Add a stuffed golden sach to the golden parachute and you have some mighty smooth and soft landings!
Industry insiders defend the practice, often arguing that the only way to secure top CEO talent in a competitive market is by offering such compensation packages.
The real reason they defend the practice in most cases, is because of the well known revolving door and 'buddy system', where they can transfer large sums of wealth to each other using 'legalese' terms under the pretence of fair work and compensation.
Lol, yes the 'buddy system" and the revolving door. I think a lot of them end up as government regulators for a stint, remove 'barriers' to their former employers interests before returning to the corporate world with a cushy 8 figure salary.
Spot on...
Posted using Partiko Android
There are several reasons the connections between government and these huge corporations fuel such a wide disparity in CEO to worker pay. The biggest reason is that protectionism allows these companies to grow much larger than a competitive market would allow. Under normal market conditions, companies have to consider a variety of factors like consumer esteem (which most megacorps flagrantly ignore). And without friends in Washington favorably altering tax laws, subsidies, loan terms, etc., a corporation could never afford these CEO packages. Which is why only megacorps run pay ratios of 300:1. In the real world (and more realistic capitalism where market forces like competition actually exist) that ratio drops way down. Looking quickly, I couldn't find data newer than this, but it's still helpful: "The average CEO in the United States earned a salary of $178,400 in 2013, compared to $46,440 for the average worker (both figures exclude benefits)." (average = smaller firms not connected to/enlarged by the federal government)
I don't need to add any more to that great explanation 😇
Posted using Partiko Android