Cast Member Wages

[Goofyernmost]

Thanks, I've given posting a second thought, not because of any one thing. Maybe my perspective is just too old. I will say, I love the lively exchanges that can happen on these threads....but I realize I'm coming from an "era" gone by... It's the new generations time, to make a world that suits their time, as we tried to due in our era. We made mistakes, and I'm sorry for that....but I've tried to learn from my mistakes...Obviously not very well. I will still read the posts as I'm trying to keep this old brain current. If I've offended anyone, for that I'm sorry, (also sorry to be using this thread), not to say good by, but to say, I need to read a lot more on here, to understand . Maybe I should look for an AARP thread. I will be posting once in a while but not a much as I've been doing. I think I've "worn out my welcome". A very old cliché. Thanks for all the poster's I'm not leaving , just saying I'm taking time off for a while......Unless, (there's always an unless, isn't there?) Something catches my eye and I have a question, or comment. It is truly fun to be on here. No reply necessary. Too add one more thing, as Roz say's I'm watching you, always watching you.

Betty Rose, you are once again over thinking this thing. I don't think you are capable of offending anyone if you tried. However, that said and speaking for the "older" generation, you should never apologize for expressing your opinion. Your opinion is based on many years of life and many years of experiencing things that many of those on here have never even reached yet. Their opinions may be correct, but, they haven't been proven yet, just like our opinions, the context may be out of whack, but, our opinions are our own and you should never have to apologize for expressing them.

Some of us may not be as confident as others, but, that doesn't make us wrong. In some cases we old folks have forgotten more then they will ever know. It is, of course, your choice as to whether or not you take a break from the forums, just don't be bullied out of it. You have a lot to offer and if it were listened to once in awhile, others might just be able to gain from it.

 

[NelsonRD]

Seriously, if you were to query the guest, my guess is that no more then 20% of them would have even heard of Bob Iger, much less flock to Disney because of all his creative talent. Although, in my past posts, I was being general with an example of Iger used, no one goes to WDW or see's a movie because B.I. is in charge. There are at least a couple of generations that don't even know who Walt Disney was and don't care. They just like what the experience gives them.

Lesson in jealousy and ignorance? How about more of a lesson in humility and base understanding of what life is like for those without the benefit of a rich Daddy. That would be the lesson learned, they already know about the jealousy because many cherish it. Ignorance, well, that was really a revelation. Ignorance of what? Ignorance about how much of a burden it is to be rich?

I disagree. A CEO can lead a company to disaster very quickly, it happens all the time. To suggest anybody can just come in and do his job and Disney would operate the same, is humorous. I don't vacation at Disney because of Iger, nobody does. He represents and protects the brand, it is this brand we have become loyal to.

What is wrong with a wealthy, hard working, risk taking, father purchasing a vehicle for his daughter? Average people buy cars for their kids all the time, but why when a rich person does it, its not humble? You think rich people don't have problems? Rich people are not immune to any human emotion, or illness. It broke my friends heart she didn't want a USED car after because of the disrespect, name calling, and attacks she received over it. And this family is very hard working, very classy, great people. Not spoiled brats you see on TV. But they live in a nice upscale house, so they are the enemy right?

Here is something to consider:
I know this will open a can of worms, but let's just play along and say Iger makes 19.6M without stocks. If he then took a salary of $1, and gave the rest the 180K employees, they would receive an hourly pay increase of 5 cents per hour, or a whopping $104 extra a year. The assumptions are current wage of $8/05 an hour $16,744 annual, considering 2080 hours of 180K employees to get almost to 19.6M a year. This idea that if the rich made less, the poor would have more, is a myth, its wrong. The news is like the weather man, trying to get you angry, and writing stories all the time about what the rich have that you don't, doesn't help.

Btw, maybe I am one of them, maybe not, but I also support a higher minimum wage. No disrespect to you, or anybody else, but it seems the rich are always a target for attack, and the only group of people that can be called every name in the book with no consequence whatsoever.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I disagree. A CEO can lead a company to disaster very quickly, it happens all the time. To suggest anybody can just come in and do his job and Disney would operate the same, is humorous. I don't vacation at Disney because of Iger, nobody does. He represents and protects the brand, it is this brand we have become loyal to.

