Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canada's top CEOs earn 200 times an average worker's salary: report


Ryan Strome

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its not really a derailment tho, ultimately we're talking about overall quality of life. So a strong social safety net and guaranteed living wages just makes things better for all of us. And it doesn't have to be nutty, I think the Aussies have shown something in the range of 20 bucks per hour works well, if the health care is there for you too. 

 

Can we talk about mandatory 6 weeks of vacation now too :lol:?

Having only worked 2 days in the last 11, I can get behind more vacation time B)

 

All I meant regarding derailment was that I didn't want to get into too much of an American diversion here, as my arguments with your paragraph were more against the Trump impact rather than the quality of life you are talking about.  In general, though, the safety net is only as strong as it is sustainable.  We already know that the US net is not sustainable, but we are criticized for not expanding those nets to cover more.  Seeing increasing gaps in Canadian, British, and other Euro health systems does not bode well for the future of (virtually) single-payer coverage.  Tack US levels of illegal immigrants onto that foundation, and it only compounds the problem here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harvey Spector said:

If every person flipping burgers was making $42,000 a year then 50% of all the restaurants in Vancouver would have to shut down. 

 

You can’t have a $20 minimum wage. It would kill the economy. 

I doubt it.    Poorly management businesses may fail but the better run business's would be fine. 

Paying a wage that is unliveable  is exploitation .     Paying workers a living wage will make actually put money into our economy and reduce social costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I doubt it.    Poorly management businesses may fail but the better run business's would be fine. 

Paying a wage that is unliveable  is exploitation .     Paying workers a living wage will make actually put money into our economy and reduce social costs. 

It’s not the fault of the business owners that housing prices are unaffordable for the average person. That’s the fault of Christy Clark and the Liberal Government. You can’t put 50% of all small business owners out of business because our government was corrupted by greed and did nothing for 15 years to stop these insane housing prices. 

 

The only way to get Vancouver more affordable is for municipalities to ease restrictions on land use and allow rezoning of residential areas into multi- family developments. And take away the red tape from developers who need upwards of 6 years to take their raw land and turn it into condos. 

 

Dont punish small business owners who are barely making a living because of government corruption and ineptitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

Pffft............give me a shot.........I could spend that!  :P 

Sure, but THEY don't. THEY couldn't possibly.

 

They already own more than two of everything they actually need...It just turns into money hoarding. They'll never have enough, just desire more and more. But for what? What on earth do they need that much money for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Me and the rest of the 'commoners'

Nothing stopping you from starting a company and being a CEO.   Right?

 

The ratio of pay is no different than what rock stars would be relative to a roadie or a movie star to the caterer.   All relative.   Sure there are some anomalies that make no sense (high bonuses to crown corporation CEOs that are not doing well) but most of those CEOs are legitimate or else their Boards would long ago have ejected them.   

 

Anyway, if you want to be CEO - well, go for it!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some folk are arguing that CEO compensation should be higher than the workers, but that is not this story.

This story is the percentage increases on income are disparit.

Are the CEO jobs so much harder this year as compared to last that they have earned a large % increase?

 

 If CEO wages and compensation had gone up by 8% and the "middle class" wage earner's income had gone up by 8% there would be no issue here.

 

 

 

ps-  Raises based on % increases are a loosing game in the long term anyway, as the dude making more will "pull away" from the lower wager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gurn said:

Some folk are arguing that CEO compensation should be higher than the workers, but that is not this story.

This story is the percentage increases on income are disparit.

Are the CEO jobs so much harder this year as compared to last that they have earned a large % increase?

 

 If CEO wages and compensation had gone up by 8% and the "middle class" wage earner's income had gone up by 8% there would be no issue here.

 

 

 

ps-  Raises based on % increases are a loosing game in the long term anyway, as the dude making more will "pull away" from the lower wager.

Business's and Corporations are not paying their share of taxes in Canada.

 

A regressive tax structure in Canada has further wiped out the Middle class in Canada. 

 

Sprinkling belongs in my garden and not to allow business owners  in my community reduce their taxes to unfair levels. 

 

Luckily we have a great Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that is going to make tax rates more fair in our country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, gurn said:

Some folk are arguing that CEO compensation should be higher than the workers, but that is not this story.

This story is the percentage increases on income are disparit.

Are the CEO jobs so much harder this year as compared to last that they have earned a large % increase?

 

 If CEO wages and compensation had gone up by 8% and the "middle class" wage earner's income had gone up by 8% there would be no issue here.

 

 

 

ps-  Raises based on % increases are a loosing game in the long term anyway, as the dude making more will "pull away" from the lower wager.

Thank you I'm glad at least a few people are actually following the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its decided by shareholders of companies who gets what. If some CEO helps generate huge bucks for their companies then they'll get paid. If not they'll get fired. Simple as that. Everything else in that story is media-driven bs imo. 

Remember the 2008 crash - Too Big To Fail

 

One was jailed ( Madoff - appropriate name ) Zero were fired!

 

Bush and Obama's Tax Payers bailed em out and years later the same Too Big To Fail sent more jobs to Mexico and China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 6string said:

Remember the 2008 crash - Too Big To Fail

 

One was jailed ( Madoff - appropriate name ) Zero were fired!

 

Bush and Obama's Tax Payers bailed em out and years later the same Too Big To Fail sent more jobs to Mexico and China.

Many were fired such as Chuck Prince, Franklin Raines, Kathleen Corbet, Stanley O'Neal, Jimmy Cayne. The list is endless.

