Skip to main content

View Diary: Restaurants claim they can't afford a minimum wage increase, but they sure do pay their CEOs well (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  remuneration scale way off balance (12+ / 0-)

    and the mediocrity of management enjoys its inadequacy.
    big problem rarely addressed/redressed.

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

    •  Whenever things don't go smoothly (10+ / 0-)

      at work, I like to remind my co-workers that twice a year, an owner or executive who earns a high six or low seven figure salary is paid $50k to give a speech to investors, or lobbyists, or a trade group, to crow about how they run the best managed company in the industry.

      I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

      by CFAmick on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:53:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  CFAmick - I don't understand your comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlexDrew

        Executives who are currently employed at high compensation levels are not allowed to accept speaking fees. But I am not sure if that was your point.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:15:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, please (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, Hillbilly Dem

          You dont really believe they have no way of compensating these execs, do you?

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Senior executives are handsomely paid (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AlexDrew

            and some of them give speeches and lobby as part of their jobs, but I didn't understand the comment by CFA and that's why I asked the question. His comment suggested that they received speaking fees, like Bill Clinton does, but currently employed executives or office holders can't accept those fees.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  entire system inequitable (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, Thornrose, AKBear

              when we get a 3pct raise, it's hundreds; but for them, it's thousands. who needs it more?
              3 pct of 10 thousand vs 3 pct of 100 thousand. we should all get the same exact yearly raise, not a percent of a pittance like we're keeping pace with the fatcat fuddies allergic to real work.

              decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

              by renzo capetti on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:39:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't understand the suggestion. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, Sparhawk
                we should all get the same exact yearly raise
                Who is "we" -- do you mean every employee in the nation (i.e., the Federal Government sets wage increases)? That has no chance of being implemented.

                Also, by eliminating the performance aspect of pay by giving everyone the same increase regardless of their performance, this would create disincentives to work effectively since, as long as you could just barely avoid being fired, why would you work harder?

            •  Maybe not "executvies" per se (0+ / 0-)

              But, partners in private equity firms, for example.

              I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

              by CFAmick on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:52:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't think that partners in private equity (0+ / 0-)

                firms  gave speeches for money. Former partners, now retired, certainly do, but I am unaware that those currently employed by high profile groups like Bain Capital or KKR accept speaking fees. However, if you have a credible source, I'd believe it.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:12:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They are getting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elwior

                  like $100 an hour to do nothing. So if they give a speech at least they feel like they're doing something.

                  A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                  by onionjim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:48:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The private equity partners with the right (0+ / 0-)

                    profile and experience, and who are sought after to give speeches/presentations at conferences, make at least $1,000 an hour if you took their total compensation and divided it by 2000 hours a year. However, I don't think they can or do accept speaking fees.

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  mmm...that's a nice pile of cash. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AKBear, carrps

                      Usually their job, like Meg Whitman, is to fire thousands of workers, thus saving the corporation 100 mil, over three years. Long term its BS, but ya know that's how we roll these days.

                      A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                      by onionjim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:33:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  onionjim, it's actually not, but that's not (0+ / 0-)

                        a debate that I have time for today. Their goal is to significantly increase EBITDA over 3-5 years. In many cases that means increasing revenues and employees, but they will do their best to reach the EBITDA goals by any legal means necessary. They only make money if they sell the business for more than they paid for it so someone has to buy a functioning company. Buying companies to sell the parts is something only a very few private equity firms do well. For private equity the gains come from the use of leverage and you have to have a solid cash flow business to make the model work.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:59:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Too Bad All The Executives Think About Is Selling (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          carrps

                          a company for more than they paid for it, instead of  producing a good product that people can use/benefit from. Private equity firms (in my book) are nothing but leeches - paper shuffling outfits that legally strip profits from productive companies, offshore jobs, and lay off workers to "save money," but offer nothing in return.  See Sunbeam and Chainsaw Al Dunlap for a case study in this sad phenomena.

                        •  VClib, 3-5 years is the problem. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          carrps

                          No self respecting company would follow such a short horizon game. That's the stomping ground of HP and Bain Capital. The CEO's take home obscene profits that they don't deserve or earn, and suffer no consequences for running it up on the rocks. I've been in business for 7 years, slowly growing. A five year horizon on my planning would be idiotic. For a big company, its unbelievably stupid.

                          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                          by onionjim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:58:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The CEOs of companies owned by private equity (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            nextstep

                            don't have big cash compensation packages, in fact that earn far less than their public market counterparts. What they do have is significant equity ownership that can be worth a lot under conditions of success.

                            Executives of public companies as compared to those owned by private equity companies are apples and oranges and don't have similar pay packages. I agree that Fortune 500 CEOs are vastly overpaid, but most public company equity compensation plans are limited to four year vesting, so it's not surprising that executives with lots of options aren't thinking out 10+ years. In addition the average tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO is less than five years.  

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you for illustrating my point. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            carrps

                            The average tenure is less than five years, because it only takes one year to fire 25,00 employees and four years of amazing "profits",  followed by the golden parachute. Right?

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:39:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Fair wage laws take the lead out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, elwior

      of the "free" market.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:44:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site