Are CEOs 275 Times Better Than The Rest Of Us?

“Greed is good.”

These immortal words, uttered by Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s 1987 smash hit Wall Street, were iconic of the go-go, Reagan-era 80s. The story of an ambitious young trader who gets caught up in a world of high-stakes trading and questionable ethics, gambles everything and loses it all has become as applicable today as it was 20 years ago.

The New York Times released a graph from an Economic Policy Institute study showing that executive salaries were 275 times the average worker’s salary in 2007, compared to only 28 times the average worker’s salary in 1970. (To see a visual representation of this graph, visit Portfolio.com).

In today’s dollars, if the average worker was pulling in $30,000 annually that would mean the average CEO would be making a whopping $8,250,000 per year.

Can someone really be worth 275 times more than someone else?

I’m sure most of us would agree that a CEO candidate usually brings more education and experience to their job than does the average worker, but do they truly bring 275 times more? Is the work that a CEO does worth 275 times that of the average employee?

A CEO is charged with making decisions both large and small. They lead the company, they have the ultimate say and absorb the responsibility of making the right decisions, all of the time. The fate of the company rests on their shoulders and they should be compensated accordingly. But a company is not a singular entity. One person alone could not run a fortune 500 business. Does not every employee from the executive in the penthouse to the receptionist in the lobby play a vital role in making a business successful?

As our members of congress hammer out one of the most massive government bailouts of private industry in our history, a major stumbling block to the negotiations has been whether or not to put caps on what some perceive as ballooning executive pay. If message boards are any indication, Americans are outraged at what they see as outrageously excessive compensation. Every article I read on the bailout or executive pay is accompanied by hundreds of comments, none of which defend executives. Why is the average American worker so angry?

In most businesses today I think there is a systematic de-valuing of the contributions of the average worker. While a high-priced consulting firm with years of experience and a brilliant portfolio may come up with extensively researched, strategically written customer service scripts to ensure maximum sales for a call center, it is the ‘lowly’ call-center employee who is on the phone with a dissatisfied customer, providing friendly voice, sympathetic ear and exercising their critical thinking skills to create a win-win situation for both the company and the client.

Yet, a call-center worker who spends all day everyday working the phones is treated to less respect, fewer benefits and lower pay than someone who spends their time “being creative” in an office with a view.

The American worker is angry because they are overworked, underpaid and disrespected. After watching corporate executives jump off a sinking ship with golden parachute strapped to their backs while employees and shareholders are left holding the bag (see the failure of my local bank, Washington Mutual), congress is now asking these displaced workers, these shareholders who are looking at their retirement accounts being gutted to pick up the pieces and bailout Wall Street.

I’m resigned to the fact that a bailout is necessary to keep our economy and financial sector from collapsing, but executive pay has skyrocketed beyond reason and it is time for those at the top to remember that no man is an island, and they can’t take singular credit for the efforts of many if they don’t plan to take the blame as well.

Do Women Who Wear Heels Command More Respect?

My workday often starts once I step off the bus and walk across the parking lot to the main entrance of my office building. Because of my commute, I tend to come into the office with my feet clad in practical, but not very stylish, socks and sneakers. My company happens to share space with the training center for a major bank so I often ride the elevator up to my office (where my work-appropriate footwear is kept) with a revolving assortment of banking professionals.

These folks are always easy to spot because they are either in uniform or three-piece business suits—in contrast to the more laid-back attire of my coworkers. Perhaps because I’m sensitive to my sneakers-with-a-dress styling, I pay a lot of attention to other people’s shoes as I’m waiting for the elevator to reach my floor. Lately, I’ve noticed a lot of women pairing their suits with sky-high stiletto heels. As I glance down at my own tatty gray sneakers, I often think to myself,

“Why would a woman voluntarily wear four-inch high-heels?”

Those shoes can’t possibly be comfortable, no one will see them if they are hidden behind a desk, and their bright red color seems out of place against the backdrop of a bland (yet impeccably tailored) gray pantsuit.

After several days of examining other women’s shoes (each one with a heel higher than the last), this is the conclusion I came to:

These women want to exude femininity.

