The Trouble With CEO Pay in Canada

[antuerius]

The cost of the moral and cultural deflation related to the presence of this order of inequality is now palpable in light of the utterly criminal extortion mobilized by the international banking system. A systematic clawback of corporate, and ecclesiastical, tax assistance, income caps, electoral and land reform, nationalizations of hard asset industries and full sovereignty of currency systems.

[BarelyScientist]

CEO pay is the carrot that keep the show running for high end administration. Humans dont achieve for the sake of achieving, they do it when it matters to them. Plenty of reason to achieve, but money is the most commonly used carrot.

[robbb661]

Earth to Communism.......CEO are running private companies not State own companies...........These companies are PRVATE

[DANJULLMANN44]

So Hugh what do you propose? How would you ensure that we are all equal? What about high paid Hockey players? They play a game and they get to make all that money. No fair !! Maybe we tax the top 100 CEO’s at 97% and use the tax money to cut a check to every citizen that makes an average pay check. Then we would have a utopia!! I am with you. I am envious of these do nothing CEOs. Off with their heads.

[100backbeats]

canadians will complain,then go to tim hortons. and you think these leaches don't know it,canadians are the laziest people in the western hemisphere, in europe the whole country goes on strike,and they get it done,over here you can't even get these idiots to vote, their too busy trying to legalize pot. (BIG DEAL)! get off your asses,you wonder why canada's becoming the new pakistan, because they know what a bunch of loafs occupy this country,(respectivly yours)

[Superlativesweetie]

It might be comforting that your dream of being a multi-billionaire is theoretically possible, but it would be naive to think it likely. And given how unlikely it is, it would be imprudent to vest anything of value in it.

Once again, the system that facilitates the inequity is the problem. I'm not suggesting anything about CEO misconduct, I'm criticising a system in which one person has enough money to spend on post-sec education for 100'000, especially while those 100'000 are in need of it.

[Superlativesweetie]

And as for their paying back into the economy - firstly, even if one person could fathomably have enough time to spend $1 billion a year (given all the work they would have to do to deserve it), I don't understand the sense in vesting one person with the burden of putting $1 billion back into the economy in lieu of making thousands of people responsible for much smaller, more manageable amounts. That certainly seems more fair.

[Superlativesweetie]

Secondly, the idea that companies could afford to pay CEOs billions is at odds with the idea that companies anywhere could need any kind of government-sponsored bail-out.

[TheKuffarKid]

"the system that facilitates the inequity is the problem" What 'system' would that be? Freedom?

[Superlativesweetie]

Uh.. "Freedom" is not a system.

The system in which the market is dominated by a handful of sponges with a seemingly limitless capacity to soak up our economic reservoirs; in which, rather than shopping locally and diversely, we buy into goods and services owned by very few who disproportionately collect and hoard money that is supposed circulate (ideally) in an equitable way. Thankfully, we have the freedom to educate ourselves and change our spending habits to better serve our interests.

[TheKuffarKid]

Heres 2 things youve said; "It's disheartening to think that there are people who earn an average Canadian's wage in the first four minutes of the first non-holiday workday of the year." and "even if one person could fathomably have enough time to spend $1 billion a year... " Watch the vid again. One person doesn't make 1billion a year. The billion refers to the top CEO's COLLECTIVE pay. The average is 10 mil per CEO. I am just stunned that you would even do math equations and not catch this.

[Superlativesweetie]

Well, that's disputable. He says ..its now 9:04... thats the time when the average of the 100 best paid CEOs in Canada has already earned, in 2009, what the average Canadian will earn in the rest of the year... at which point 40'000 appears on the screen. "the average of the 100" means the average AMONG the hundred - which is representative of one, not the sum. He then draws a comparison to "what THE average CanadiaN will earn" - 40'000, which is clearly an average, not the sum of all.

[Superlativesweetie]

You probably got confused when he says that the sum exceeds 1-billion, which is true. In fact, if what he says initially is true, the sum could exceed 100-billion.

But even if they were misleading, 10-million... 1-billion.. the problem remains that there is a grossly inequitable distribution of resources that belong in circulation but are currently welling up at a few culpable dams. We should stop directing the flow of our resources into them because they're not sufficiently returning to us.

[TheKuffarKid]

"if what he says initially is true" Super, that is the whole point. What he says initially is NOT true. There is NO ceo in canada making 1 billion a year. The initial statement is meaningless nonsense. It makes no sense whatosever to add up the compensation of the top ceo's and compare them to ONE Canadian worker. Watch my "The math of ceo pay.." it will show how in the scheme of things it is meaningless.