 

The US tax payer took financial stakes (shares) in the firms receiving a bailout. The stakes in those firms soared in the subsequent recovery and the tax payer made a very healthy profit. In essence the government bought low and sold high.

 

 

The U.S. government essentially closed the books on TARP with a $15.3 billion profit.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Many were fired such as Chuck Prince, Franklin Raines, Kathleen Corbet, Stanley O'Neal, Jimmy Cayne. The list is endless.

 

The US tax payer took financial stakes (shares) in the firms receiving a bailout. The stakes in those firms soared in the subsequent recovery and the tax payer made a very healthy profit. In essence the government bought low and sold high.

 

 

The U.S. government essentially closed the books on TARP with a $15.3 billion profit.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/index.html

 

CNN, c'mon? OMG seriously!

 

This TARP story has been debunked repeatedly, your CNN story is from 2014. The National Review a semi-monthly *conservative editorial magazine focusing on news and commentary pieces on political, social, and cultural affairs dismissed the distorted profits too. A good read....

 

Here's a look at the crooks from 2008:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/wall-street-bailout-executive-compensation/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Business's and Corporations are not paying their share of taxes in Canada.

 

A regressive tax structure in Canada has further wiped out the Middle class in Canada. 

 

Sprinkling belongs in my garden and not to allow business owners  in my community reduce their taxes to unfair levels. 

 

Luckily we have a great Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that is going to make tax rates more fair in our country

 

Iinteresting given that the rich have got richer under Trudeau. Justin also said he would not raise corporate taxes. It Seems you don't know much about the politicians you praise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Many were fired such as Chuck Prince, Franklin Raines, Kathleen Corbet, Stanley O'Neal, Jimmy Cayne. The list is endless.

 

The US tax payer took financial stakes (shares) in the firms receiving a bailout. The stakes in those firms soared in the subsequent recovery and the tax payer made a very healthy profit. In essence the government bought low and sold high.

 

 

The U.S. government essentially closed the books on TARP with a $15.3 billion profit.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/index.html

 

Canadians also bailed out General Motors. Apparently we made a profit also.

 

Please explain where the profits went to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Canadians also bailed out General Motors. Apparently we made a profit also.

 

Please explain where the profits went to.

General Motors Co will cut 625 jobs at its auto assembly plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, by the end of July as it moves some production work to Mexico ( from Reuters business review )...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

Many were fired such as Chuck Prince, Franklin Raines, Kathleen Corbet, Stanley O'Neal, Jimmy Cayne. The list is endless.

 

The US tax payer took financial stakes (shares) in the firms receiving a bailout. The stakes in those firms soared in the subsequent recovery and the tax payer made a very healthy profit. In essence the government bought low and sold high.

 

 

The U.S. government essentially closed the books on TARP with a $15.3 billion profit.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/index.html

 

Chuck Prince former chairman and chief executive of Citigroup, On November 4, 2007 he retired from both his chairman and chief executive duties due to unexpectedly poor 3rd quarter performance.

 

Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae....Estimated Annual Compensation:Over $20 million (2003), he was gone before 2008!

 

Kathllen Corbet...She resigned on September 14, 2007 and replaced by MHP executive Deven Sharma

 

I'll stop there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 6string said:

General Motors Co will cut 625 jobs at its auto assembly plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, by the end of July as it moves some production work to Mexico ( from Reuters business review )...

Yup, how nice eh..

 

Futz argument is a silly one especially to call it a good investment. Tax payers were on the hook if things went bad and when things went good the average tax payer seen no rewards or change in their life. Had things went bad taxpayers would have had to pay more money to cover the losses.

 

But ya great news, receive multi billion dollar bailouts only to eliminste jobs from the very people that saved you from bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

I doubt it.    Poorly management businesses may fail but the better run business's would be fine. 

Paying a wage that is unliveable  is exploitation .     Paying workers a living wage will make actually put money into our economy and reduce social costs. 

Labor goes up, prices go up as well, it's very simple equation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Labor goes up, prices go up as well, it's very simple equation.

 

I am fine with paying higher prices.

Having citizens in our communities making a living wage will only put more money into our local economies.....

 

Having homeless/ working poor  sleeping in tents on our streets is not putting anything into our economy...

In fact  it is draining  our local budgets with record emergency health care spending, law enforcement and court costs.

 

Time for Canadians to start investing in our own citizens and stop hoarding wealth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harvey Spector said:

It’s not the fault of the business owners that housing prices are unaffordable for the average person. That’s the fault of Christy Clark and the Liberal Government. You can’t put 50% of all small business owners out of business because our government was corrupted by greed and did nothing for 15 years to stop these insane housing prices. 

 

The only way to get Vancouver more affordable is for municipalities to ease restrictions on land use and allow rezoning of residential areas into multi- family developments. And take away the red tape from developers who need upwards of 6 years to take their raw land and turn it into condos. 

 

Dont punish small business owners who are barely making a living because of government corruption and ineptitude. 

Not everyone should be able to afford to live in Vancouver.

People don't like to hear, that but it is the reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Not everyone should be able to afford to live in Vancouver.

People don't like to hear, that but it is the reality.

 

I disagree.  If a city has no affordable housing.. Who exactly will be working in the stores, schools, hospitals.

 

Vancouver has a major problem right now with police, nurses and teachers fleeing the city in droves.

 

Schools in Vancouver now  have vacant jobs that can not be filled....   or substandard people are now being hired just to fill a spot.

Business's in Vancouver are now closing  due to no ability to hire workers that can afford to live in the city. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...