CyberPanda
Banned
Citigroup CEO Corbat defends bank's pay gap: `I started in 1983 at $17,000' salary
The pay gap at Citigroup, led by Corbat since 2012, is the biggest among big U.S. banks
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat defends Bank's pay gap: "I started in 1983 at $17,000" salary - CNBC
- Thread starter CyberPanda
- Start date
Slings and Arrows
Banned
If a person works hard and makes it to the top, others shouldn't be shouting him down and saying "yo, what the fuck, why is he paid so much money?!?!" They should be asking HOW he got there. What did he do, how did he act, what did he learn?
Take notes on people who are successful and you mind find yourself enjoy the same successes. Otherwise stay with the crowd who piss and moan at them not being handed everything on a silver platter.
Take notes on people who are successful and you mind find yourself enjoy the same successes. Otherwise stay with the crowd who piss and moan at them not being handed everything on a silver platter.
Blood Borne
Member
I really and truly do not understand why pay gap is a bad thing. I need to understand this issue. is it that gap itself is inherently wrong, or is about how wide the gap is? Because if it’s the latter, there’s a huge gap between Jeff Bezos and a guy who earns 1 million annually, but the 1 million still has a wonderful life, therefore I think we need to focus on people’s standard of living and quality of life rather than “gap”. “Gap” sounds like a word uttered by the envious.
If I’m misunderstanding the gap issue, please someone enlighten me.
If I’m misunderstanding the gap issue, please someone enlighten me.
KonradLaw
Member
Meh. Complaining about pay gaps in companies is utter nonsense. It doesn't matter how much boss earns. All that matters is that the employees are paid well, including the entry positions. As long as that happens complaining about how much boss earns is ridiculous.
Especially since let's be honest..if pay gap is the focus and they decide to lower it they will do it by lowering the boss pay, not increasing rank and file earnings and then..what's the benefit from that>
Especially since let's be honest..if pay gap is the focus and they decide to lower it they will do it by lowering the boss pay, not increasing rank and file earnings and then..what's the benefit from that>
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
What companies pay their employees is up to them. Labor is a market and people are paid market rates. Unfortunately "fairness" is not part of the equation. Upper management does have an advantage at public companies because of the power to control the company versus ownership. It's called the agency problem and it's sometimes the reason why CEO pay is inflated. We solve this through corporate boards. Corporate governance in public companies is regulated in the US and it is seen as one of the greatest benefits to us markets. This is a great example of regulations that make markets better.
Torquill
Member
This seems like an excessive oversimplification. People can’t simply hold onto their labor until a suitable price comes along. They have to sell to feed themselves. People will exploit that. Right?
juliotendo
Member
I work in a major us corporation and you are paid according to your position, years of service, and level — very similar to the military. There is no discrepancy between male or female, everyone is essentially equal relative to their standing.
It is what it is. Yes people above me earn more. And people below me earn less. That’s how it should be. I am paid well. If I want more I work harder to get promoted. What’s so hard to understand?
This guy started at the bottom. Now he’s at the top. Who cares?
It is what it is. Yes people above me earn more. And people below me earn less. That’s how it should be. I am paid well. If I want more I work harder to get promoted. What’s so hard to understand?
This guy started at the bottom. Now he’s at the top. Who cares?
Last edited:
pramod
Banned
Feel like this should be in the Politics Forum. Maybe the mods can move it?
Anyway, this topic really ties in well to the outrageous poll on reset right now that asks if being a millionaire is "immoral". "Yes" they are is currently winning at 48%
www.resetera.com
Seems like the communists there feel that to be a millionaire you must have exploited people because of capitalism. Do they realize that in most communist governments there are also plenty of dirty rich people who did nothing to deserve their wealth?