What is wrong with a wealthy, hard working, risk taking, father purchasing a vehicle for his daughter? Average people buy cars for their kids all the time, but why when a rich person does it, its not humble? You think rich people don't have problems? Rich people are not immune to any human emotion, or illness. It broke my friends heart she didn't want a USED car after because of the disrespect, name calling, and attacks she received over it. And this family is very hard working, very classy, great people. Not spoiled brats you see on TV. But they live in a nice upscale house, so they are the enemy right?

Here is something to consider:
I know this will open a can of worms, but let's just play along and say Iger makes 19.6M without stocks. If he then took a salary of $1, and gave the rest the 180K employees, they would receive an hourly pay increase of 5 cents per hour, or a whopping $104 extra a year. The assumptions are current wage of $8/05 an hour $16,744 annual, considering 2080 hours of 180K employees to get almost to 19.6M a year. This idea that if the rich made less, the poor would have more, is a myth, its wrong. The news is like the weather man, trying to get you angry, and writing stories all the time about what the rich have that you don't, doesn't help.

Btw, maybe I am one of them, maybe not, but I also support a higher minimum wage. No disrespect to you, or anybody else, but it seems the rich are always a target for attack, and the only group of people that can be called every name in the book with no consequence whatsoever.

And if 19 Million was all he made, then it would still be exorbitent, but, he doesn't. Think closer to 80 to 90 million (with stock options, which cannot be ignored). I didn't even check the math, but it doesn't seem realistic, could be, but I don't care enough to do the math. Someone else can.

I do not have anything against rich people, I'd like to be one myself. What I am against is the degree of compensations when the success comes from other people. Just using the Parks as an example, although it would apply to any segment of the Disney Company, if all those 8.00 per hour people walked out today, how would old Bobby I. look by comparison. He isn't creating any magic, he is just benefiting from it. The entire concept, still used today, for the most part, was the creation of Walt Disney, not Bob Iger. To receive that kind of compensation for something that he neither built nor conceptually imagined, is really close to stealing in my opinion.

 

[betty rose]

Betty Rose, you are once again over thinking this thing. I don't think you are capable of offending anyone if you tried. However, that said and speaking for the "older" generation, you should never apologize for expressing your opinion. Your opinion is based on many years of life and many years of experiencing things that many of those on here have never even reached yet. Their opinions may be correct, but, they haven't been proven yet, just like our opinions, the context may be out of whack, but, our opinions are our own and you should never have to apologize for expressing them.

Some of us may not be as confident as others, but, that doesn't make us wrong. In some cases we old folks have forgotten more then they will ever know. It is, of course, your choice as to whether or not you take a break from the forums, just don't be bullied out of it. You have a lot to offer and if it were listened to once in awhile, others might just be able to gain from it.

Thank you so much, for your heartfelt and thoughtful reply. Maybe my skin is just to thin to endure. I will think about what you have said...and may come back sooner than later. I really appreciate your very kind words.

 

[NelsonRD]

And if 19 Million was all he made, then it would still be exorbitent, but, he doesn't. Think closer to 80 to 90 million (with stock options, which cannot be ignored). I didn't even check the math, but it doesn't seem realistic, could be, but I don't care enough to do the math. Someone else can.

I do not have anything against rich people, I'd like to be one myself. What I am against is the degree of compensations when the success comes from other people. Just using the Parks as an example, although it would apply to any segment of the Disney Company, if all those 8.00 per hour people walked out today, how would old Bobby I. look by comparison. He isn't creating any magic, he is just benefiting from it. The entire concept, still used today, for the most part, was the creation of Walt Disney, not Bob Iger. To receive that kind of compensation for something that he neither built nor conceptually imagined, is really close to stealing in my opinion.

All success comes from other people. Walt himself leveraged ideas that were not his own to build his empire. There are a lot of talented people that have started businesses, but are terrible CEOs, or public speakers, or bad with funding. They then hire people to represent them and perform those tasks for them. Along with this huge burden is high salary. If you were to cap salaries, you would see caps in performance as well. It may sound nice, but is not practical. This country is founded on limitless potential.

