[dino_bobba_renno]

Quote:

By noon today, the super-rich have made an average worker's yearly salary
OTTAWA - The richest of the rich have gained more ground in Canada, and are now making 189 times the average Canadian wage, according to a new report.

The 100 highest paid chief executives whose companies are listed on the S&P/TSX composite index made an average of $8.38 million in 2010, according to figures pulled from circulars by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think-tank.

That's 189 times higher than the $44,366 an average Canadian made working full time in 2010, the report says.

And it's a 27 per cent raise from the $6.6 million average compensation for the top 100 CEOs in 2009, the report says.

Regular Canadians, on the other hand, have seen their wages stagnate over the past few years. In 2010, after adjusting for inflation, average wages actually fell.

"The gap between Canada's CEO elite 100 and the rest of us is growing at a fast and steady pace, with no signs of letting up," says economist Hugh Mackenzie, who authored the report.

"The extraordinarily high pay of chief executive officers is more than a curiosity. It actually is a reflection of a troubling redistribution of society's resources in Canada and the United States, and in most of Western Europe," he said in an interview.

He points out that in 1998, the top 100 CEOs were paid 105 times the average wage. Since then, the ratio has generally climbed up.

In 2008, it was 174, dropping back to 155 during the recession in 2009. The high-water mark was 2007, when it peaked over 190.

It means that by noon on Jan. 3, the average top executive will have already made as much money as the average Canadian worker makes in a year.

The driving forces behind the inequality gap are complex, and lie in the structure of executive compensation packages, Mackenzie says.

Consultants giving advice to corporate boards on how much to pay their CEOs only compare to other CEOs, perpetually driving up the average in the race to be above-average, he explains.

The corporate board members all run in the same circles.

And many companies use stock options for a large part of their executives' bonuses, a practice that not only drives up pay packages but also ties compensation to share price rather than company performance, Mackenzie notes.

"The process of paying CEOs is really quite incestuous."

Solutions are equally complex. Debate in the United States has raged over this subject since the subprime fiasco of 2008, and the consensus seems to be that regulating the structure of compensation packages won't really work, Mackenzie says.

Instead, taxation is a better way to go, allowing corporate boards to compensate as they please, but putting governments in a position to claw back excesses and redistribute them as they see fit.

While Mackenzie does not expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to hike taxes on the rich tomorrow, he does see some kind of policy response eventually.

"I actually see this kind of growing income inequality as inherently unstable. I think there will be a response," he said.

"The people at the very top of the income scale — and CEOs are at the top of the top — have really launched themselves into a kind of economic interplanetary travel. If the rest of us are on Earth, they're off somewhere else in a different world. I think that's unstable."

The top earner on the list is definitely in a galaxy of his own. Frank Stronach, the honorary chairman of auto-parts manufacturer Magna International Inc., (TSX:MG.DB) took home almost $62 million in 2010.

Excluding Stronach from the Top 100 calculation would bring the average pay package down by about $62,000, Mackenzie said.

Number two on the list — Donald Walker, also of Magna — made $16.7 million in 2010.

The top banker was Richard Waugh of Bank of Nova Scotia (TSX:BNS), pocketing $13.8 million in pay, bonuses, options and perks.

But Mackenzie points out that the compensation information companies include in their circulars don't catch the pay packages of investment bankers, whether or not they work for publicly traded companies.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/16179355.xml&CatID=National

[BartSimpson]

None of this has any effect on your income.

Seems to me that this whole 'occupy' thing has devolved into a thirst for retribution, as if the so-called 'rich' are to blame for why leftist, drug addled, losers can't find a job.

Once the rich are murdered and their wealth seized and plundered...then what? Who's next?

[andyt]

Quote:

Solutions are equally complex. Debate in the United States has raged over this subject since the subprime fiasco of 2008, and the consensus seems to be that regulating the structure of compensation packages won't really work, Mackenzie says.
Instead, taxation is a better way to go, allowing corporate boards to compensate as they please, but putting governments in a position to claw back excesses and redistribute them as they see fit.
While Mackenzie does not expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to hike taxes on the rich tomorrow, he does see some kind of policy response eventually.
"I actually see this kind of growing income inequality as inherently unstable. I think there will be a response," he said.
"The people at the very top of the income scale — and CEOs are at the top of the top — have really launched themselves into a kind of economic interplanetary travel. If the rest of us are on Earth, they're off somewhere else in a different world. I think that's unstable."

[DanSC]

Have they earned it?

In the US, I'd say some have earned their CEO salary, and some have not.

Unfortunately people see investing in a company much as they do investing in a savings account, and shareholders aren't asking the question, "Why are these rather mediocre people running the company and taking so much out of the company for their own personal income?"

[Robair]

BartSimpson wrote:

None of this has any effect on your income.

Which is why the article talks about tax distribution as a solution.

BartSimpson wrote:

Seems to me that this whole 'occupy' thing has devolved into a thirst for retribution, as if the so-called 'rich' are to blame for why leftist, drug addled, losers can't find a job.

Seems to me you missed the part where they compare incomes with the average Canadian. Unless you think the average Canadian is a leftist, drug addled, unemployed loser.

BartSimpson wrote:

Once the rich are murdered and their wealth seized and plundered...then what? Who's next?

Why would we murder them? We need them to keep generating wealth that we can plunder.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson wrote:

None of this has any effect on your income.

Seems to me that this whole 'occupy' thing has devolved into a thirst for retribution, as if the so-called 'rich' are to blame for why leftist, drug addled, losers can't find a job.

Once the rich are murdered and their wealth seized and plundered...then what? Who's next?

