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

[kingofsurrey]

Vancouver school district offered a  relative of mine a  1500 dollar moving allowance  if she would move from Toronto to Vancouver for a teaching position.

 

My relative told them that Vancouver teachers make 20,000 per year less than Ontario teachers.....

She and her husband are teachers...  so it would be a  40,000  pay cut for them..

 

LOL

No thanks.......   Vancouver is screwed ... why would anyone want to move there and work there now.... ? 

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, 6string said:

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/

 

 

It's CNN Money. Don't worry, Don Lemon doesn't work there. It's their financial division and it's as credible as Forbes, Marketwatch etc.

 

You can find many differing opinions on the final result of the TARP program. Many to suit whatever side you're on. I prefer the get things right from the horse's mouth.

 

So unless you believe the US Treasury Department is "fake news/lying/making sh*t up" here it is. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/LatestTARPNews.aspx

 

That's a Treasury update from 2012 showing a profit to date of $7.4 Billion. I can't be bothered to find the final one (perhaps you can find it) but you get the picture.

 

" The Treasury Department continues to unwind most of its TARP programs. Only TARP’s housing initiatives are actively funded. Cash collections under TARP’s bank investment programs represent more than 100 percent of the original Treasury investment. This level of repayment exceeds original expectations for the five components of TARP’s bank investment programs. Overall, relative to original expectations and perhaps to public perception, TARP’s bank investment programs appear to have been successful in stabilizing banking conditions and at a cost far less than originally projected."

 

^^^^ That's from the St. Louis Fed Oct 2013 https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/central-banker/fall-2013/the-troubled-asset-relief-programfive-years-later

 

The story I posted is from 2014 because that's when Treasury unloaded the last of their TARP assets thus bringing the TARP program to an end. Kinda relevant don't ya think?

 

No idea what the point of your link was. I don't care for anyone on that list least of all John Thain. But what was the point of that link?

 

43 minutes ago, 6string said:

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.

 

 

When the Board of Directors tells you (Chuck Prince) you're being removed but can save face by "resigning/retiring", you've been fired. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

 

Raines was gone before 2008. So what? The crisis hit it's peak in late 2008 but was well under way in 2007. Especially among home builders and mortgage lenders.

 

Corbet much like Prince was given the option of resigning and walking away financially unscathed or being publicly ridiculed by being fired. That's how you get fired on Wall St. It's a firing anyway you look at it.

[JM_]

3 hours 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.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/index.html

[6string]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/index.html

JImmy CNN does not represent the interests of every day citizens, the article does not mention one name or which Banks.

 

I've covered this topic for years, CNN would be really doing their jobs if they ever reported stories of the 1.4 million Americans who lost their homes and another 8.6 million left without jobs.

 

Trump was partly a result from this American tragedy.

 

 

[6string]

39 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

It's CNN Money. Don't worry, Don Lemon doesn't work there. It's their financial division and it's as credible as Forbes, Marketwatch etc.

 

You can find many differing opinions on the final result of the TARP program. Many to suit whatever side you're on. I prefer the get things right from the horse's mouth.

 

So unless you believe the US Treasury Department is "fake news/lying/making sh*t up" here it is. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/LatestTARPNews.aspx

 

That's a Treasury update from 2012 showing a profit to date of $7.4 Billion. I can't be bothered to find the final one (perhaps you can find it) but you get the picture.

 

" The Treasury Department continues to unwind most of its TARP programs. Only TARP’s housing initiatives are actively funded. Cash collections under TARP’s bank investment programs represent more than 100 percent of the original Treasury investment. This level of repayment exceeds original expectations for the five components of TARP’s bank investment programs. Overall, relative to original expectations and perhaps to public perception, TARP’s bank investment programs appear to have been successful in stabilizing banking conditions and at a cost far less than originally projected."

 

^^^^ That's from the St. Louis Fed Oct 2013 https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/central-banker/fall-2013/the-troubled-asset-relief-programfive-years-later

 

The story I posted is from 2014 because that's when Treasury unloaded the last of their TARP assets thus bringing the TARP program to an end. Kinda relevant don't ya think?

 

No idea what the point of your link was. I don't care for anyone on that list least of all John Thain. But what was the point of that link?

 

When the Board of Directors tells you (Chuck Prince) you're being removed but can save face by "resigning/retiring", you've been fired. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

 

Raines was gone before 2008. So what? The crisis hit it's peak in late 2008 but was well under way in 2007. Especially among home builders and mortgage lenders.

 

Corbet much like Prince was given the option of resigning and walking away financially unscathed or being publicly ridiculed by being fired. That's how you get fired on Wall St. It's a firing anyway you look at it.

