[mikemike]

THR also reports that Olbermann is making at least $10 million a year, though Current would not confirm that.

Keith Olbermann In Hollywood Reporter: Talks MSNBC Exit, Says He Hasn't Spoken To Maddow

In 2010, Standard & Poor's 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation

2011 Executive PayWatch

Last time I checked, fortune 500 companies employed 25 million Americans, ~50,000 each. Why doesn't the AFL-CIO direct their scrutiny at overpaid pundits and TV personalities?

[shooz]

Guys like Olberman have to follow the rules.
CEOs write their own rules and still can't follow them.

[deadwolfbones]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Celebrity makes lots of money!

[mikemike]

Guys like Olberman have to follow the rules.
CEOs write their own rules and still can't follow them.

Olberman broke the rules so he got a golden parachute and a better deal with his next gig... I'm not seeing any link between actions and consequences in his case.

[Nesster]

Of course Fox has had much of the Republican field on payroll... and certainly there are wealthy pundits on both sides, getting wealthier essentially by the same means as that Rapture guy... Some are worse (less fact based) than others. But, these are not plutocrats by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, Olbermann may have cashed in, but really, how many elections will he influence? As compared to his Fox friends?

The celebrities and pundits and sports figures make a lot of money, so what? In fact most liberals don't think that is a bad thing, though some on the right seem to keep harping that liberals don't like anyone making money.

[shooz]

I don't watch them, so what "rule" did Olbeman break?

[Nesster]

He contributed to a couple of candidates, without clearing it with the company first, a violation of policy.

[shooz]

Good thing they don't have that policy at FOX spews.

[GeneV]

The celebrities and pundits and sports figures make a lot of money, so what? In fact most liberals don't think that is a bad thing, though some on the right seem to keep harping that liberals don't like anyone making money.

Good point. It takes some nerve to create a generalization of a group laced with caricature, and then accuse that group of hypocrisy when it doesn't fit your caricature.

[mikemike]

Good point. It takes some nerve to create a generalization of a group laced with caricature, and then accuse that group of hypocrisy when it doesn't fit your caricature.

I didn't say liberals. If you reread the OP you will see that I was pointing at the AFL-CIO, an organization which constantly criticizes executive pay programs of the .0X% of american companies which employ 10% of americans while staying mum on the comparable compensation of people like Mr. Olberman who employ very few americans.

But I think it is safe to say that an overwhelming majority of people who think income or wealth inequality is a problem are liberals. Its also safe to say that the objects of their contempt are CEOs or businesses rather than liberal pundits, pro athletes, and entertainers.

[shooz]

it is safe to say that an overwhelming majority of people who think income or wealth inequality is a problem are liberals

You just took a cheap shot at liberals in the same post you said you didn't

Doublespeak much?

Most of those you are picking at have to hire represented workers to put on their show.

That representation is the thing you have a problem with.

[Nesster]

Its also safe to say that the objects of their contempt are CEOs or businesses rather than liberal pundits, pro athletes, and entertainers.

The specific context is plutocracy here - don't limit it to liberal pundits, the conservatives are doing very well indeed, these and the athletes and entertainers do not exert control over parts of the economy, nor do they usually manage to indulge in behavior that is risky to the country - and the world economy - as a whole.

Even though Fox News is the Republican kingmaker - which in itself is worthy of skeptical inquiry - neither Fox nor MSNBC or CNN actually matters within the greater economy.

But the compensation incentives to senior management and Wall Street types can encourage these to take risks - the rewards are nearly immediate, in annual bonuses, while any downside may be years ahead. We saw this effect in the recent financial crisis.

These incentives also contribute to a class stratification in the employment landscape, where those on the top are incented to treat workers as cogs or fungible expense-assets. Thus jobs are exported and eliminated based on financial analysis, rather than other considerations. The symptom of pay differential between the top and the troops is an indication of a devaluation of the American worker, and a root cause of our persistent unemployment.

Companies are run for the benefit of senior management (and large shareholders). This has always been the case, but we see in history that whenever this becomes too one-dimensional, there's trouble for the economy.

[shooz]

To help you out with understanding what makes a plutocrat a plutocrat, I will provide you a link to follow.
Reading profusely may aid your understanding.

To be clear, I don't agree with everything here and it's not the last word, but it's a start.

Exposing the Excretions of the Entitled Class | The Vile Plutocrat

[GeneV]

I didn't say liberals. If you reread the OP you will see that I was pointing at the AFL-CIO, an organization which constantly criticizes executive pay programs of the .0X% of american companies which employ 10% of americans while staying mum on the comparable compensation of people like Mr. Olberman who employ very few americans.

But I think it is safe to say that an overwhelming majority of people who think income or wealth inequality is a problem are liberals. Its also safe to say that the objects of their contempt are CEOs or businesses rather than liberal pundits, pro athletes, and entertainers.

Again, you seem to think that someone who has a problem with executive pay should have a problem with anyone who makes a good living. This is the kind of silly stereotype I meant.

To begin with, Olbermann's salary would make him a slacker in the league of the Plutocrat. As Chris Rock used to point out, Shaq is rich, but the guy who pays him is really wealthy. And stars bring the money into the station or the film or the event which then employs many.

Like it or not, it is obvious what an Olbermann or an O'Reilly brings to their network--viewers. The problem with executive pay is that it is hard to imagine what many of these executives are doing that is worth $10,000,000, $100,000,000 or $1 Billion and that can't be had for less. This is especially true given how much damage these leaders have done. Couldn't someone be found to run Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy and the country into panic for less than the roughly half a billion paid to Richard Fuld in 2008? (He left the job with $350,000,000 of that compensation intact even after his Lehman stock tanked) These guys aren't employing; they are more often destroying. Like government, more often than not they are doing so with someone else's money.

[mikemike]

Like it or not, it is obvious what an Olbermann or an O'Reilly brings to their network--viewers. The problem with executive pay is that it is hard to imagine what many of these executives are doing that is worth $10,000,000, $100,000,000 or $1 Billion and that can't be had for less.

Lets make a case study of public enemies number 1 & 2, Charles and David Koch. Their father started the company and grew it to a medium sized engineering firm with a little oil refining business on the side. They both earned MS degrees in engineering from MIT which gives them every bit of credentials you could want for an engineering oriented company which actually "makes something" and they have actively worked in and managed the company for a combined 90 years. Under their tenure the company experienced meteoric growth.

If they were allowed to keep the same share of their company's profits as Olberman is allowed to keep of his show's profits, it would be reasonable for them to pay themselves billions of dollars per year. Obviously, they don't compensate themselves on that same scale as most of their wealth is tied up in their ownership stakes of Koch Industries, positions which they never intend to sell.

Instead of taking such a high percentage of the profit as pay, why don't people like Olbermann take less money and provide their viewers with a better program which has more minutes of program and fewer minutes of commercials. Alternatively, they could use those huge celebrity salaries to hire real journalists, staff foreign news desks, do investigative reporting, or hell just fact check the stories they are presenting. Vapid liberal pundits are hypocrites because they are complicit and a driving force in converting the cable news industry from an actual outlet of journalism to an aggregator of infotainment.