The cancer of excessive CEO pay is at the core of America’s economic woes, and it demands government attention

By Leo Hindery Jr.

Watch full size video:

Confronted through the daunting array of economic failures confronting the nation, it may present the appearance improbable conducive to me to say that excessive executive compensation is one of the issues needing the early attention of the next President and nearest Congress. Yes this particular cancer—which has been increasing exponentially for almost two decades—is at the core of many of our nation’s economic ills.

And it is a cancer that the average worker finally understands. During the worst days of the newly come stock-market, bank, and credit-market upheaval, a raw nerve was struck on Main Street when workers generally became percipient, many for the primary time, of the gigantic salaries being earned in continuance Wall Street and on other streets far removed from Main Street.

Wherever earned, excessive executive and CEO compensation, foolishly by being "excessive," belies the principles of a meritocracy, what one. is what corporations should subsist. Managers rise to something akin to royalty when their compensation is at unjustified levels and when the rewards of employment are not more commonly and fairly shared with the general employee base.

Way back on Sept. 13, 1970, just as I was starting my second year at Stanford Business School, Milton Friedman authored his seminal opinion piece in The New York Times entitled "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits." But unlike many of Friedman’session other writings, this particular opinion piece was only modestly embraced, and was embraced by nearly no one trustworthy.

In thing done, from the extremity of World War II until the mid 1990s, prominent open and private collection CEOs almost universally viewed their responsibilities as centre of life equally split among shareholders, employees, customers, and the people. This gross reason of corporate responsibility was actually so widely and comfortably held that in 1981, the Business Roundtable, that is the key public stratagem arm of the population’s largest notorious companies and their CEOs, officially endorsed a policy that uttered that shareholder returns had to exist balanced against other considerations.

However, just as the Business Roundtable was making its policy statement, the deregulation and laissez-faire era that was born in the Reagan Administration was starting to scrap away at the announcement’sitting core contention. And by 2004—even after many of the myriad scandals and outright thefts that have hallmarked the last decade of American matter had already come to light—the Roundtable amended its position. It said, just as Friedman did in 1970, that the job of business is only to maximize the wealth of shareholders. And at that point, because of the prevalence of stock option and restricted stock grants, shareholders included various if not most senior managers at a large number of publicly traded companies.

And this narrow single-mindedness has taken Corporate America down a to a high degree bad path that has resulted in executive compensation that is truly excessive.

For greatest part of the past century, CEOs earned roughly 20 periods as much as the average employee, according to the Economic Policy Institute, as quoted in The New York Times on Dec. 18, 2005, and again on Jan. 1, 2006. And too for much of the gone century, there was in no degree similar the excesses within the financial industry that we see today, which enable its managers to obtain almost obscene levels of compensation—and then prepare favorable income tax method of treating to boot.

Today, however, average public company CEO balance is 400 general condition of affairs that of the average employee. And thousands of senior managers in adding to CEOs are drinking at the same frothy trough, especially, as we have all suitable seen, senior managers in the monetary services industry. (By contrast, the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average employee has remained around 22 in Britain, 20 in Canada, and 11 in Japan.) And with such U.S. exalted balance, management has so elevated itself above average employees during the time that to have become, in my opinion, a constituency unto itself—and some that, to compound the inequity, largely sets its own compensation.