CEOs now paid approximately 183 times the average UK worker

[brewer]

There are several possible solutions.  The French revolution comes to mind on this.  But it could also be dealt with by law, by making it illegal for there to be such pay disparity in a company.  For example, there could be a law requiring that total compensation for any one worker cannot be more than 10 times the total pay of the lowest paid worker (another number could be selected, of course; the 10 times is just a hypothetical example).  Of course, such a law is not going to pass in the U.S., because corporations have too much political influence, and there are too many brain dead morons who believe corporate propaganda about it being somehow necessary or good for the CEOs to be paid so much.

OK, revolt.

OK, pass a law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/busine....html?_r=0

[brewer]

You're only scratching the surface here. I guess nobody would argue against a private company paying their CEOs whatever they want. But in many cases it's not the reality. There are two problems. One, the system of short term bonuses. Managers take unnecessary risks to meet the requirements for their annual bonus. Two, in  case of failure, absolutely nothing happens. As has been shown in 2008 when the state bailed out the losers and risk takers. Not a single one of them was tried. Not a single one of them paid a dime in compensations.

So I'm all for private companies paying what they want. But please, don't come running for the taxpayer's money when things go down the drain. That's yet another example of why the current capitalistic system doesn't work and the market doesn't regulate itself. To add insult to injury, most of these zeros that brought us the debacle of 2008, enjoy the results of the golden handshakes they got after the failed miserably at their jobs. Paid by yours truly among millions of other people.

You're right, just the surface. I'm not that deep or educated in business.

I can only speak for the company I worked at. In two instances, the director, lead manager and lead salesman manipulated data to increase the number of sales and consequently their bonuses. The following year, as a result of their actions, both blocks of business lost money. They were terminated with minimal severance (past bonus pay reduced from severance). I think the players in the 2008 crash should have suffered the same/similar fate.

As to the 2008 crash, I might be wrong but wasn't this started by politics and lowering the qualifications to get loans for homeowners? As far as the taxpayer bailout, wasn't that political also? I think the bailout has been paid back plus interest.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

[abaris]

As far as the taxpayer bailout, wasn't that political also? I think the bailout has been paid back plus interest.

That's the too big to fail bullshit. One of the reasons why our current highly unregulated system fails. No single company or bank should be allowed to grow that fat to crash the global economy when failing. Or in other words. No company or bank should be allowed to gamble outside their own financial possibilities.

[brewer]

As far as the taxpayer bailout, wasn't that political also? I think the bailout has been paid back plus interest.

That's the too big to fail bullshit. One of the reasons why our current highly unregulated system fails. No single company or bank should be allowed to grow that fat to crash the global economy when failing. Or in other words. No company or bank should be allowed to gamble outside their own financial possibilities.

I agree. Once the economy stabilized the gov should have gone to work on the company(s), making it possible for them to fail in the future without adversely effecting the economy.