Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (286962)	5/6/2006 2:38:11 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574711

"I'd bet the majority of the explanation in growth of CEO salaries from 1950 to 1990 is due to stock based compensation. It was probably uncommon in 1950 and is the norm now. Are you opposed to stock based compensation?" I think we should have a maximum wage. If the minimum wage makes sense, why not a maximum wage? Social status in America is defined by bucks, why not put a lid on it? Then, strivers could work twoard being one of the elite, "maximum wage earners".

To: Elroy who wrote (286962)	5/6/2006 2:41:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574711

I don't really care what Bush and Cheney say as much as others on this thread. I'd bet the majority of the explanation in growth of CEO salaries from 1950 to 1990 is due to stock based compensation. It was probably uncommon in 1950 and is the norm now. Are you opposed to stock based compensation? First, stock options are not anywhere close to the majority of a CEO's salary. Secondly, even if it were, its still wealth and that level of wealth wasn't justified 40 years ago. What changed?