If you don't lilke what other people who own a controlling share of a company are paying the CEO then either become a controlling shareholder or organize the minority shareholders so that you can change it, or sell your stock in the company.
It is simplified, granted, but it is true.
Every stock-holder has a vote.
It may not be a vote for a CEO, but it is a vote to buy stock into a company.
I understand people hating bonuses.
However, it was not the private sector that pushed this, it was government mandates.
In order to compete and get a competent business leader, companies have to all but guarantee bonuses to their CEO's.
A sure way of getting rid of this practice is getting rid of the regulations on the pay structure.
It is then that you will probably only have bonuses in accordance to real performance.
What I am saying is that is totally false. The government does not keep them from being paid. There is no need of those lavish bonus at the expense of the share holder.
Yes they do.
This is from the New York Times concerning the initial pay restrictions imposed under the Clinton Administration:
In fact, I will say that the results are that the regulations actually increased executive pay packages rather than decreased them.
Obama put forth regulations on those who received financial assistance/bail outs in 2009.
He limited executive pay to $500,000.00.
Again, what we have learned is that this actually made the companies more ingenious in how they paid their executives, but it didn't limit their pay.
I suspect we will see ways around this pay cap that further entrenches an executive monopoly.
What should we do?
We should take all restrictions from pay to executives.
In the long term, this will actually make pay more in alignment than it currently is and allow for more mobility into the executive office.
But for the most part the pay is in the form of stock options, bonuses, etc.
That is the heart of Ruiz's argument.
The IRS regulations limit the deductability of a certain form of compensation so companies get around it by making payment in a different form that is not limited.
Also this is not an matter of absolutes.
Ruiz is not required to provide you now with the data on the pay of every CEO in order to be correct.
It is up to you to show where he is wrong in his analysis.
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the bonus structure has been designed to get around laws regulating executive pay.
The involvement of government has actually made things worse, not better.
The contexts of those passages is the worker doing wrong to the master. Now, yes, many unions might be doing that, but that does not make just being in a union itself unChristian. (For one thing, the passages are speaking towards individual workers, not an organization of workers. We are only responsible for our own reactions). Plus, these passages are probably referring more to indentured servanthood, not contractual "employment" as we know it. It's a different kind of relationship.