[Superlativesweetie]

OK, so the crux of the argument in your video (that CEOs may as well make what they make) is the supposition that, if distributed amongst the labour they employ, their wage would be negligible.

1) Naders comment demonstrated inequity the solution to which, the redistribution of one CEOs wage over 1mill employees, is YOUR invention, not Naders.

[Superlativesweetie]

2)

a. That Walmarts CEO doesnt make enough to significantly affect its employees only shows that the inequity within Walmart does not reflect that of Canada in general. 1bill/year divided by 30mill Canadians would still give each Canadian $33 (more, if you only count the workforce and exclude those under/over working age and the unemployed). Thats groceries for a week! Surely it's better to feed Canadians for a whole week than cushion 100 members of Michael Lazaridis Class.

[Superlativesweetie]

b. Furthermore, equitability only requires that the disproportionate earnings of the top 100 are distributed to those who make LESS than the average in order to reduce the discrepancy between the average and the extremes.

[Superlativesweetie]

3) Regardless of how noticeable the redistribution of their wages is, it is undeniably more fair, which is what morality requires. That their wage may not amount to much divvied doesnt justify their having it and doesnt mean that, collectively, its inconsequential for them to be earning that kind of money.

Conversely, the growth of an economy becomes inconsequential when only a handful of people are allowed to see it and they dont redistribute it fairly.

[Superlativesweetie]

4) The bottom line is that 1000000000+ is taken out of the economy at large each year and used for the living of 100 people (in a country of 30000000) the billion, I think most would agree, could be better spent elsewhere (like funding University Students, or in other forms of social welfare thats the point of a welfare state... only the state has missed this opportunity to provision for economic equity even though we're in the midst of an economic crisis).

[DANJULLMANN44]

@Superlativesweetie So take somebody else's money and redistribute to other people. Use the full power of the state, violence, to take their money and use in a manner YOU feel is more beneficial. Despite all the evidence that Karl's philosophy does not work and only brings poverty and misery to all, in addition to crushing freedom, people still follow his ideology. Insane.

[Superlativesweetie]

@DANJULLMANN44 Violence? Fair taxation... And as I mentioned in various other comments, we bear much of the onus by using our purchasing power to invest in options that amount to equity - local produce, smaller and diversified/specialised businesses, etc. Income caps might be another option, and then it wouldn't be a question of taking money away, it would just be a question of limiting the money they can appropriate in the first place to reflect what's fair for the rest of Canada.

[DANJULLMANN44]

@Superlativesweetie justy their having it ????? justify to whom ?? They earned it. Therefore does not have to be justified.

[Superlativesweetie]

@DANJULLMANN44 The argument that work for x entails entitlement to x presumes that the "work" and x are proportionate, and that's precisely what's at issue. Consider the trend of discrepency in men's and women's wages. They say that women earn 71 cents for every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. Is he overpaid or is she underpaid? Either way, the idea that compensation is necessarily fair if resulting from market mechanisms doesn't account for this inherently unfair feature of labour.

[adamgrinstead]

i as well am a university student making living of the avg 10-15k a year, and it's comforting to think that if i work hard enough there is no limit to how much i can make,

not that no matter what i do there is a cap to what i make,

and it is not as if these CEO's are hoarding the money preventing it from being spent on 100,000 people from going to college,

CEO's invest there wages in the economy creating more jobs and opportunities.

[adamgrinstead]

it is simple supply and demand.

if the supply was higher of qualified people, or the demand for such positions were to fall, as more multi-million dollar positions appear.

you would see the wages fall.

the company doesn't pay a wage it can't afford.

for the public to determine that someone is making more then they feel is morally right, is socialist in nature.

[Superlativesweetie]

If there were more precious people OR if there were more multi-million dollar positions, the wages would fall? Surely this isnt what you mean.

It makes sense that if there were more precious people than positions, companies would have the advantage and the PPs would have to settle for less money. This presumes that the CEOs in those $billion positions applied for those jobs and were offered that much, rather than that they started making less and began to pay themselves more after.

[Superlativesweetie]

That said, I cant understand why more multi-million dollar positions would reduce wages. Under this logic, if there are more positions than PPs, PPs have the advantage and can demand higher wages to retain their services.

And the issue is not whether the company can afford to pay the head of the company too much, its whether we can afford to put money into something which does so. We the targets of my criticism as well. You seem to be confusing Socialism with prudence.

[adamgrinstead]

but it is thousands of times Rarer, and thousands of times more important.

it is an absurd statement to refer to a leader of industry as a "glorified managerial position" and that anyone could perform the tasks.

the people filling these positions have a commanding knowledge of economics and finance management that very few ever obtain.

could anyone obtain these skills? yes, but they don't

just as anyone could go to university, but don't.