Apologist.

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

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

 

Please explain where the profits went to.

There was no profit from the bailouts of Chrysler Canada and GM Canada. The losses from those bailouts is pegged at about $800 Million.

 

Most of the blame is placed on the federal government for poor implementation and even worse accounting.

Taxpayers in the dark over billions spent on auto bailouts, auditor says

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/25/taxpayers_in_the_dark_over_billions_spent_on_auto_bailouts_auditor_says.html

 

Some highlights from the story ............ " As well, the government is in the dark about how the companies used some of the government cash. For example, Industry Canada has limited information on how GM Canada actually used a $2.8 billion loan earmarked for capital expenditures, warranty claims and other corporate purposes. And the department has no documentation on how $528 million for general corporate purposes was ever used."

 

 

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

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.

"When things go good the average tax payer seen no rewards or change in their life"? What are you talking about? In this thread you've been a champion of the common man not getting screwed. Have you any idea how many jobs especially in Ontario are directly tied to the auto industry? I believe it's about 140,000. Those jobs saved meant mortgages paid, bills paid, household expenses paid, kids tuition paid, groceries bought. Those sound like pretty decent benefits to me.

 

Don't you get it? The investment was never going to go bad. The US Federal Reserve wasn't going to stop until they achieved their goal of stabilizing the economy, Because the alternative was another Great Depression. Which if it played out like that meant it took 25 years and the financial benefit of a world war to regain the economic losses.

 

The European Central bank head Jean Claude Trichet was on board and he was replaced in 2011 by Mario Draghi who famously declared he would do "whatever it takes". How do things fail when it's an issue of money and the central banks declare they will not stop providing money?

 

As for the recent announcement of some jobs going overseas. The auto industry is way bigger today than it was in 2008. The number of jobs leaving compared to the number created between 2009-2016 is tiny. Granted it still sucks if it's your job leaving but that's globalization.

 

When Chrysler USA and GM USA are being bailout what choice did the Canadian government have? They follow suit or that production goes to the states forever.

 

The central banks had a plan and executed it. Now you have normalized employment, stability and economic growth. And all it took was a mountain of debt.

[nuckin_futz]

5 minutes ago, 6string said:

Apologist.

Na, just someone who's spent 19 years making a living in financial markets. Someone who's kept on top of this stuff on a daily basis for nearly 2 decades. Someone who tries very hard to remain neutral in regards to financial news because bias isn't helpful when risking your own loot.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

There was no profit from the bailouts of Chrysler Canada and GM Canada. The losses from those bailouts is pegged at about $800 Million.

 

Most of the blame is placed on the federal government for poor implementation and even worse accounting.

Taxpayers in the dark over billions spent on auto bailouts, auditor says

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/25/taxpayers_in_the_dark_over_billions_spent_on_auto_bailouts_auditor_says.html

 

Some highlights from the story ............ " As well, the government is in the dark about how the companies used some of the government cash. For example, Industry Canada has limited information on how GM Canada actually used a $2.8 billion loan earmarked for capital expenditures, warranty claims and other corporate purposes. And the department has no documentation on how $528 million for general corporate purposes was ever used."

 

 

"When things go good the average tax payer seen no rewards or change in their life"? What are you talking about? In this thread you've been a champion of the common man not getting screwed. Have you any idea how many jobs especially in Ontario are directly tied to the auto industry? I believe it's about 140,000. Those jobs saved meant mortgages paid, bills paid, household expenses paid, kids tuition paid, groceries bought. Those sound like pretty decent benefits to me.

 

Don't you get it? The investment was never going to go bad. The US Federal Reserve wasn't going to stop until they achieved their goal of stabilizing the economy, Because the alternative was another Great Depression. Which if it played out like that meant it took 25 years and the financial benefit of a world war to regain the economic losses.

 

The European Central bank head Jean Claude Trichet was on board and he was replaced in 2011 by Mario Draghi who famously declared he would do "whatever it takes". How do things fail when it's an issue of money and the central banks declare they will not stop providing money?

 

As for the recent announcement of some jobs going overseas. The auto industry is way bigger today than it was in 2008. The number of jobs leaving compared to the number created between 2009-2016 is tiny. Granted it still sucks if it's your job leaving but that's globalization.

 

When Chrysler USA and GM USA are being bailout what choice did the Canadian government have? They follow suit or that production goes to the states forever.

 

The central banks had a plan and executed it. Now you have normalized employment, stability and economic growth. And all it took was a mountain of debt.

So where does the government draw the line on which businesses to prop up with tax payer money? Do the businesses have to predominantly operate in Ontario and Quebec?

