Leftist Claptrap in a Time of Righteousness
I don’t know what all I’m trying to accomplish by writing this article. Venting, yes. Provoking response, maybe. Affecting/changing alternate opinions, not likely. Rambling on in a stream-of-consciousness rant, most likely. Wasting my virtual breath, hope not.
Last week, I read an article on cnn.com about a Congressional hearing in D.C. on the subject of CEO compensation (i.e. huge salaries and perks) even in cases when those executives’ companies have performed miserably. While that story dealt with individuals walking away with dozens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars when their companies are tanking, it brought to mind recent developments in our community re: librarian pay cuts and consultant studies recommending double-digit pay raises for local government officials. Different stakes to be sure, but similar trends in thought and deed by those involved. Following is an excerpt from the article written by David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer:
Over the past decade, the growth in executive compensation has drastically outpaced the pay gains experienced by the average American worker, according to an annual study published in August by The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
Between 1996 and 2006, CEO pay rose 45%, at a time when the average pay for an American worker grew just 7%.
That same study revealed that CEOs at 386 of the Fortune 500 companies took home $10.8 million in total compensation in 2006, more than 364 times what the average worker earned that same year.
…
In December, the same Congressional panel heard from experts about a closely related issue in executive pay: Are compensation consultants who get hired by directors to advise on executive pay conflicted?”
Thought provoking. I hear a lot these days, especially in light of the presidential campaign and debate over universal health care or college tuition assistance, about people pulling their own weight and being responsible for their own situations. Statements like, “Why should I have to pay for a poor person’s medical care when my premiums are going sky high? We’re just enabling those people who don’t want to work. That’s not what America is founded on.” These and other similar sentiments, of course, carry an element of veracity and an element of selfishness. But, am I in a minority to be particularly disturbed by the apparent immunity to risk that the ultra-rich in this country enjoy? Would any of them respond well to a 33% pay cut when their company’s budget needed tightening as has been proposed for Wausau librarians?
In my former corporate life, I saw this phenomenon again and again: Sales are down, stores are closing, people are losing jobs and the top managers are voted amazing pay increases. Some are pressured to quit due to poor performance and yet are still rewarded with huge severance packages (full year’s salary, bonus, stock options). Yet, many of the CEOs and top managers I’ve ever met have been nothing special, essentially regular people who at best talk a good game or shoot decent golf, and it’s blown my mind that they are compensated at such kingly levels. But, that’s America.
I’ve heard from some that current campaign rhetoric appealing to the “have-nots” and “used-to-haves” in our populace is socialist propaganda feeding class hatred, “striking at the heart of the country,” fueling division and class conflict (even social war). But, I wonder. I wonder if that pushback isn’t really the party line of the immune “haves” whose pro status quo stance filters down into the minds of those among us who lack the same immunity and fear for the loss of what they have. I wonder if a sense of equity is so far from our current reality that we’re out of control, with no sense of balance.
Does everyone share in prosperity? Does everyone share in times of struggle? For both questions, the answer is “Not today in this country.” Not in corporate America and not in civic America.
Some civic leaders jockey for higher pay levels while finding places and people to cut elsewhere (parks, events, staff, services, culture, future plans and dreams) while they curry personal favor with their cronies (movers and shakers, builders, investors, realtors, bankers). Tell me I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, why do some candidates invest thousands and thousands of dollars in signage and media to win an election for a job that will only make them $50K a year? Question: Will a candidate who’s pushing for trimming the fat and reducing government expenses start by reducing his or her own salary if elected? Say by 20% or so?
I worked at a company where they changed the name of the Human Resources Dept. to “Human Asset Management.” I guess this represented a new, more modern approach to dealing with the workforce (wonder if some employees were categorized as “liabilities” while others were labeled “assets”). Certainly, there was a definite dollar figure (relative worth) assigned to each and every rank-and-file employee, while the exalted execs remained immune from such demeaning categorization.
The new corporate CEO (replacing an outgoing enormously paid failure) comes in and “cleans house,” reduces overhead (i.e. cuts advertising and marketing efforts, downsizes the workforce, reduces benefits, outsources customer service to strangers offshore, hurts the local economy) and then is hailed at the annual meeting as a visionary and paid outrageously in return. Meantime, the company’s long-term goals are endangered in favor of short-term short-lived upturn, common shareholders are left with depleted value, loyal employees are tossed aside, families and whole communities are placed in jeopardy. Hey, great job, fat cat!
When pressed, high-paid execs invariably say their boards of directors OK’d their pay levels, and that their pay is in line with what the market demands for people of their position. But I can’t help but think in terms of honest, performance-based compensation — and “risk” — the idea that when a company succeeds, so do all of its employees and when a company is struggling, then it must reflect that reality equitably from top to bottom.
Think: income taxes. What if we all paid a flat 10% without loopholes? Everyone. Every corporation. Every small business. Every tycoon. Every plant worker. And if the country needs it, everyone pays 11%. Everyone. You know, the average Joe or Jane would probably welcome this approach. The average millionaire would fight it to the death.
So, it’s a voting year. I’m listening closely to what is being said by candidates, national and local. How much do they sound like CEOs? And how much do they sound like regular Joes? What do they value? What are they fighting for? Who are they fighting for? Where do they stand in the status quo? What does equality mean to them?
oldwoodchair said:
Tom: I was thrilled to read your article…finally, something with some real meat to chew on.
I find as I age (gracefully perhaps, but not submissively) I am becomming more & more opinionated in the ways of humanity, society, and, of course, politics. And I sometimes worry that no one else is concerned with the issues of equity, equality, and fairplay of those who have, or are seeking, the “power” of elected or corporate office….my deepest concern is that we are a land of sheep and so enable them to feed on greed and our apathy. And so, I was heartened by your writing!
I too will be watching and listening and questioning. And I expect specific, factual answers to my questions…not a “pat on the head” generality to appease my little concerns so that I can sleep well at night. I can only hope that everyone who reads this will become a voice to demand that we receive honest, thoughtful, and specific answers to our questions. If WE don’t do this, who will?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:31 pm #
Barry Liss said:
Liked the piece Tom.
My response: Life is short - if people want to waste their energies amassing stuff it’s their prerogative. I don’t think any amount of money is worth the sacrifice that these execs make in terms of trading their personalities and creative spirit for material fodder.
The world is filled with beauty - one can live artfully or treat life as a commodity. One of these days I shall meet a very wealthy person whom I consider highly intelligent, literate and creative…that day is yet to come.
cheers,
Barry
March 12th, 2008 at 6:17 am #
deepintheheart said:
A fine rant you have shared Mr. Neal. With regards to CEO pay, I feel you have captured the general feeling that many folks have (or have not, as it may be).
The CEO as “regular person” is really of interest to me. On one hand many CEO’s try to create that mystique–open door policies, trips through the break room, wearing the team’s colors at company events–but quite often fail with humourous results. On the other hand, CEO’s who hold themselves apart and reside in ivory towers become a sort of quasi Howard Hughes to their underlings. One guy here in Dallas rides around his corporate campus on one of those StarTrek scooters that he converted a former office into a storage room for. He doesn’t pretend to be regular. That is much more respectable.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:21 am #
Alex said:
A beautiful tirade by the writer.
I question anyone who uses wealthy as a criterion for a relationship.
I agree with the previous poster, I have no problem with those that pursue or have worked and been rewarded with monetary gains. However, don’t act as if you can relate to me. You can’t and should be aware of that fact.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm #
Leftist Claptrap in a Time of Righteousness : Petsecure said:
[…] Let the author know what you think, contact them and continue reading, here […]
March 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm #