Billionaire JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon says there's no point in slashing CEO pay

[think]

Side note: Dimon officially became a billionaire in June. Jamie Dimon's bank, JP Morgan, was found guilty of felony crimes of rigging markets and no one went to jail.

Billionaire JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon says there's no point in slashing CEO pay

By Portia Crowe - Sept 17 2015

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says it's OK that chief executives get paid way more than their average employees — and that cutting down on executive compensation wouldn't help eliminate income inequality.

That's according to Bloomberg's Claire Boston and Hugh Son, who wrote up comments from Dimon at a Detroit event Thursday.

"It is true that income inequality has kind of gotten worse," Dimon said, according to the report. But "you can take the compensation of every CEO in America and make it zero and it wouldn't put a dent into it. What really matters is growth."

In August, the US Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a new rule requiring public companies to disclose how much money CEOs earn in comparison to typical employees....

Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jamie-dimon-on-ceo-pay-and-inequality-2015-9?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral

[Scuba]

1. Fuck you Jamie.

[smirkymonkey]

8. I'll second that.

So. Effing. Hate. That. Guy.

Burn him.

[Recursion]

2. Zero out CEOs' pay and we all get about 25 cents

The real problem is shareholders.

[think]

3. The real problem is too big to fail banks violating the law while paying the CEO millions

and no one goes to jail....

[snagglepuss]

5. Bollocks. Redistribution needs to be calculated per business not per American.

[Recursion]

34. Even then. It's the shareholders getting the bulk of the money

Lowering CEOs' pay would feel good but he's right that it's not where the money actually is; that's the shareholders. For that matter the really obscenely paid CEOs are getting all of their money as shareholders anyways.

[jwirr]

36. But aren't those CEO's often the biggest stockholders?

[Recursion]

40. Rarely except for very small businesses

A founder/CEO will have a lot of shares, but companies like that aren't really the problem. Generally boards don't like CEOs to own a lot of common stock because that takes away their leverage over him.

[snagglepuss]

38. Fair point.

[roguevalley]

15. Obama often consulted him. I am still aghast at that news.

[stillwaiting]

29. If CEO pay was reduced to a million per year, HOW would that not

impact income and wealth inequality?

Simple math dictates that the obscene multiple we currently experience would be reduced.

It's ridiculously foul for some business executives to pay themselves the amounts they do (which allows obscene levels of wealth inequality ultimately) while they SIMULTANEOUSLY do everything they can to keep wages lower for most everyone else.

It's a damn shame (but unsurprising) that you don't seem to have a problem with current levels of wealth and income that CEO's are receiving, but seem to think that average Americans have WAY too much income and wealth. Completely transparent.

[Hoyt]

31. But, he is right that even if we paid them nothing and used the money

to pay everyone else more, it wouldn't amount to much.

It might make us feel better to see the rich get hurt, but it wouldn't buy us more than a few cups of coffee.

I really don't care how much a CEO gets paid, as long as they are socially responsible and it doesn't materially detract from what other workers get paid.

[stillwaiting]

33. He simultaneously (and often) bitches and moans about how average Americans have too much

and then he shrugs his shoulders and yawns when any discussion occurs about the inherent and grotesque unfairness that runs rampant in our society in how we allocate income and wealth.

WHY don't you care? If the Executive Class didn't have so much wealth and income such that they are basically modern-day Kings and Queens they just might relate more to everyday people. They might then actually be open to pursuing policies that help everyday people. As it is, they see themselves as a separate CLASS of people, and their concern for the well-being of average citizens is non-existent.

WHY do you prop up and support their pillaging and accumulation of such a large percentage of the wealth pie? It IS a big deal because they are the ones with all of the power in our society, and once it gets to the point where we have such extreme wealth and power inequality they will behave very, very badly to keep it. They will keep taking more and more from the masses even as they give more and more to themselves. AT WHAT POINT will you say enough?

Edited to add: It HAS materially detracted from what they have paid workers. It has materially detracted for decades now. Median wages are lower than they were in the late '80's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/17/the-typical-american-family-makes-less-than-it-did-in-1989/

Most people have been getting 1-2% wage increases (if they are lucky) for years now. Some people go years without any wage increase. So, if that is your criteria, welcome to the outrage. Your seat at the table has been set.

[Hoyt]

35. Median wages aren't diwn because CEO's are doing well, it's the wrong

Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

CEO's doing well, and the criteria that determines their pay.

Computetization, global competition, weak economy, etc., have more to do with how most of us fare.

[jwirr]

37. Look, if they cut the CEO pay it then reverts to corporate

profits which go to the stockholder or is poured back into the company. The last may make a difference for the little people if that means hiring more people in the USA at a good wage.

