Nation's CEOs paid better last year than in 2007

Nation's CEOs paid better last year than in 2007
In boardrooms, it's as if the Great Recession never happened


NEW YORK — In the boardroom, it's as if the Great Recession never happened.

CEOs at the nation's largest companies were paid better last year than they were in 2007, when the economy was booming, the stock market set a record high and unemployment was roughly half what it is today.

The typical pay package for the head of a company in the Standard & Poor's 500 was $9 million in 2010, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data provided by Equilar, an executive compensation research firm. That was 24 percent higher than a year earlier, reversing two years of declines.

Executives were showered with more pay of all types — salaries, bonuses, stock, options and perks. The biggest gains came in cash bonuses: Two-thirds of executives got a bigger one than they had in 2009, some more than three times as big.

CEOs were rewarded because corporate profits soared in 2010 as the economy gradually got stronger and companies continued to cut costs. Profit for the companies in the AP analysis rose 41 percent last year.

The stock market also continued its climb. Stocks rose 13 percent in 2010 and have now almost doubled since March 2009. The market's two-year run has fattened executive bonuses because some CEOs are rewarded for how the company's stock does.

Separately, the bull market has left CEOs enormous paper gains on stock and options they were granted as part of pay packages in 2009 and 2010. They are already worth $6.3 billion, 68 percent more than the companies thought they would be worth over the lifetime of the grants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42928009/ns ... _business/


I guess Bush can take the credit for that too? (And of course, the more the CEO's make, the more the middle class and lower class falls behind.... But hey, "let 'em eat cake", right? It's because they're not working hard enough...)

So much for the standard attack that "Obama has destroyed the economy..." No, Bush set the stage for the off-shoring of jobs and the transfer of wealth from the low & middle to the wealthy, and the wealthy just keep getting richer, and the middle class keeps getting screwed... That's the plan.

The American economy isn't a zero-sum game. Just because someone makes more doesn't mean that money disappears, those funds can be used to start up new companies, buy more products. The quicker money moves around, the more everybody has.
And if it is so bad for the middle and lower classes, why did the Dem House, Senate, & Executive branch not fix things? In fact, your heroes didn't even bother submitting a budget before the 2010 election, and BHO signed on the dotted line to keep the Bush tax cuts.
Why didn't your Dems raise taxes on the rich like Obama promised, if his campaign pledge was what got him elected, why didn't he follow through?

The executive compensation plan needs to get fixed but it sure doesn't look like your side wants to do anything but make it a campaign issue.

BTW, the Denver Post today had an article about religious leaders trying to put pressure on CEO's, etc about the absurd compensation plans they get.

Corporate America is not in a resession, only the American people are, and thanks to Americans (teabaggers) who argue against thier own self interests, I think it's just gonna get worse

So, what you are saying, is that if a person STRIVES to get ahead and improve one's means by going to higher education, work hard, pay your dues, etc....

That they do not deserve to get a higher compensation?


If so, have you ever turned down a raise at work?

AV8OR wrote: So, what you are saying, is that if a person STRIVES to get ahead and improve one's means by going to higher education, work hard, pay your dues, etc....

That they do not deserve to get a higher compensation?


If so, have you ever turned down a raise at work?

Please....by any definition it's looting. They give themselves 40 million dollars in years when their companies lose money.

Work hard and pay your dues? Some of these guys are getting huge bonuses even when they CRASH the freaking company they're supposed to be leading.

Is that what YOU get when you screw up?

Anyone who can't see there is a two-tiered set of economic rules in this country these days - one for the upper echelon and one for everyone else, is blind as the proverbial bat.

AspenValley wrote: Work hard and pay your dues? Some of these guys are getting huge bonuses even when they CRASH the freaking company they're supposed to be leading.

Is that what YOU get when you screw up?

Anyone who can't see there is a two-tiered set of economic rules in this country these days - one for the upper echelon and one for everyone else, is blind as the proverbial bat.

What stupifeiing to me is how the top one 1/10 of 1 percent gets 35% of America to argue, and even protest on thier behalf...

Yes, i'm talking about you TeaBaggers again here

This is the typical response you get from the left- and I can see by the OP that LJ agrees. Lets keep badmouthing corporations and the rich- that'll help the economy. All it does is create the false impression that people who succeed, companies who succeed and make money should be vilified.

The American economy isn't a zero-sum game. Just because someone makes more doesn't mean that money disappears, those funds can be used to start up new companies, buy more products. The quicker money moves around, the more everybody has.
And if it is so bad for the middle and lower classes, why did the Dem House, Senate, & Executive branch not fix things?

The quote is exactly right- the economy isn't a zero-sum game. The company exists in order to make profit- for the people who own the company. It does not exist to make the employees rich. In order to make the company rich- you need special talent at the very top. The most talented - command large compensation packages - because the talent pool is limited in supply. The top producers are subject to the supply and demand forces that the workers at the bottom are subject to. The only problem with the workers at the bottom is- the talent pool is in great supply, and the number of jobs is limited.

This is bad for the lower classes- they must compete with a large labor pool in a limited job market. Thise at the top enjoy it the other way around- limited pool of talent - big demand for their skills.

At least this is the preception in the market today- and preception IS reality. Now if this talent fails to do it's job or does a bad job, these companies should get rid of the talent. This is not the job of government- to get involved in these private sector matters. In the end- the free market provides the solution - a mis-managed company will fail to profit, and the stock holders and owners will suffer.

That is as long as government stay's out of it. The minute the government steps in to regulate or otherwise "bail out" a mismanaged company- the free market remedy stops functioning.

Now I actually believe that many of these CEO's are indeed overcompensated - but this is a private matter for the board of directors and the stockholders - not for people like LJ, or others on the left (unless you are a stockholder). All of you on the left would serve yourselves better by minding your own business and using your resources to better yourselves, instead of worrying about what a company pays it's top talent.

Again- unless you are the owner or investor. When I see this kind of stuff going on as an investor- I may not invest in the company- I figure if they are overcompensating their management- I'm not getting back my full profit in the investment. I also figure if they have the compensation out of balance- they must have other assumptions out of balance as well.

The left uses this issue as a class warfare tatic. They try to convince their sheep that the big bad company must be doing them all wrong if the CEO is making millions. The fact is - that companies create wealth. Companies create jobs. Companies make it possible for us to fund government to begin with.

Spend your time doing somthing more productive than joining in on the class envy stuff- maybe you'll find yourself with success- and people will envy you, then you'll truly understand. Remember - if you become successful, whatever money the government doesn't steal from you, you can spend helping out your favorite cause- you can even give it away to people who havn't earned it!

Great point above about these "overpaid executives" can do what they want with thier money and it can be better things than goverment does with the taxes.
Bill Gates foundation has done wonders for the poor. If 90% of his earnings had gone to the Feds, would it have helped the poor or just provided free cars for more goverment bureaucrats pushing paper around?
Money going to Acorn? Ethanol subsidies to burn foodstuffs or actually going to the correct charities that do the most good.

Yea, Franklin Raines was a big Bush supporter.