Mass Layoffs Plump CEO Pockets
CBS
Two years into the Great Recession, the United States doesn't seem to be doing much better. The majority of Americans are pessimistic about the economy. Housing sales are down. Those who have been unemployed for 99 weeks or more, 99ers, are pushing for Congress to approve further unemployment extension benefits, as the unemployment rate lingers at 9.6 percent. There is one person, however, who isn't suffering from the effects of the Great Recession: the CEO.
CEO salaries are still running at double the 1990s CEO pay average after inflation adjustment according to the 17th annual executive compensation survey, CEO Pay and the Great Recession by the Institute for Policy Studies. At a time when many laid off Americans are hurting financially, CEOs are reaping the rewards of handing out mass pink slips. Layoffs pay off for CEOs, with the money in saved wages further padding their plump paychecks. CEOs at 50 companies -- "layoff leaders" in the study -- that laid off the most employees took home an average pay of almost $12 million in 2009, 42 percent more than the average CEO pay.
Most firms -- 72 percent -- announced mass layoffs during periods of profit, reflecting a growing trend in corporate America: tightening the workforce to increase profit and maintain high CEO salaries.
Even CEOs who lost their jobs, like Fred Hassan of Schering-Plough, the highest paid layoff leader, received a $33 million golden parachute when his company merged with Merck, while 16,000 employees lost their jobs. Hassan's total 2009 compensation -- $49.6 million -- is enough to provide all 16,000 who were pink slipped average unemployment benefits for more than 10 weeks.
Five of the top 50 layoff leaders owe their high paychecks to the tax payer bailouts that followed the 2008 Wall Street collapse. As the government helped prop their companies up, American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault took home $16.8 million, including a $5 million cash bonus while his company laid off 4,000 employees and received $3.39 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding.
As Republicans cry that there is no money to extend unemployment benefits for 99ers, perhaps they should put caps on CEO wages. Most startling is that the $598 million compensation of the top 50 CEOs in layoff leader survey could provide average unemployment benefits for 37,759 workers for an entire year -- or nearly a month of benefits for each of the 531,363 employees laid off by those companies.
Popular on MoneyWatch
- TGI Fridays nailed for doctoring booze
- Amy's Baking Company could face legal 'nightmare'
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign
- The Donald prevails in fraud suit
- How Bernanke's testimony affects investors
- Meat labels getting facelift under new USDA rules
You make it sound like the CEO can do it all by him/herself. Impossible. I don't know of anyone who'd give up his any of his toes just because he considered a club foot adequate. Can I wash your windows? It's the least you can do, no? I know people work the system, but they do it for the same reason the CEO does--though the CEO has a better vantage for hypocrisy and the unbridled opportunity to capitalize on his complicity to sell the rest of us out. Maybe that's why they pay him so well, huh? The ultimate hatchet man. Maybe you should think on that. If welfare recipients were given the same chance maybe they'd take a million dollar parachute to make a good landing too, eh? Stupid a$-$ you.
I may not like it but I'd rather see them get it than it go to taxes for Liberals on welfare.============ I would rather see the money go for a new wardrobe for your boyfriend.
No reasonable person will begrudge someone who puts in the extra time, demonstrates the extra initiative or shows that egde in talent a little more money at the end of the day. I certainly do not. Folks like "democracy5" and, presumably "smokey75" who put in that extra effort should be rewarded for it. The rich can and should remain relatively rich. I don't have any problem with a wealth spread - as long as it is not excessive.
So, what's "excessive"? that is rather subjective but I do know this:
A seven order of magnitude difference in asset accumulation and/or a six order of magnitude difference in personal income between the richest and poorest of us is not merely unacceptable but unconscionable - REGARDLESS of merit. And regardless of what's done with all that lolly afterward.
The wealth distribution issue in this country has reached a crisis situation. We are rapidly heading into a two-tier society very similar to that of pre-revolutionary France. If the federal government or some other authority does not or can not intervene and restrict these extremes of wealth on the part of the negligable few, the problem WILL resolve itself - probably the same way.
Nod off again and you will miss the former United States become 3rd or 4th behind China, India and maybe Japan, in GDP.
Not everyone will become a Surgeon, Scientist or ?Professional?. When we had ?factories? that ?produced? products there were many jobs for those aforementioned. It is not possible to compete with 10 cent an hour labour.
Stay asleep, there is more coming that you will not want to see, it is not going to get better it is going to get smaller until it just fades away into history.
"For the common good". Does that ring a bell with you?
What to heck does that mean? Common good of who? Who gets choose whose rights get trampled for the so called "Common Good"? I get so sick of the whining about rich people by liberals. I guess all liberals are just stupid enough to believe the liberal talking heads when they say some has to become poor in order for someone to be rich.
It is sad state to think you have a right to trample someone else?s right because your jealous of them or think you deserve what they have. I know personal responsible is a nasty word to liberals but it is time for someone to tell liberals to quit whining and take responsibility for you life decisions. If you are working poor and forced to live pay check to pay check I'd be willing to bet it is because of your own poor choses through out your life.
It gets so tiresome hearing people whine how rich and are evil and we need to steal their money so we can continue government handouts. I hate to inform you this you get what you deserve and what you earn. Liberalism is sick disease and maybe some day doctors will find a cure for it but for now were stuck with idiocy of it.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
My state receives the 2nd least amount per dollar from the Feds that we put in (about 62 cents for every dollar we pay). Where does YOUR state fall in that spectrum?
You're probably in one of the top 5 "Welfare States" and you have the NERVE to talk about OTHER people whining or not taking responsibility!
I've got news for YOU, Jack--I make a very good living ($45-50/hr, depending on my client) because I've made EXCELLENT choices throughout my life and I've probably paid a heckuva lot more for people like you than you guys have EVER paid for me. So please feel free to STICK it!!!