Anyway, this topic really ties in well to the outrageous poll on reset right now that asks if being a millionaire is "immoral". "Yes" they are is currently winning at 48%
Is being a Billionaire / High Millionare Immoral
I really can't see a defense for someone hoarding this much wealth. IDGAF if you donate millions to charity. Not even getting deep into the discussion that profit is theft, those that are billionaires and multimillionaires not just have exploited their workers to drive abnormal wealth into their...
www.resetera.com
Seems like the communists there feel that to be a millionaire you must have exploited people because of capitalism. Do they realize that in most communist governments there are also plenty of dirty rich people who did nothing to deserve their wealth?
n0razi
Member
Its not everything but LUCK has a lot to do with it... the guys who make it to the top will rarely admit it though
Rookje
Member
There is a very, very, very small pool of people in the world who can be CEOs of mega corporations like Disney. The reason why the CEOs are paid as much as they are is because of supply and demand. There is a high demand for CEOs to run mega corporations and the supply is very, very low. This is the economy and capitalism working as intended.
The salary of the CEO really is a red herring if we want to have a serious discussion of the cost of living and the wages earned by people living in America. Many of the woes of full-time employees at fortune 500 companies are mainly around housing costs, which is another supply and demand problem. There are senior engineers at Microsoft making over $100k who cannot afford to buy a home in Seattle. This isn't so much because of their wages, but again because of supply and demand. Why aren't there enough houses? That's a complicated, nuanced problem. (City codes restricting expansion because locals don't want more people living there or high rises changing the "vibe" of the city, Chinese buying houses as investments and not living there, etc.) Re-distributing the CEOs wages among the company would have a small impact on that problem.
Then we have employees who aren't engineers but are lower level (retail, sales etc.). The reason why their wages are so low is, again, a supply and demand problem. With automation, companies don't need actual humans as much anymore. Increasingly they are becoming irrelevant. This floods the economy with tons of people who are now competing over a smaller pool of jobs. Because of that, employers can reduce how much they pay for these positions because the supply of humans who are willing to do this job is so high. And if you are someone working at one of these mega corporations (say, Amazon in Seattle) you are faced with the sky high cost of living in that area.
We are at an awkward point in time where these corporations still need lower-level workers but can get away with paying them wages that aren't realistic (cost of living wise) in the areas they're in. In theory, the free market should force workers looking for jobs to scoff the high cost of living in these areas and look elsewhere. This does happen. Nobody has to accept a job in an area which gives them a wage where they can't afford to live. But you could argue the mere posting of that job with unlivable wages is immoral, unethical or should be illegal. There are democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders who are pitching policies to attempt to regulate this. But its uncertain what those regulations will do. What's to stop those companies from outsourcing those jobs? Or further pressuring them to automate them?
TL;DR - Simply re-distributing the CEOs wealth throughout the economy may make you feel better, but it won't really solve the deeply complicated, nuanced problem with the economy in the world today.
The salary of the CEO really is a red herring if we want to have a serious discussion of the cost of living and the wages earned by people living in America. Many of the woes of full-time employees at fortune 500 companies are mainly around housing costs, which is another supply and demand problem. There are senior engineers at Microsoft making over $100k who cannot afford to buy a home in Seattle. This isn't so much because of their wages, but again because of supply and demand. Why aren't there enough houses? That's a complicated, nuanced problem. (City codes restricting expansion because locals don't want more people living there or high rises changing the "vibe" of the city, Chinese buying houses as investments and not living there, etc.) Re-distributing the CEOs wages among the company would have a small impact on that problem.
Then we have employees who aren't engineers but are lower level (retail, sales etc.). The reason why their wages are so low is, again, a supply and demand problem. With automation, companies don't need actual humans as much anymore. Increasingly they are becoming irrelevant. This floods the economy with tons of people who are now competing over a smaller pool of jobs. Because of that, employers can reduce how much they pay for these positions because the supply of humans who are willing to do this job is so high. And if you are someone working at one of these mega corporations (say, Amazon in Seattle) you are faced with the sky high cost of living in that area.
We are at an awkward point in time where these corporations still need lower-level workers but can get away with paying them wages that aren't realistic (cost of living wise) in the areas they're in. In theory, the free market should force workers looking for jobs to scoff the high cost of living in these areas and look elsewhere. This does happen. Nobody has to accept a job in an area which gives them a wage where they can't afford to live. But you could argue the mere posting of that job with unlivable wages is immoral, unethical or should be illegal. There are democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders who are pitching policies to attempt to regulate this. But its uncertain what those regulations will do. What's to stop those companies from outsourcing those jobs? Or further pressuring them to automate them?