 

Sure you make a good point it saved thousands of jobs however millions of Canadians don't work in that industry. The tax money came from all Canadians not just the people in those 140,000 jobs. Look at the oil crash, thousands of jobs lost. What help would you say workers in western Canada received?

 

 

[Harvey Spector]

2 hours 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.

 

This is true. But they should be able to afford at least a condo in the suburbs. Even places like Langley, Maple Ridge and Abbotsford are getting expensive even for the average folk. 

[Dral]

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Seriously? 

 

I expected the average income of Canadians to be higher. How does the average Canadian buy a house in Vancouver, Calgary, Kelowna, Penticton, Toronto, Ottawa, etc.

 

It doesn't matter if you're conservative, liberal or ndp this doesn't look good at all. The rich continue to significantly get richer while the average Canadian see minimal gains while the cost of living grows faster. How can a great Country like this continue like that?

CEOs are highly motivated and industrious people, the average Canadian isn't...

 

The real question is, can a Canadian who was born in a lower class family, who is highly motivated and industrious able to work his into the middle/upper class... as long as that is possible then we live in an equal society...

 

It's sounds good to say we should live in an equal society all be getting more rich, but average people can be lazy and unmotivated. This is confusing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity - the former being a more communist society and the latter being a more free society.

 

Rich people don't owe poor people anything... if you're in the upper class and you are still working your ass off, and you have, throughout your life, honed skills and relationships to improve your business, you deserve to become more rich. If you are working a minimum wage job, but your not particularly motivated to go the extra step and better yourself and move up, that's your choice.

[Dral]

Here's a good conversation about minimum wage

 

 

 

[nuckin_futz]

6 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

So where does the government draw the line on which businesses to prop up with tax payer money? Do the businesses have to predominantly operate in Ontario and Quebec?

 

Sure you make a good point it saved thousands of jobs however millions of Canadians don't work in that industry. The tax money came from all Canadians not just the people in those 140,000 jobs. Look at the oil crash, thousands of jobs lost. What help would you say workers in western Canada received?

 

 

I don't know where they draw the line. But they had no choice on the auto bailout. As mentioned, Chrysler USA and GM USA were being bailed out. In Canada the choice was join in the bailout and save the industry or lose it forever. The choice was a no brainer.

 

Should it matter that millions of Canadians don't work in that industry? We're all Canadians aren't we? A strong country is good for all of us. Saving those jobs means those workers keep paying taxes. More tax payers lowers the burden for all tax payers.

 

The oil crash and auto bailout aren't comparable events. In the auto bailout the Americans and to a lesser extent the world was on board. In the oil crash the Saudi's decided to flood the market to crush shale producers. Who was going to take on the Saudi's? When WTI is trading below $30/barrel what is Western Canadian Select fetching? Is it even still profitable to produce at those prices? There would have been no saving that industry if that persisted.

 

Oil production is a boom and bust industry. I suspect I don't need to tell you that. When you are in that industry you know the good times are good and the bad times while severe don't last that long. There's just no comparison to the auto bailout.

[D.B Cooper]

20 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Many average workers are responsible for success of companies, you likely fall in that category my friend. The increase in pay for ceos and "average workers" is totally lopsided. If these companies are doing so well why aren't the average workers seeing a meaningful increase in their pay?

Because you don't pay gas station attendants and burger flippers 80k a year.

Just because your company is doing well, doesn't mean you get over paid for your qualifications.   

[D.B Cooper]

20 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Like us IT people

If your network goes in the crapper, even something minor enough, business loss will escalate quickly. We're everyone's best buds since nobody can do their job very long without us. 

Thing is, you are easily replaceable.  

They could just hire people overseas to do your job for peanuts.  

 

Without these companies, you don't even get to earn that 50k.  

 

People on the top will always get much, much more than the 'average worker', and for good reason.  

 

Chances are you dont don't become the CEO of a billion dollar company with a IT degree. 

You won't make a million a year by being a career welder.  

 

These people worked their way up with education and experience.   

Is the salary a little high?  Yup. But guess what.  It is no one else's problem but the people in charge. 

 

If you dont don't like how much your boss makes, get a better job or work for a smaller company.  

[Shift-4]

15 hours 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.

Yes, that is what the story is saying.

But the story is deliberately biased to spark an emotional response because the analysis pegs the top 100 CEOs vs the average employee. If they are the top CEOs I would expect the organizations they are leading to be successful and therefore they would be remunerated accordingly.

Akin to comparing top 100 baseball player salaries to average NHL salaries.

