Replies

And it's going to stay that way until the employers get enough money to hire people to catch up with the inflated ninties.

[In 2002, the average CEO compensation package equaled $10.83 million according to The New York Times. While pay cuts for the most richly rewarded CEOs reduced the size of the average compensation package, most CEOs actually got pay raises. Median CEO pay increased by 6 percent in 2002—more than twice the growth of workers' paychecks. And while shareholders—including workers who depend on the stock market for their retirement savings and pensions—have lost $7 trillion since the stock market peak, today’s CEO pay packages are roughly equal to their pre-bear market levels.] ~ snip

I'm all for people making lots and lots of money, but the argument that employers don't have "enough" money is a big, smelly pile of poo. Rewarding chicklet toothed jackholes for losing shareholders pension money is a crime against humanity and common sense.

The answer to the raises in CEO pay could lie in contract commitments. When a CEO is given the commitment by contract for a percentage of raise, and this is called that, then the company is forced to pay. In this case the economy tanked starting in 1999 and going full circle to what it was going do, by 2000. If the company has a contractual commitment to raise the salary of the CEO yearly, then it must pay. I'm sure that even some of the prime stock holders were not covered due to the CEO requirements. It's dog eat dog, and the big dog wins. It isn't illegal, just business, and common.