But if it just goes to the stockholder the biggest ones get the most and are probably in the 1% anyhow. Smaller stockholders will not get huge earnings that make a real difference in wealth inequality. Big stockholders will continue to off shore their investments and profits and there will be no distribution.

IMO there are only two ways that we can redistribute the wealth. First would be taxation of both personal income on the top and on corporations. Using the tax money to protect the safety net and fix our infrastructure. To stimulate the economy.

Secondly would be what Jamie calls growth. Companies in the USA invest more money in jobs at good wages and start rebuilding the USA economy.

[CrispyQ]

4. "...What really matters is growth."

Stupid, greedy, dumb shit. Wages are stagnant & everyone is maxed out on credit. If you want a growing economy, then you need an economy where everyone participates, but you greedy shits at the top won't allow that. Someday, probably sooner than later, you will learn that you can't build walls tall enough to keep the hungry masses out.

I don't suspect that billionaires taste very good, but the satisfaction of eating one would make up for it.

[whatthehey]

6. The trouble is he's right numerically.

The trouble with CEO megapay is the image and emotional impact. It breeds resentment and mistrust.

But it's pissing in the wind mathematically. I'll take an example of a much-hated company. Monsanto's CEO made 10.8M, including perks and benefits not actual cash (most CEO pay is reported that way). Monsanto has 22,000 employees. If he volunteered to work for zero each employee would get $490 a year or 24c an hour. And that's a company heavy with white collar staff. Try that exercise at, say, Walmart or McDonalds and the number is likely much lower.

Would the nation be better off with 22000*490 instead of Mr. Grant? Probably a bit, given marginal propensity to consume, but it's no gateway to flat GINI.

[mhatrw]

7. $500 extra a year is nothing only to somebody

who makes too much.

[spanone]

9. file under: duh

[closeupready]

10. Moving to a more progressive tax system would diminish the appeal of

looting the company's budget to pay outsized CEO compensation because the more they get paid, the more progressively high percent of their income they have to pay in tax.

[gratuitous]

25. Tax Jamie's income at 45%, his capital gains at 35%

Start putting those increased revenues into the common good (roads, schools, health care) instead of tax breaks for the wealthy and foreign wars and occupations, and Jamie can continue his reign as King Shit on Turd Island.

We might even be able to take in one or two of those millions of refugees we've created over the last decade.

[FreakinDJ]

26. ^^^ This ^^^

[Hoyt]

32. I agree. Then, I hope he makes millions more (as long as it is made socially responsible).

I might increase the tax rate more.

[Johonny]

11. I say we try slashing it to zero for ten years and see if he's right

[moondust]

12. Poor wittle Jamie's butt hurts.

From holding down that padded chair under the air conditioners all day. It's so darn risky and demanding. He deserves a lot more really. Maybe we could get some homeless veterans to chip in and help save Jamie's sore butt.

[Rex]

13. Just made billionaire? Wow...I had no idea he was that stupid.

Not surprised at all.

[hobbit709]

14. Set up a guillotine across the street from him as a warning.

[onethatcares]

16. funny thing,

I have yet to hear of any workers promote slashing their wages. I wonder why?

[olddots]

17. he knows whose tossing his salad

[hifiguy]

18. Dimon and his ilk need a shave.

From the National Razor.

[Hydra]

19. And Jaime laughs all the way to the bank

As the WH keeps him out of jail and continuing his "Wealth making."

[randomelement]

20. He's absolutely right

we shouldn't strip him of his salary -

not until we get back the trillions he and his fucking cohorts took in the first place -

If he cooperates, he gets to keep some of that salary. If not, well, there's always the homeless shelters eh Jamie?

[kelliekat44]

21. Oh, yes it is. They don't do much to earn that pay. It's a class of people like Carley who meet

and simply pass around a company's money to themselves. 90% of the decisions a corporation needs to make to thrive can be made by the workers who are also consumers and who know a hell of a lot about what needs to be done. And they sure know more than the stock-holders know who keep voting for these obscene salaries and golden parachutes.

[1939]

24. Most small stockholders don't bother to vote. NT

[raouldukelives]

22. Good ol Wall St. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Shareholders demand profits, Dimon uses their invaluable backing to deliver them. Two way street.

There are those who fight for democracy for all people and there are those who back Wall St. It is only by the efforts of the latter that the former is so decimated.

[bigwillq]

23. That's Obama's buddy for you

Dimon is a fool.

[ibegurpard]

27. growth in good-paying jobs

Not growth in share value. The two are not interchangeable.

[restorefreedom]

28. of course

its all about the "job creators ", right?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Talk is cheap.

Let's try it and see what the empirical evidence shows.

[Matariki]

39. What a cartoon villain

someone needs to drop a piano on him.