all play crucial roles in their respective fields, their pay depends on the nature of their industries. For the stars, it's the fans that drives their income, whereas CEOs are motivated by how much profit their employees can make them without really offering them any decent amount of profits once those revenues start to soar. in short CEOs are asswholes that take advantage of their hardworking peers whereas actors and athletes generally do not.

@@Zooom88 You will come to realize you are completely contradicting yourself when you replace 'fans' with 'customers" and vice versa.

CEO doesn't mean you own the company. You are hired BY the company to do certain job.

@@tiefensucht Let me clarify… if I build the company myself from the ground up and once it becomes substantial I start to hire, can I not pay myself what I want? Concerning other execs, sure, I get it … a lot of the compensation isn’t warranted I get that..

@@DrRRayS well your clarification doesn’t actually matter. CEOs on FTSE and top American ones aren’t owned by the founder they’re owned by the shareholders lol. The CEO works for the company and that’s that.

You should consider if they are a good worker who shows up 40 hours a week giving up their life dreams to help build your dreams that the workers should be paid a living wage which is $22 an hour. That’s not a lot of money.

Ok then why don’t all the Amazon workers who aren’t executives all stop working? How will you feel then, how will the executives feel then?

@@Gleifel I don't find logic/sense in what you're saying

@@jeremiasmartinez5237 well you say ceos are being underpaid, yet I’d love to see how long companies would last if workers (for example Amazon warehouse workers) all just went on indefinite strike, I’d like to see how much work your “underpaid ceos” would get done.

@@Gleifel so?

@@jeremiasmartinez5237 the executive motherfuckers aren’t the underpaid ones.

In a true free market, monopolies on power are aggressively broken up.

Because jealous Ibn-Sharmouta will keep whining as long as anyone in the world is paid more than they are.

@@benkmarchant Which is exactly why we don't have any.

This is very much like soviet union. They basically steal money from the company, the workers and the consumers. There is also no competition because the huge companies buy every competitor that is too innovative for them. So prices go up, innovation down, income down. Even investments go down because it costs money.

@@tiefensucht This goon thinks a private corporation is like a socialist state...