The real reasons the CEO-worker pay gap spiraled out of control in America—and what to do about it
With all the recent financial changes in college football, and all the recent TKP discussions on college football budgets, coaching changes, general managers, best path for Hokies leadership, etc... I thought this article would be of interest and provide good off-season discussion.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The gap- might - be too big... But the skill gap is just as big. Try actually running a major company and delivering for share holders. It's not as easy as millenials that think CEOs sit around and buy yachts all day is.
Sure, it may not be easy to run a successful company, but CEOs that fail get that sweet golden parachute to help soften the blow. Sorry, it must be the silly millennial in me but I'll never feel bad for CEOs.
I don't feel bad for CEOs either, but the issue I have is that millenials think CEO's dont EARN those contracts or EARN their severance.
Some of them really don't earn their severance. But those are more the exceptions than the rule.
I think the severance is mostly earned by being a public scapegoat 🤷
Instead of low ranking federal workers, I'd rather see CEOs send out a list of their weekly tasks to justify their $100M+/year salaries
This Week I : 1. Kept these thousands of people employed. Anything else you need auditor?
Gonna need more detail than that to escape my DO(CEO)E
EDIT: Actually, what I would like to see would be, using TPG Inc as an example:
A weekly summary of what their workers do in a week, the average salary for an associate with $93,578 salary
vs
A weekly summary of the work that CEO Jon Winkelried accomplishes for his $198,685,926 salary
Week 2 : After announcing a year of record profits in Annual Shareholders Meeting, laid off 10% of the workforce, increased stock price by 5%.
"Instead of low ranking federal workers, I'd rather see CEOs send out a list of their weekly tasks to justify their $100M+/year salaries"
Why not both?
I'm largely in agreement that many - not all, but many - CEOs get absurd salaries and that the golden parachutes for the CEOs (and the former VT coach who shall not be named) who sucked so badly that you just wanted them to go away are totally absurd. But given the size of the government and how far we are in debt, I don't see it as asking too much to know that government departments and people who work there do something useful to justify their salary and benefits too. If someone does good and important work, should be easy to articulate.
Federal employee salaries make up 4.3 % of the federal budget. If you want to minimize the federal debt, that's not even the fourth place to look to cut costs.
In terms of federal employees having to submit the "5 accomplishments" every week - it's a complete waste of taxpayer money. We're making people waste time trying to justify their employment to an entity that will probably never read it - or it will be fed into some poorly trained AI to sift through it all. And even if they do, how does someone from OPM (or DOGE I guess) evaluate that a scientist at NOAA is doing their job? Or an analyst for Department of Commerce? It isn't meant as a check that people are spending their time effectively, it's just a tactic to make federal employees stressed and want to quit.
In the private sector, do people have to prove their work load to anyone outside of their direct report? Not really. Not even to shareholders for a public company get that sort of detail. Because they probably don't have the knowledge or understanding to make the appropriate judgement regarding the effectiveness and quality of the work.
If minimizing the federal debt was ever a consideration here, they wouldn't have just blanket laid off all CDC cruise ship inspectors whose entire salaries are paid for by the cruise industry
Nah, in the private sector if you don't perform or nobody can figure out what you do, you are fired. Private sector employees aren't asked for stupid tasks lists because there is much more insight and scrutiny on performance as a general practice/impact to the business. Are there shit bag lazy private employees? yep. Are they easier to fire? yep.
"Federal employee salaries make up 4.3 % of the federal budget. If you want to minimize the federal debt, that's not even the fourth place to look to cut costs."
So, if someone is not doing anything useful, we should just keep paying them because it is only a small portion of things? The price of 500 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is minimal compared to the total cost of things, yet people (including me) do not like how much they are paid.
"In the private sector, do people have to prove their work load to anyone outside of their direct report?"
Uh, yeah, we do.
"In terms of federal employees having to submit the "5 accomplishments" every week - it's a complete waste of taxpayer money. We're making people waste time trying to justify their employment to an entity that will probably never read it"
Every week is excessive. They are not going to keep getting it every week. But I had to do something like that as a graduate student every quarter and it did not kill me.
Why are government workers held in such high regard by so many people? Some do important jobs. Some do not. Some do a good job. Some do not. Let's get rid of the ones that do not do anything useful and/or do a bad job and keep the ones that do. Or transfer the ones that do a good job to more important areas.
Are you a math guy?
They earn more money than everyone else sure, they don't earn THAT much more money. It's not a binary that they make 1:1 what the average employee does or 1000+ times as much. There are plenty of other reasonable numbers in between.
I'd say 8-15 times what the average employee makes, could make sense as far as what's being earned. 500-1000x is beyond excessive, it's absurd
News: in a free market/capitalist economy people are going to make more than you do. For thousands of reasons. It's a ridiculous argument. My boss makes more than me. Fucking shock.
Don't mind me, just copying this to notepad to use as a TKP copypasta during your daily NIL rants
Explaining why CEO's are high paid has nothing to fucking do with pay for play masked as real endorsement money. NOTHING. But "gotcha" away
Can you define millennial for me? Just making sure you're thinking of the right people here...
people born between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s
Completely agreeing with DC is always a wild experience.
This is pretty laughable. You think a CEO is 300 times more valuable than their average employee? Nobody is saying that CEOs aren't important and worth more. But the wage gap is crazy compared to the skill gap.
Valuable is what the market bears, isn't it? You think Tyler Nickel is 500K more valuable than, anyone?
Wait, now you're arguing in favor of Nickel getting $500k? Be consistent, man.
No, I understand supply/demand. Dumb, failing CEO's don't make those salaries. Successful ones that make the top companies in the world profitable and growing, do. Not everyone can work for uncle sam or in a commune. The worlds economy outside of those 2 things runs on multi billion dollar companies, innovation and job creation. The CEO's that fail or suck don't make 300x the mail room guy. The ones that run apple, verizon, Rogers, etc. do. It's not that hard.
I don't think this one is going to end well...
I Agree. My prediction for this thread:
Still can't figure out why it's still up at really can't figure out why its in the football forum.
I would speak my mind, but I'm afraid an executive would outsource my role or give it to a H1B visa worker for pennies on the dollar.
comment of the thread right here.