I think there is a clear difference between leaders and followers. Those who actually build the company from scratch did not require much salaries because salaries are for employees and not for employers. They had enought shares or stocks to keep them satisfied.
"...you do not need a lot of money to live in Europe..." who does not like an extra zero in his paycheck even though you really donot need or cannot use it. You can always put some more money for retirement or go for an early retirement.
Seriously though, the problem seems to me to be responsibility. Everyone has rights - CEOs have rights to huge salaries, stock options, golden parachutes. But the only responsibilities they have seem to be to the shareholders and boards who give them all the above. As for responsibilities for the welfare and lives of their workers and staff - forget it.
If managers, politicians, etc will not take ownership of their responsibilities, ethical or otherwise, the only thing to do is legislate them, so they HAVE to.
FYI it is just as big a problem in AUstralia as it seems to be in the States.
I suspect that in the U.S., the ratio for the semiconductor industry is much lower than for other industries. Yes, U.S. semiconductor CEOs are well-compensated, but so are the rank-and-file compared to many other industries.
Just as a comparison, how about thinking of some CEO's dear to our hearts - Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. They built one of the most successful technology companies we have known.
I couldn't find much about their pay or "Compensation" but there have been plenty of ex-HP employees posted in these pages before now. Does anyone know if Bill and Dave got these obscene salaries? I think the answer will be no, they were rich, deservedly so, but not obscenely so. And they built their business on employing smart people, treating them well, and paying them what they were worth......and not milking the company like more recent HP CEOs did.......or am I dreaming?
>> Rick, i think it really depends where the company is located. Even in the list the companies like ST have lower pay than companies like Intel.
Sure - the EU firms are more tightly managed than the US counterparts. Largely, you do not need a lot of money to live in Europe since most are socialized. It is over here in America do you need so much more. You can have a big car and yet no space to park it in London. I think European firms are modestly in better shape in terms of CEO pays than US firms.
CEO pay is high all over the world. This inspires me more than anything they write in company documents. When one may can make $7m and in the same month 200 are fired to cut cost, it tells me that only in politics is man = one vote. In business, it is not that simple.
Very good question and truly the best one in a long-time. The answer is NO Comparsion. I get paid in dollars, my CEO is Compensated. Besides the money, his son's startup is now a supplier. I mean there is no benchmark for comparison
Anon, I too was laughing at the first line. More like: "yea right!". I am very happy to have a job and do wonder about the cost effectiveness of higher CEO saleries. It seems that if they trimmed a few million off then the company could hire a few people to get the job(s) done, better or faster or safer or with less stress on the employees. That said, running a large corporation takes a certain set of skills, both personal and technical not everyone can do it well. I would love to try though....!
I think that if the saleries were capped then all it would accomplish is either lower quality management (flight to privately owned companies) or better bottom line for the company. No where did it say that capping the exec's pay increased the workers compensation or improved the workplace. I do wonder what are we trying to accomplish with the cap: fairness? equality? vindictiviness? Not sure that any of those would be accomplished. I am still a fan of the free market and expect in the long run (not short term or in all cases) things even out.
I don't know how much faith we can really put in CSR, given that companies openly speak of the bottom line as everything to them. There is a responsibility but not when it comes into conflict witht he corporate bottom line. Anyway, you raise an interesting question by pointing out that engineeers often, when left alone, get to the heart of the matter. How eactly would engineeers deal with this problem? Would they force CEOs to take a pay cut or cap future CEO salaries? Would they allow the current system to run as it is in spite of what some say are issues of common sense, fairness, and decency? Obviously, some would be in one camp, some in the other--but about how many on the average? Maybe we should take a poll somewhere of engineers asking them how they would deal with the disparity in CEO to average worker pay or if they would deal with it at all.