Disney is not employee owned, and those that work there are paid based on the agreement. The employees you talk about walking out because they are the true workhorses, is not accurate because without the upper management there would be nothing to walk out from. There is a huge overhead infrastructure that needs to be accounted for, so without workers, nobody would start the Tower of Terror, but the same employees you mention have no investment into making that ride happen, funding it, building it, etc, other than being trained on how to operate it, which also discussed in this thread, is easily replaceable. Employees are not business partners, or part owners.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

So my .02 (well, maybe a quarter). I think part of the over-all problem is that a majority of executive pay now comes in the form of stock options and bonuses. This leads them to do everything they can to boost that stock price and profitability in the short term, and let the next person worry about the long term growth of the company. Of course, that next person does the same thing. Boosts the stock to make their options worth more, at the possible expense of the long term health of the company.

I don't like federal government intrusion any more than anyone else, but a simple law that says a CEO can only make a fixed multiple of the average employee wage might help. My vote would be that a CEO cannot have a salary more than 10 times the average salary of all employees in a company. No bonuses for extra profits, or at least very limited. You want them to reinvest in the company, not worry about their bonus. That would give Bob Iger approx. a $600,000 salary. Stock options would be restricted to a 10-15 year maturity or even more, so that might help. That way, it is more about the future performance, and not the current quarter that would matter for their stock options. Oh, and I don't want to hear the tired argument that you won't attract top talent this way. If all have to play by these rules, where are they going to go? They would still get a hefty salary, and the prestige of being a CEO. I'd take that any day of the year.

Lets take 2 examples:
Warren E. Buffett
Executive Compensation

As Chief Executive Officer/ Chairman of the Board at BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, Warren E. Buffett made $464,011 in total compensation. Of this total $100,000 was received as a salary, $0 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $0 was awarded as stock and $364,011 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2014 fiscal year.
One of the most successful companies in America, and he still lives in the same house he grew up in. He cares about the long term health of the company.

Robert A. Iger
Executive Compensation

As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at DISNEY (WALT) CO, Robert A. Iger made $43,701,750 in total compensation. Of this total $2,500,000 was received as a salary, $22,810,000 was received as a bonus, $8,339,396 was received in stock options, $8,943,204 was awarded as stock and $1,109,150 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2014 fiscal year.
The $22 million in bonuses were paid due to the profits the company has had. But over $17,000,000 was due to the stock price being what it is. He does not appear to give a whit about the long term growth of the company, and only how well it looks to Wall St on paper every quarter.

So Bob Iger makes 724 times what the average Disney employee makes. Warren Buffett makes 9 times what the average employee makes. Fair?? Heck, no. Oh and in case you don't know. Disney had $42.3 billion in revenue. Berkshire Hathaway had $162.5 billion in revenue. 4 times what Disney had, yet Warren Buffet makes a fraction of Bob Iger.

So bottom line - would you act EXACTLY like Bob Iger if the majority of your salary and bonuses were tied to stock price and profitability, and you could make $40,000,000 in ONE year by cutting everything to the bone to maximize profit, and spend BILLIONS on stock buybacks to bolster the stock value, instead of investing in any theme parks? Be truthful now. How many of you would act just like he does?

 

[NelsonRD]

So my .02 (well, maybe a quarter). I think part of the over-all problem is that a majority of executive pay now comes in the form of stock options and bonuses. This leads them to do everything they can to boost that stock price and profitability in the short term, and let the next person worry about the long term growth of the company. Of course, that next person does the same thing. Boosts the stock to make their options worth more, at the possible expense of the long term health of the company.

I don't like federal government intrusion any more than anyone else, but a simple law that says a CEO can only make a fixed multiple of the average employee wage might help. My vote would be that a CEO cannot have a salary more than 10 times the average salary of all employees in a company. No bonuses for extra profits, or at least very limited. You want them to reinvest in the company, not worry about their bonus. That would give Bob Iger approx. a $600,000 salary. Stock options would be restricted to a 10-15 year maturity or even more, so that might help. That way, it is more about the future performance, and not the current quarter that would matter for their stock options. Oh, and I don't want to hear the tired argument that you won't attract top talent this way. If all have to play by these rules, where are they going to go? They would still get a hefty salary, and the prestige of being a CEO. I'd take that any day of the year.