But in an age of title IX, where gender discrimination is illegal and women are closer than ever to equal pay for equal work (although one could argue not close enough), is it still important for women to dress like women in the workplace?

We are in the midst of the first presidential race where there were two viable female candidates, and what is so extraordinary about the two particular candidates, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, is that they have extremely different styles both in fashion and in politics.

Hillary has often been criticized for her penchant for brightly-colored pantsuits. She has often pulled back her short hair in dowdy headbands. She has a reputation for being a ball-buster, masculine and (public tears aside) an equal match for male political opponents.

Sarah Palin once competed in beauty pagents, keeps her long hair in tasteful updos and parades around in knee-length skirts and demure satin jackets. A “pitbull with lipstick,” she manages to look feminine, pretty even, while taking a hardline in government.

Hillary’s path to the White House has been blocked for now, overshadowed by a younger, arguably more attractive Sarah. Would a more feminine wardrobe have helped Hillary win over supporters? Are Sarah’s looks helping sway independent voters, both male and female?

Do we have more respect for women who dress like women?

If the women I see in the elevator are any indication, I’d have to say the answer is “yes.”

Todd Palin, The First “Second Gentleman?”

The announcement of Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, has sent shockwaves through the American political arena. Palin introduced herself in her first national speech last Friday as the ultimate working mother: a self-proclaimed “hockey mom” who intends to “shatter the glass ceiling” that Hillary Clinton had managed to splinter just a few months before.

As the mother of five with a special needs infant and a soon-to-be-wed pregnant teenager, Palin is dealing with family issues that would try any mother. Currently, she has managed to juggle all of this while governing the state of Alaska, running seven miles a day, weathering “trooper-gate” and is now stepping up to take on one of the most prestigious posts in our government.

This has caused a lot of people, both Democrat and Republican, to wonder: has she bit off more than she can chew?

Some would argue that a woman shouldn’t have to put her family over her career, woman should be able to “have it all,” and no one would be asking this about a male candidate.

I can’t say that I disagree with any of these statements. What I find curious however, is that Todd Palin, at least so far, is curiously absent from public view.

When most male politicians take major national office, such as the Presidency, their spouses usually follow and are active on the campaign. I’ve always just assumed that the women left their careers to accompany their husband to around the country and eventually to Washington (and if anyone knows of a First Lady or Second Lady who has continued to work outside of DC during their time in office, please jump in).

In light of the demands on political spouses, will Todd Palin choose to leave his career in Alaska to fulfill the duties of “Second Gentleman?”

While some might argue that the Vice Presidency is a secondary role consisting of nothing but luncheons and photo-ops, I think we can all agree that it is more than a 9 to 5 job with minimal flexibility in scheduling.

In response to a post I wrote about balancing work and motherhood a majority of the women who shared their stories touted flexible work schedules and reliable childcare as the best way they found to manage the juggle of full-time work and full-time parenting.

If Sarah is busy fulfilling her political duties, who will step in to take care of her personal ones?

A recent study cited in The Wall Street Journal surveyed a number of female executives about the support they receive from their spouses.

The study shows that what high-powered women prize above all is emotional support — a partner who listens to her and backs her respectfully when she’s angry or upset…

Executive women also valued their husbands’ willingness to help care for family members — picking up children at daycare or tending to aged relatives. One husband raced to the bedside of his wife’s ailing father, comforting him until she was able to get there. It was also important that a husband would step in voluntarily, often without being asked, when the wives had to travel on business or stay late at work.

Most Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates include their spouses in their campaign. They run as a unit–John and Jackie, Ronald and Nancy, Bill and Hillary. On Barack Obama’s campaign website there are selections that allow you to meet Michelle Obama and Jill Biden in addition to their husbands. Michelle and Jill are in the spotlight, whether they want it or not. The same is true for Cindi McCain and now Todd Palin.

Will Todd Palin fully embrace his wife’s candidacy the way other Vice Presidential spouses have? Is he up to the challenge of being the first Second Gentleman? And if so, what effect will his presence have on gender roles in this country?

I guess we’ll just have to wait another 60+ days to find out.