TL;DR - Simply re-distributing the CEOs wealth throughout the economy may make you feel better, but it won't really solve the deeply complicated, nuanced problem with the economy in the world today.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
I'm not american but comparing my time working in my home country (Chile) with the one I worked in Switzerland (so rather radically different places) there was a really notorious difference beyond just the obvious fact that salaries in Switzerland are just way higher (as was the cost of living).
To make a stupid basic example:
You have a company of 3 people, 2 employees and a boss. The company makes $10 a month and the average cost of living comfortably is $1.5. From my experience:
-In Switzerland it would be something like: each employee gets $2 and the boss gets $6
-In Chile it would be something like: each employee gets $0.5 and the boss gets $9
In both cases the boss gets notoriously more than the employee, as he should, but only in one of them does the employee still get enough to live comfortably.
So at least in my experience it isn't as much about the gap as it's about the gap combined with low wages
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
You don't even have to be a CEO to make nice gains.
I'm making about 4x now compared to the salary I got out of school. And I'm not even exec level.
I'm making about 4x now compared to the salary I got out of school. And I'm not even exec level.
BlueAlpaca
Member
Feel like this should be in the Politics Forum. Maybe the mods can move it?
Anyway, this topic really ties in well to the outrageous poll on reset right now that asks if being a millionaire is "immoral". "Yes" they are is currently winning at 48%
Is being a Billionaire / High Millionare Immoral
I really can't see a defense for someone hoarding this much wealth. IDGAF if you donate millions to charity. Not even getting deep into the discussion that profit is theft, those that are billionaires and multimillionaires not just have exploited their workers to drive abnormal wealth into their...
Seems like the communists there feel that to be a millionaire you must have exploited people because of capitalism. Do they realize that in most communist governments there are also plenty of dirty rich people who did nothing to deserve their wealth?
When the left says wealth is immoral, they mean wealth other people have. None of the posters in that thread would give away their millions or billions if they made any and they would still shamelessly and hypocritically criticize the wealthy/capitalism without a hint of self-awareness like obama/bernie/leftwing 'intellectuals' and writers with money/etc....
It really is mind boggling, the self-righteousness, the ignorance, the hypocrisy, just staggering. To those people an author making millions selling books is exploiting innocents and is evil, like a GRR Marting for example, unless they're the ones writing the books I'm sure - in which case the rich are still evil but not them and they would make more millions writing leftwing books for other self-righteous idiot hypocrites to read. NPC is too polite for some people.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Hey I have an idea:
Neuter the competitive American spirit -- which admittedly has flaws -- by continually degrading those who work hard and make a lot of money in their current positions. Throw the accusations under amorphous boogeyman claims like "pay gap". Then destroy the average salary ceiling for 99.9% of the workers in these industries. Corporations end up saving a lot of money, and the politicians they pay who push for these policies get to look like the good guys because they have pushed for "equality".
When I say "destroy the average salary ceiling", I don't mean "break it so that pay increases" or "break it so that pay is more equal".
I mean "lower it for nearly everyone". The CEO and CFO will still make millions. It's just that the person making 150k will now make 100k, and the person making 300k will now make 200k.
Don't believe me? Then riddle me why out-of-pocket insurance went up for everyone while quality decreased for everyone in order to close the "healthcare gap" between those who couldn't afford it and those who could.
Neuter the competitive American spirit -- which admittedly has flaws -- by continually degrading those who work hard and make a lot of money in their current positions. Throw the accusations under amorphous boogeyman claims like "pay gap". Then destroy the average salary ceiling for 99.9% of the workers in these industries. Corporations end up saving a lot of money, and the politicians they pay who push for these policies get to look like the good guys because they have pushed for "equality".
When I say "destroy the average salary ceiling", I don't mean "break it so that pay increases" or "break it so that pay is more equal".
I mean "lower it for nearly everyone". The CEO and CFO will still make millions. It's just that the person making 150k will now make 100k, and the person making 300k will now make 200k.