[Superlativesweetie]

Thousands of times rarer and more important? Is this the Argument from Preciousness? It's not obvious that the people who land these positions have a better knowledge of those things than, say, professors of those things (who certainly don't make as much). Also, if their knowledge/skill is what distinguishes them, it seems you're resorting to the argument from merit, which has already been delt with. And it's inconsistent to say that CEOs are precious and maintain that anyone could become one.

[Superlativesweetie]

If the idea is that these people are precious because they bother where other people don't, then another rather obvious inconsistency exists in the fact that there are far more entrepreneurs and economics/business students than there are multi-billionaires.

[Superlativesweetie]

As a student living off little more than 15000/year, it's sickens me to think that, for the cost of one CEO's salary for one year, 113400 people could complete four-year degrees at 25000/year. The complete post-secondary education of over 100'000 people... or one person's annual salary. Hmmm

(40'000 in 4 mins = 10'000/min. 60 mins x 35 hours/week for 52 weeks (and 2 weeks paid vacation) = 113400mins x $10'000 = $1'134'000'000. $25000 x 4 years = $100'000 x 113400 students = $1'134'000'000.)

[adamgrinstead]

i am sorry you feel that i am being inconsistent,

the role AND the person are both worth the pay, supply and demand.

it is not true that the job has to be thousands of times more demanding or stressful.

[TheKuffarKid]

What a worthless video. Nothing but emotionialism.

[adamgrinstead]

do hockey players or sports athletes get paid to much?

no, they are paid a high amount because the investors make a judgment call that paying them that will make them more than that on a return investment.. gotta spend money to make money,

and do i think they should keep the money if they are corrupt and wreck the company? no, of course not. but that is the board of directors fault for not stipulating in a contract. stop investing in company's that don't have provisions for that.

[MalaCrim]

CEOs are NOT paid what they're worth! If a major corporation fails, or is infected with theives like Tyco, Enron and Arthur Andersen was, the CEOs and directors continue to reap huge compensation. And by the way, some shareholders own huge blocks of shares AND sit on the BoD; the millions they agree to pay the CEO is reflective of what how they hope to be compensated.

Read "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan and you'll see how they are modern feudal castles which must be taken down.

[adamgrinstead]

Awful Video,

CEO's are paid what they are worth,

you need to pay high salaries to attract the very few individuals in the world who can run the corporations that CREATE THOUSANDS of jobs that pay the $40k a year jobs which are worth WAY more combined than a CEO's salary.

If they weren't worth it, the company wouldn't pay them.

and its immoral to expect anyone to a job for less then they are worth.

[Superlativesweetie]

If there are 35 hours in the average work-week, and 50 working weeks in the average working year (I believe a two-week vacation is standard), then the average person takes 105'000 minutes to earn $40'000. The idea that CEOs are *worth* 10'000 a minute suggests that they are 26250 (105'000/4) times as valuable as the average person - and not that their roles are as valuable since, if that were the case, any average person could assume the role (and what you are arguing is definitely not that).

[Superlativesweetie]

Is that because their IQ is 26250x higher? Are they 26250x more capable? Are they exceptionally strong willed; does the job present 26250x the personal risk? These claims are pretty dubious and even if they *were* plausible, we tend to value the equitable distribution of goods, which suggests that those at a disadvantage are more entitled to the public pocket than those who are, for instance, 26250x more capable of looking after themselves.

[adamgrinstead]

i am saying it is the role that is worth the pay.

and they are not jobs that anyone could assume, they require very well educated and trained individuals.

and its not that the person is more valuable.

the position is that rare and you need to attract the best candidate to protect the jobs of tens of thousands of people affected by the company's well being. the people qualified are so rare that that boards need to pay these wages to secure the best.

[Superlativesweetie]

What you're arguing is inconsistant. Firstly, you seem to be saying that the role is worth the pay and the person is worth the pay. To say that the role requires the pay to attract the person capable of filling the role is to say that the person is worth the pay, which I've already demonstrated to be a precarious claim.

[Superlativesweetie]

For the role to be worth the pay , it would have to be as many thousands of times more demanding, more stressful, more labour intensive, more time-consuming, etc. Not only do the poor generally have to work harder, but even if it were true that CEO's are somehow worked harder and for even longer hours, it would be senseless to pay them a salary of millions of dollars because the amount they would have to work to "earn" it legitimately is not conducive to their having time enough to enjoy it.