 

A more accurate comparison would be to take the wage adjustments for the top performing non-CEO workforce to see how their raises fall in line. Or average of all CEOs vs the average employee.

 

Just to be clear I don't disagree with any of your points. I am just pointing out a serious flaw in the analysis.

[Ryan Strome]

6 hours ago, Dral said:

CEOs are highly motivated and industrious people, the average Canadian isn't...

 

The real question is, can a Canadian who was born in a lower class family, who is highly motivated and industrious able to work his into the middle/upper class... as long as that is possible then we live in an equal society...

 

It's sounds good to say we should live in an equal society all be getting more rich, but average people can be lazy and unmotivated. This is confusing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity - the former being a more communist society and the latter being a more free society.

 

Rich people don't owe poor people anything... if you're in the upper class and you are still working your ass off, and you have, throughout your life, honed skills and relationships to improve your business, you deserve to become more rich. If you are working a minimum wage job, but your not particularly motivated to go the extra step and better yourself and move up, that's your choice.

I never said they did. And the "average Canadian" doesn't work for minimum wage, actually I haven't mentioned minimum wage.

[Ryan Strome]

34 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Because you don't pay gas station attendants and burger flippers 80k a year.

Just because your company is doing well, doesn't mean you get over paid for your qualifications.   

You guys aren't even following the topic of the thread, nor is the average Canadian working for minimum wage.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

I don't know where they draw the line. But they had no choice on the auto bailout. As mentioned, Chrysler USA and GM USA were being bailed out. In Canada the choice was join in the bailout and save the industry or lose it forever. The choice was a no brainer.

 

Should it matter that millions of Canadians don't work in that industry? We're all Canadians aren't we? A strong country is good for all of us. Saving those jobs means those workers keep paying taxes. More tax payers lowers the burden for all tax payers.

 

The oil crash and auto bailout aren't comparable events. In the auto bailout the Americans and to a lesser extent the world was on board. In the oil crash the Saudi's decided to flood the market to crush shale producers. Who was going to take on the Saudi's? When WTI is trading below $30/barrel what is Western Canadian Select fetching? Is it even still profitable to produce at those prices? There would have been no saving that industry if that persisted.

 

Oil production is a boom and bust industry. I suspect I don't need to tell you that. When you are in that industry you know the good times are good and the bad times while severe don't last that long. There's just no comparison to the auto bailout.

Looking at the auto bail out isn't it kinda messed that even during the bail out GM had plans in place to eliminate jobs? Out of curiosity since that bailout how many jobs have these companies cut?

[Ryan Strome]

34 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Thing is, you are easily replaceable.  

They could just hire people overseas to do your job for peanuts.  

 

Without these companies, you don't even get to earn that 50k.  

 

People on the top will always get much, much more than the 'average worker', and for good reason.  

 

Chances are you dont don't become the CEO of a billion dollar company with a IT degree. 

You won't make a million a year by being a career welder.  

 

These people worked their way up with education and experience.   

Is the salary a little high?  Yup. But guess what.  It is no one else's problem but the people in charge. 

 

If you dont don't like how much your boss makes, get a better job or work for a smaller company.  

Ok drummer the issue is a 8% increase in pay while the average Canadian saw a 0.5% increase in pay. And if you think bringing in cheap labour/ workers from overseas than you're part of the problem imo.

[D.B Cooper]

19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Ok drummer the issue is a 8% increase in pay while the average Canadian saw a 0.5% increase in pay. And if you think bringing in cheap labour/ workers from overseas than you're part of the problem imo.

I don't think it is a good solution at all, but it is one being used all the time.  

 

My point is, if you want that 8% raise, go earn it.    It doesn't matter how much these people make.  

People on the top always get more than the people actually making them the money.  It is what it is.  Life isn't fair.  

 

My brother and I invested in a fabrication company years ago.  

 

The first couple years years I lost a bunch of money.  But guess what.  Our workers still made good money.  

Now, it is growing and becoming more successful.   

We got a nice bonus.  

The boys on the shop floor did too, but not as much as ours. 

Want to know why?    

Because it wasn't them who took a huge chance with their money and future.  

I didn't work my ass off and take risks with my future to make other people rich.  

Some people play it safe and work a job, and that is great. People need to do it.  

Some people take risks and make decisions to try to get to the top.  

Majority of the time, those people fail and lose everything.   Sometimes it works out and you go up. 

 

If I put in the sacrifice, money, gamble, and they didn't, why would we make the same?   If that were true, I would have just save my time, money and stress and not done anything but keep working myself.  

 

Edit

also, we gave them a 4% raise this year making us one of the highest paying shops around.