Lets take 2 examples:
Warren E. Buffett
Executive Compensation

As Chief Executive Officer/ Chairman of the Board at BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, Warren E. Buffett made $464,011 in total compensation. Of this total $100,000 was received as a salary, $0 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $0 was awarded as stock and $364,011 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2014 fiscal year.
One of the most successful companies in America, and he still lives in the same house he grew up in. He cares about the long term health of the company.

Robert A. Iger
Executive Compensation

As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at DISNEY (WALT) CO, Robert A. Iger made $43,701,750 in total compensation. Of this total $2,500,000 was received as a salary, $22,810,000 was received as a bonus, $8,339,396 was received in stock options, $8,943,204 was awarded as stock and $1,109,150 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2014 fiscal year.
The $22 million in bonuses were paid due to the profits the company has had. But over $17,000,000 was due to the stock price being what it is. He does not appear to give a whit about the long term growth of the company, and only how well it looks to Wall St on paper every quarter.

So Bob Iger makes 724 times what the average Disney employee makes. Warren Buffett makes 9 times what the average employee makes. Fair?? Heck, no. Oh and in case you don't know. Disney had $42.3 billion in revenue. Berkshire Hathaway had $162.5 billion in revenue. 4 times what Disney had, yet Warren Buffet makes a fraction of Bob Iger.

So bottom line - would you act EXACTLY like Bob Iger if the majority of your salary and bonuses were tied to stock price and profitability, and you could make $40,000,000 in ONE year by cutting everything to the bone to maximize profit, and spend BILLIONS on stock buybacks to bolster the stock value, instead of investing in any theme parks? Be truthful now. How many of you would act just like he does?

Buffet is no hero.

Also, what happens when I start my own business, as a sole proprietor making more than $600K in one year? Is that fair that the CEO of the world largest media conglomerate is making less than somebody running some small business out of a garage with no contacts or experience?

All that aside, the point I made is still the same. If CEO's made less, it would not make an impact to the average worker. Also, please do not confuse the fact that I am for a higher working wage, it is just not as simple as cutting top CEO pay to achieve it.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Buffet is no hero.

Also, what happens when I start my own business, as a sole proprietor making more than $600K in one year? Is that fair that the CEO of the world largest media conglomerate is making less than somebody running some small business out of a garage with not contacts or experience?

All that aside, the point I made is still the same. If CEO's made less, it would not make an impact to the average worker. Also, please do not confuse the fact and I am for a higher working wage, it is just not as simple as cutting top CEO pay to achieve it.

Umm, somebody running a small business out a garage doesn't HAVE a CEO. You are the OWNER. And YES, I believe it to be totally fair that the CEO of the world's largest media conglomerate would be paid $600,000 per year. If he wants to make more, then he can raise the average wage of his employees. Simple. He can still receive a butt load of stock options that mature in 10 or 15 years, and cash them out then. If he wants to make up his own company to make more money, then more power to him. As a CEO it is just his job. He doesn't own the company.

And I was NOT talking about any impact to the average worker. I was talking about investing in the long term growth of a company. For Disney, that should mean a LOT of investment in the P&R division, since they make billions in profit for the company, yet Iger does NOT reinvest much at WDW, and barely more at DL compared to what he SHOULD be reinvesting, and HAS been reinvested in the past by other CEOs of the company.

Sorry for the confusion over what my point was.

 

[kjb101791]

Supply and demand. Disney can get (mostly) high-quality workers, many of which are retired or on the college program. For every person that quits a basic job, there are a line of people ready to take their place. A job working a cashier, whether at Disney or any other billion-dollar corporation (McDonalds, Kroger, Wal-Mart...), is going to be near minimum wage. In reality, Disney is right along with other companies as far as pay grade. I don't get why people get worked up over the low pay when Disney "makes so much money". Kroger is actually a larger company (according to Forbes) and pays very similar wages. If you think you can make more money, then work somewhere else.

 

[Nick Wilde]

As a Cast Member I take a lot of offense to this statement. Unless you are a Cast Member I don't think you can accurately make this statement. Although some jobs at WDW don't take a lot of technical talent to perform their role it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't take a lot of skill. Never judge a person unless you've walked a mile in their shoes and know what it takes.