[Superlativesweetie]

Presumably there would be no shortage of people vying for such a "rare" position. Enough, at any rate, to have a pool of candidates deep enough to find someone sufficient for what seems to amount to a glorified managerial position. If the role merits the money, there's no reason any number of people with sufficient intelligence couldn't learn to do it (and I expect it would cost less to teach/train them than to pay a full day of a current CEO's salary at 10'000/minute).

[Superlativesweetie]

Also, it's not obvious that losing a CEO entails the loss of "tens of thousands" of jobs so much as it entails replacing the CEO with one of the many people who could occupy the role. And even if the poor selection of a CEO meant the loss of 100'000 jobs - at $10'000/minute and 35 hours/week, a CEO's salary of 1'134'000'000, if divvied, would pay those people 3-4 months of their salary while they found something else.

[LennytheLizzard]

I sure hope that was sarcasm. There isn't a single CEO out there worth that kind of dough. Especially after almost bankrupting not just their companies, but the country as well.

[adamgrinstead]

The people to blame for bankrupting the country are not the CEOs,

but the government on both sides of the aisle that passed laws requiring banks to pass loans that the free market didn't support.

and to produce cars with emission standards that the market wasn't interested in either.

can't blame CEO's for following the law now can you?

[ytlvr]

who's blaming CEOs? no one! the video's about drawing light to the fact that it is the *system* that is messed up and allowing such a hugh difference in income between CEOs and others. can you cite an example of a law requiring banks to give loans? i'd like to see that. it's the lack of regulation that allowed this mess to happen.

[LennytheLizzard]

Exactly right. Lack of regulation and pure CEO/managerial greed. Plus the stock market Ponzi scheme.

[LennytheLizzard]

The prob of the auto industry IS the fault of it's CEOs. Building things nobody wants. Emission standards are a joke. The auto industry lobby made sure the CEOs there didn't suffer. Free market? There is no such thing.

[adamgrinstead]

they were required by federal guidelines to build cars that nobody wanted.

i agree the ponzi scheme was an example of evil men, but that is the small minority of CEO's, cant blame them all for a few bad seeds.

i agree there is no such thing as a free market, and that is the problem.

[JoannaCaplan7]

Great video, to the point and necessary. we need more like this!

[AdamantEthos]

CEO pay makes me sick.

[clostsin]

@AdamantEthos it wont if u were the one getting paid =)

[DANJULLMANN44]

@AdamantEthos Why ?? How does this affect you ?

[contaxpat]

Nobody deserves such a salary.

And our finance minister will probably lower taxes in response to the economic crisis. Who will profit from this the most? Those 100 people again, while their companies will be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the government to salvage their enterprises.

As the venerable Pierre Vadeboncoeur commented in Le Devoir on December 24, what we are witnessing is a massive transfer of public money to private corporations, no questions asked. Plunder indeed!

[Superlativesweetie]

It's disheartening to think that there are people who earn an average Canadian's wage in the first four minutes of the first non-holiday workday of the year.

I'm unconcerned with the idea that others have much more; there is certainly a stark enough contrast btw the average person and those exceptional people who, going to great lengths to better us all, justly deserve much reward. But this isn't a case of reward for merit or of due compensation for work or output. This is plunder.

[Superlativesweetie]

This video is a good introduction to the problem and hopefully more instructive videos will follow. I want to know more about how our spending affects the gap. Do we unwittingly facilitate our own disadvantage by favouring, directly or indirectly, the interests of a the few with our spending habits? How can our money vouch for our displeasure? How can we wring the economic sponges at the top to better serve equitable distribution? What policies or sanctions might we consider? Who is responsible?

[CanadiansNanaimo]

Some of the things we can do as individuals include; joining the organizations which are combating this agenda such as CCPA & the Council of Canadians, banking at the local credit union so our money stays in the community and supports the local economy, supporting the local coop, shopping at locally owned independent stores, supporting local community farmers, getting to know the neighbours and community members, planting a garden and sharing the harvest,

[CanadiansNanaimo]

unplugging the TV, driving less, biking and walking more and last but not least talking with people around us about the challenges we face and how we can overcome them.

[fruktmakt]

Great but frightening message! Trickle down economics in reverse it seems! It's about time we give up on the fantasy of free market capitalism providing all the answers to cope with the income gap and job loss. Kudos to the CCPA for providing sober analyses on issues that concern us all.

[ytlvr]

It's unbelievable that these people should make so much money. What do they do with it all? It's no wonder our economy is so out of whack.

[legerste]

This video powerfully brings home the message of the immense difference between income of a few Chief Executive Officers and the average worker in Canada, and the negative impact this has on the Canadian economy. We need a serious rethinking of our priorities with regards to profits and welfare. Thanks CCPA for this posting!