No one whould care at all how much the wealthiest have if the wealthiest didn't deliberately go out of their way to destroy any financial stability for everyone else. Downsizing. Outsourcing. Union busting. Viable companies that employed thousands being deliberately shut down and sold for scrap. Having their pet politicians gut what's left of the welfare state. Ripping apart the banking system and rebuilding it into something so implacably merciless that no one, except for them of course, comes out of it without being robbed of literally everything.

The rich were already winning. Then they decided that they had to win by more. And then they paid off the referee to not call any penalties when they crosschecked the other player across the face and then kicked him in the nuts after he'd fallen down.

I'm amazed that you're so willing to look the other way in the face of such blatant, vicious, and (call it for what it is) evil unfairness. Just how much do these guys need to have before they quit raping the rest of us?

[OnTheIce]

Thanos wrote:

No one whould care at all how much the wealthiest have if the wealthiest didn't deliberately go out of their way to destroy any financial stability for everyone else. Downsizing. Outsourcing. Union busting. Viable companies that employed thousands being deliberately shut down and sold for scrap. Having their pet politicians gut what's left of the welfare state. Ripping apart the banking system and rebuilding it into something so implacably merciless that no one, except for them of course, comes out of it without being robbed of literally everything.

The rich were already winning. Then they decided that they had to win by more. And then they paid off the referee to not call any penalties when they crosschecked the other player across the face and then kicked him in the nuts after he'd fallen down.

I'm amazed that you're so willing to look the other way in the face of such blatant, vicious, and (call it for what it is) evil unfairness. Just how much do these guys need to have before they quit raping the rest of us?

Why group all the wealthy people into this group?

It's a gross exaggeration and completely false.

It's like saying poor people are all bad because they break into homes all while battling an alcohol and drug problem.

Everyone wants more. It's our nature. Rich people want more. Poor people want more. Middle class people want more. It's who we are.

[Robair]

Why are we labeling either group? We should be looking at fixing the system in which these groups operate.

[andyt]

How?

[Thanos]

OnTheIce wrote:

Thanos wrote:

No one whould care at all how much the wealthiest have if the wealthiest didn't deliberately go out of their way to destroy any financial stability for everyone else. Downsizing. Outsourcing. Union busting. Viable companies that employed thousands being deliberately shut down and sold for scrap. Having their pet politicians gut what's left of the welfare state. Ripping apart the banking system and rebuilding it into something so implacably merciless that no one, except for them of course, comes out of it without being robbed of literally everything.

The rich were already winning. Then they decided that they had to win by more. And then they paid off the referee to not call any penalties when they crosschecked the other player across the face and then kicked him in the nuts after he'd fallen down.

I'm amazed that you're so willing to look the other way in the face of such blatant, vicious, and (call it for what it is) evil unfairness. Just how much do these guys need to have before they quit raping the rest of us?

Why group all the wealthy people into this group?

It's a gross exaggeration and completely false.

It's like saying poor people are all bad because they break into homes all while battling an alcohol and drug problem.

Everyone wants more. It's our nature. Rich people want more. Poor people want more. Middle class people want more. It's who we are.

Everyone has the right to make as much and to keep as much of what they've fairly earned. What they don't have a right to do is to inflict existential destruction onto others in order to make that much more.

Seriously, what's so damn difficult about making a living, even a high-end one, without hurting others? Why has this become such an impossible thing to ask for?

[OnTheIce]

Thanos wrote:

Everyone has the right to make as much and to keep as much of what they've fairly earned. What they don't have a right to do is to inflict existential destruction onto others in order to make that much more.

Seriously, what's so damn difficult about making a living, even a high-end one, without hurting others? Why has this become such an impossible thing to ask for?

A private business owner has every right to do whatever he/she wants to do. If some company wants to move their business to save them millions, who are we to stop them?

Business are in the game to make money.

The problem is, especially with Canadian labour, is that workers often expect high wages for low-skill jobs. We price ourselves out of the market, especially when it comes to manufacturing.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

Just how much do these guys need to have before they quit raping the rest of us?

Like I said, this is abour retribution. You're accusing these people of being criminals ('raping') and that means you want vengeance on them.

As if they are personally to blame for your place in the world.

They're not.

The people who do criminal acts - like Bernie Madoff - are rightfully in jail, but the other people who are doing the jobs their shareholders want them to do? They're just doing their jobs is all.

No one told anyone to go work for these people or their companies. As a matter of fact, if you're really cheesed off at them then open your own company and compete with them. Pay your employees (like Andy) a 'living wage' of, say, $35 an hour while those misers pay their employees $15 an hour. That'll show them!

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, you folks on this 'hate the rich' bandwagon are working yourselves up into a murderous lather.

Care to bet me $100 that some Occupy vermin will murder a 1% this year? I'm thinking that's an easy wager on my part.

Loser pays CKA a $100 donation by this date next year.

Are we on?

[Robair]

andyt wrote:

How?

As far as I know, the only tools we have are regulation and taxation.
But I could be missing something. It's happened before.

[BartSimpson]

Robair wrote:

andyt wrote:

How?

As far as I know, the only tools we have are regulation and taxation.
But I could be missing something. It's happened before.

Great. Raise taxes on the wealthy Canadians, increase regulations on Canadian corporations, and help get the US economy back on its feet.

[Robair]

BartSimpson wrote:

Great. Raise taxes on the wealthy Canadians, increase regulations on Canadian corporations, and help get the US economy back on its feet.

USA is becoming Mexico north as it is. There's threads on here about plants closing down and heading south where labour is cheaper. When you're broke, you WILL work for minimum wage. Or starve.

My theory (not that I spent a lot of time coming up with it) is that you need enough capitalism to stay compedative, and enough socailism to stay healthy.