Don't believe me? Then riddle me why out-of-pocket insurance went up for everyone while quality decreased for everyone in order to close the "healthcare gap" between those who couldn't afford it and those who could.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
That's fine but if there are 10 qualified and versed individuals to be ceo, it doesn't matter there can only be one ceo. The higher you go up the fewer positions there are, it doesn't matter how good most people are, most must fail to become ceo regardless of how good or capable they are.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
People struggling to make ends meet is one issue caused by more than one factor. The numerical gap between Struggling Person A's paycheck and Wealthy Person B's paycheck is another issue. These two situations may not be related in any real way (statistically, they are very likely to be completely unrelated), but we constantly assume they must be connected just because one number is bigger than the other.
When you say "Society", are you actually referring to the government stepping in?
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Anybody who says they can't make ends meet and owns a branded mobile phone, tv, cable/sky and internet is a liar.
crowbrow
Banned
Still, humans are social animals and there is an ingrained sense of justice which generates discontent if people perceive huge unequal gaps in their social groups and that discontent translates into social instability. There are individuals with obscene amounts of money in their hands these days and people with virtually nothing. So at least making something to heal that perception could be done (be it with taxes or whatever). And yeah I'm talking about market regulation. A market needs some level of regulation otherwise it becomes just a like a state dictatorship but from the private sector which is worse since there's not even democratic election there, mostly just amoral greed.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
Don't they say something like 90+% of new businesses fail?
There can only be so many companies. If say we had genetic engineering, and 300M americans were ceo worthy, there couldn't be 300M companies. We can't have a scarcity of workers with 1-3 person corporations around and 100ms ceos. Well there could, but they would be small companies with comparatively small salaries, never the multimillion salaries.
In any case it's the same issue with Zimbabwe, not eveyone can have a million dollar salary, and if they somehow do it will lead to hyperinflation. Being wealthier is defined by the difference in the ratio between assets, the ability to outbid. For there to be someone wealthier, they have to be a minority, and they have to have a ratio of assets advantage against the average that allows them to outbid not just one person but 10, 20, 100, 1000 the larger collective they can outbid the wealthier they are.
The monetary system is merely a system to ration out the finite resources, money is a means of rationing, being wealthier is merely having privileged access to a greater portion of the finite resource pie.
Perhaps most are lacking the genetics, which include drive and motivation, to be ceo. But we can't be sure there's a place for everyone that wants to be a ceo to be a ceo. Also will say that while some ceos give the 80+hr work week, I'm not sure it's all ceos that give their all.
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
You won't find amoral solutions to amoral greed.
The regulation must come from the populace's moral sensibilities. However, I realize that what I am saying is not a government-driven solution and therefore is dismissed out of hand by people who only seek solutions through the government.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
There's a place for everyone who wants a space.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
Only if we are talking small corporations. There can only be so many big corporations. There are few multimillion salary positions, and that will always be the case, inflation adjusted. There will never be billions of such positions, barring population growing to trillions. And the only way there is a place for everyone to have a place is for there to only be a small minority wanting such a position.
But we know there are more people that want a multimillion salary than can actually get it. We will have to restrict to the qualified, not the group wanting, and that would depend on there being less qualified than actual positions. But that would have to be proven.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
I meant 'wanting it' as more of a position of drive. Everybody wants millions of money. How many people actually want it so much that they'll do what it takes to go out there and get it? A lot less people than there are positions.
You never see an unemployed CEO or anybody who has a similar drive. Hell, show me ten people with the mindset and drive of a CEO and ill show you ten millionaires regardless of position.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
You act as if all ceos were a certain way. When it may be that in some cases the company is very hard to tank, and even then in some cases the ceo does abysmal and is personally saved by the golden parachute on the way out.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
There are always exceptions.
BraveOne
Member
“Branded phone” every phone has a brand and owning one is pretty much essential in today’s world for communicating. Tvs are very inexpensive you don’t need to spend the moon to get a good quality one , and the same goes for having some level of access to the web. Finding jobs and doing basic banking functions need the internet. Those are just the basics to get through life today. The line is drawn when money is spent on luxury goods
Because financial success in the American/world market nowadays isn't determined by who "works harder," and even if you take issue with that statement it is at the very least not PROPORTIONAL to the amount of work one puts in.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Oh Reginald, I disagree!