Let me re-phrase it then. As a front line CM, you don't really need a degree. There's no training involved, (other than the training Disney gives you) and anyone can do it. I didn't mean any offense. Other high paying jobs, like being an engineer, or a pilot, need a lot of training before-hand. It basically means, there are more people that can do this job, so a lower wage.

 

[betty rose]

Let me re-phrase it then. As a front line CM, you don't really need a degree. There's no training involved, (other than the training Disney gives you) and anyone can do it. I didn't mean any offense. Other high paying jobs, like being an engineer, or a pilot, need a lot of training before-hand. It basically means, there are more people that can do this job, so a lower wage.

I don't think anyone can do a CM job, you have to have the patience of a saint , to tolerate all they do in a day's time. Not everyone has that skill...as witnessed on this web sight. Thanks to another poster, I'm here for the long haul , like it or not.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Umm, somebody running a small business out a garage doesn't HAVE a CEO. You are the OWNER. And YES, I believe it to be totally fair that the CEO of the world's largest media conglomerate would be paid $600,000 per year. If he wants to make more, then he can raise the average wage of his employees. Simple. He can still receive a butt load of stock options that mature in 10 or 15 years, and cash them out then. If he wants to make up his own company to make more money, then more power to him. As a CEO it is just his job. He doesn't own the company.

And I was NOT talking about any impact to the average worker. I was talking about investing in the long term growth of a company. For Disney, that should mean a LOT of investment in the P&R division, since they make billions in profit for the company, yet Iger does NOT reinvest much at WDW, and barely more at DL compared to what he SHOULD be reinvesting, and HAS been reinvested in the past by other CEOs of the company.

Sorry for the confusion over what my point was.

Executive compensation isn't high because of the value they add to the company. It's high to attract and retain top talent.

Supply and demand. Disney can get (mostly) high-quality workers, many of which are retired or on the college program. For every person that quits a basic job, there are a line of people ready to take their place. A job working a cashier, whether at Disney or any other billion-dollar corporation (McDonalds, Kroger, Wal-Mart...), is going to be near minimum wage. In reality, Disney is right along with other companies as far as pay grade. I don't get why people get worked up over the low pay when Disney "makes so much money". Kroger is actually a larger company (according to Forbes) and pays very similar wages. If you think you can make more money, then work somewhere else.

I think a big point of consternation is that there are hard core Disneyphiles that try to make a career out of entry level jobs. These jobs aren't supposed to be twenty year positions.

 

[NelsonRD]

Umm, somebody running a small business out a garage doesn't HAVE a CEO. You are the OWNER. And YES, I believe it to be totally fair that the CEO of the world's largest media conglomerate would be paid $600,000 per year. If he wants to make more, then he can raise the average wage of his employees. Simple. He can still receive a butt load of stock options that mature in 10 or 15 years, and cash them out then. If he wants to make up his own company to make more money, then more power to him. As a CEO it is just his job. He doesn't own the company.

And I was NOT talking about any impact to the average worker. I was talking about investing in the long term growth of a company. For Disney, that should mean a LOT of investment in the P&R division, since they make billions in profit for the company, yet Iger does NOT reinvest much at WDW, and barely more at DL compared to what he SHOULD be reinvesting, and HAS been reinvested in the past by other CEOs of the company.

Sorry for the confusion over what my point was.

If you really want to get Walt spinning in his grave, present him with this idea of more government regulation designed to limit your salary, and government involvement designed to force you to reinvest into your business, whether its needed or not.

 

[raven]

CM's are paid low wages, simply because it doesn't take much skill to be one.

Wrong. Even a person in the most mundane position has to go through days of training and hours and hours of online training. You can train for more opportunities but it doesn't mean you will get paid more. I had friends who dangled 180' up in the air off the icon buildings to power wash them. It was an extremely dangerous job and took several classes of online training and several days of hands-on training before he could do it. When all was said and done he was paid the exact same amount as a Custodial CM sweeping the sidewalk.

While entry level CMs make minimum wage ($8.05 in FL currently) or slightly more, there are fairly regular opportunities to move up or get raises at a slightly higher rate than the surrounding industries.

