[nosubstut]

This issue hits a LOT of buttons for me. I work for a financial company that has about 50,000 employees. The CEO salary is about $1 million...which is probably average, especially by industry standards. Stock options brings his total compensation to somewhere between $15 - $20 million annually, where the average salary across the company is maybe $40k- 50K (CEO pay is about 500x the average worker). The CEO (and exec team) gets huge annual bonuses, while the average worker gets, maybe 1.5% annual raise (plus a token bonus).

Let's look at the issue another way...for those who say, pay reflects what the market will bear. What happens when the CEO causes a financial calamity?...either for the company or for the economy...gee, what happened to Mozilo, or Ken Lewis or John Stumpf? Mozilo could be credited with being a major cause of the 2008 financial melt down...did he serve any jail time? Any fines these people paid amounted to pocket change - the amount does not matter because they came out still RICH!

What about the thousands of consumers who lost their homes? The risk reward relationship is skewed far too much in favor of the CEO. Kozlowski went to jail for 6.5 years, Martha Stewart served time for - obstruction...anybody else do that recently?

Today it seems rare that the BOD acts in the best interests of the s/h. The BOD is a rubber stamp that acts based on information provided by management (gee, is that information unbiased?). CEO compensation, in many cases, reflects unbridled greed. Greed that has, in the last 30 years resulted in the erosion of the middle class while the rich get filthy. This is not an issue of class warfare, it is an issue of theft by deception.

But hey the market will fix it all, right? Oh wait, perhaps the markets are not totally efficient and effective? Gee, I wonder why?