First, one has to define 'work'. Then you one needs to understand that working harder is not the same as working smarter.
IzukuMidoriya
Member
More proof that idiots who think socialism is a good idea still don't get the point.
Our entire lives is nothing but luck. Lucky enough to be born in a first world nation, to be healthy, have good parents,. Etc etc
Last edited:
TheSadRanger
Banned
Wimbledon
Member
I agree with this sentiment. I remember voicing the same thing and got shouted down. Although the issue is complex enough where I do believe there are factors that most people will be up against (access, Ignorance being the main 2). But I still do think it ultimately comes down to making yourself marketable, leaving that echo chamber and learning more about the resources around you, being more social and knowing the right people who can in turn, help you get to point A to B. How you use your time, and how you plan is also important, and taking every opportunity you can even those that don't pay also help as well.
Like i still firmly believe there will always be a rich /middle class/ Lower class. Were all different some are smarter than others, some are luckier than others, some are capable of great feats and will always separate themselves. Not everyone is going to live the life of a celebrity but i absolutely do think it's possible to make 6 figures and have multiple business ventures and be willing to grow. I think that's absolutely obtainable.....well for a single person i do.
I just think that more people when they hit a wall, they give up , they meet the slightest resistance and they fall apart. I know i do , but i still persist with it, and it just means i need to grow more, but at the same time i look at someone and i think i don't know what true resistance is ,what true hardship looks like, and it just means that i need to work harder, because what im going through is next nothing that a lot of CEO's, or rich entrepreneurs , writers, athletes, Military men and women have gone through and still put themselves through, to maintain what they are and have.
Last edited:
Dragon_Rocks
Member
Working smart, planning properly for you career, set goals for achieving what you need to move up the ladder and working hard to meet those goals is what gets you to the top. But obviously one has to have the talent and capability to be able to do that.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
And the luck of there not being others with more talent and capability. If you're not the best, why should you be chosen above someone that is?
Super Mario
Banned
Liberals = CEOs that make millions are bad people
Also Liberals = Athlethes and celebrities that make millions, deserve it
Having worked at a company where a bad CEO nearly took us under until a better one came along, I can tell you a good CEO is worth every penny. Not to mention that our company has greatly increased wages too. Actually, I should be listening to some college-age loser tell me why I'm oppressed.
Also Liberals = Athlethes and celebrities that make millions, deserve it
Having worked at a company where a bad CEO nearly took us under until a better one came along, I can tell you a good CEO is worth every penny. Not to mention that our company has greatly increased wages too. Actually, I should be listening to some college-age loser tell me why I'm oppressed.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
did something stop that bad ceo from receiving a golden parachute and being hired by another company for an equally high salary? It seems like whether the ceo is good or bad, they still get high rewards("golden parachutes in case of being bad") and future employment.
Lanrutcon
Member
The hard truth is that hard work is just one of the steps up the ladder, of which many are optional. Luck, opportunity, moral flexibility, privilege, talent, etc can do just as much for you if not more.
Come On Tars
Member
A harder truth is that there is always someone worse off than you that has made it. Plain and simple.
Dragon_Rocks
Member
Not always. Convincing others that you are just as good or better than others who are really better than you at the work you are doing and taking credit for what others have done without others knowing or doubting you is also a talent. Its not a morally good one but it still is a talent. But then again, as you said, if there are people who are better than you and you do not have the talent to put yourself in the spotlight then obviously you don't deserve to go up the ladder until you are up to it.
As I said, a person's talent is what makes them. The talent can be choosing the right work for you, the right place to be and the right things to do in order to move up irrespective of whether you really have the skills to do the work or not. Networking with people who can help you in your goals, playing politics etc. etc. are all necessary talents for one to grow.
Luck does play a part and surely when you are at the extreme ends like being born in poverty in a life of crime or being born to millionaires/billionaires or powerful politicians.
That is true, but for a different reason, which is there is a very small pool of people who have the personal connections needed to get enough votes from fund managers and other large shareholders to become CEO.
Similar threads
- Locked