You can move up IF you know people. I have several friends who've been given the whole "Were gonna put you on the leadership track" business over and over again and their leaders just keep telling them they did away with the program. Some of these friends have been employed with Disney for 15 years and are still given the same run around. Other friends have retired after 20+ years of service and only topped out at $12/hour.

Disney is the leader in the industry. What that means is if Disney can pay a very low wage, all of the others are going to follow that pattern (this happens with park admission and parking prices too). they spend thousands of dollars every few years to do "research on the industry" to make sure they are paying appropriately. But when you are the leader in the industry, you are just spending that money to do research on yourself???

Disney likes to hire Disney fans because they will basically work for peanuts anyway without much complaint. But several people are basically told "Look, if you want to complain about your wages, we have 30 people at Casting who'd be willing to take it."

I used to be a huge Disney fan until I put a few years into the current company. It isn't Uncle Walt's anymore. It's a greedy corporate giant and the truth is they only care about how much they make.

 

[kjb101791]

I think a big point of consternation is that there are hard core Disneyphiles that try to make a career out of entry level jobs. These jobs aren't supposed to be twenty year positions.[/QUOTE]

I found this when I was a CP. Many try to work their way up through the ranks, very often without a degree. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's a very difficult thing to do, leading to a lot of frustration.

 

[donaldtoo]

The problem I'm having with the Iger/Buffett CEO compensation comparison is that Iger's net worth appears to be somewhere around $150 million, and Buffett's is over $72 BILLION. That's $1,000 million 72+ times over. Appears mostly symbolic, IMHO.
Heck, if he really wants to be symbolic, he should volunteer to be compensated $1 a year.

Nah, that would just look ridiculous...

 

[Fordlover]

Not exactly what you asked, but if you have two jobs to fill, and you have 100 people apply, and 50 of which are qualified for the job, and nearly all of them are willing to work for minimum wage, how much would you pay the two you hire?

I'm amazed that fast food joints can find ANYONE willing to work for minimum wage. They'd have to pay me 100K a year to do that job, and even at that salary I don't know if i'd do it.

 

[Fordlover]

They are worth significant compensation for their ability to hold the rudder in a steady, directed manner, but, they wouldn't go anywhere without the people operating the oars.

Using your analogy, oars men (labor) is cheap, strong direction (leadership) is not. The rudder alone determines if all that rowing effort pays dividends in productive progress, or useless circles.

In reality the Board plays a big part in guiding the company. It's also important to keep in mind that Disney is a huge multinational conglomerate, not a studio/theme park company like it was when Walt was still with us.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Using your analogy, oars men (labor) is cheap, strong direction (leadership) is not. The rudder alone determines if all that rowing effort pays dividends in productive progress, or useless circles.

In reality the Board plays a big part in guiding the company. It's also important to keep in mind that Disney is a huge multinational conglomerate, not a studio/theme park company like it was when Walt was still with us.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing the success or failure of Bob Iger. In fact, I think that the constant degrading of his accomplishments are very over done and not really completely true. My argument is that he or any other of the current CEO's are grossly overpaid. They deserve a good living, and they can get that with a third or less of what they receive. They are overpaid and their individual contribution to any company is greatly exaggerated and deified to the point of ridiculous. I will say it again... No one is worth that much money.

They may demand it because over the last few years, BoD's seem to have been running scared with fear that there are no others out there that can do an equivalent job. They are worth a lot, because their responsibilities are big, but, they will all leave and for the most part the businesses will continue to survive quite comfortably. Disney survived without Walt Disney and Roy Disney, it survived without Eisner, it will survive without Iger. Everyone from the lowliest employee to the top, is replaceable. Apple has continued to survive without Jobs, its main driving force. A lot could be accomplished with the money that they spend on those salaries. In Disney case, it would have built more attractions, elevated employee pay and many other things company wide and he would still be making an enviable living.

Think about the discrepancy between (again using Iger as an example) Iger and the POTUS. Iger has to concern himself with cartoons, movies and theme parks and how often to paint them. Whereas, the POTUS has to be concerned about not starting a Nuclear War where all our lives are on the line. It is an insane example of misplaced priorities that this country is so fond of displaying.

 

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income-2013/fortune-100

Disney is #3 on this list. They were talking about this on the radio (NPR) this morning. They stated that Disney's ratio is now the highest.