2017年6月大学英语六级阅读理解冲刺提分卷（53）

　　Business has slowed, layoffs mount, but executive pay continues to roar-at least so far. Business Week's annual survey finds that chief executive officers (CEOs) at 365 0f the largest US companies got compensation last year averaging $3.1 million-up l.3 percent from 1994.

　　Why are the top bosses getting an estimated 485 times the pay of a typical factory worker? That is up from 475 times in 1999 and a mere 42 times in 1980. One reason may be what experts call the "Lake Wobegon effect". Corporate boards tend to reckon that "all CEOs are above average"-a play on Garrison Keillor's famous line in his public radio show, A Prairie Home Companion, that all the town's children arc "above average". Consultants provide boards with surveys of corporate CEO compensation. Since directors are reluctant to regard their CEOs as below average, the compensation committees of boards tend to set pay at an above-average level. The result; Pay levels get ratcheted up.

　　Defenders of lavish CEO pay argue there is such a strong demand for experienced CEOs that the free market forces their pay up. They further maintain most boards structure pay packages to reflect an executive's performance. They get paid more if their companies and their stock do well. So companies with high-paid CEOs generate great wealth for their shareholders.

　　But the supposed cream-of-the-crop executives did surprisingly poorly for their shareholders in 1999, says Scott Klinger, author of this report by a Bostonbased Organization United for a Fair Economy. If an investor had put $10,000 apiece at the end of 1999 into the stock of those companies with the 10 highest-paid CEOs, by year-end 2000 the investment would have shrunk to $8.132. If $10,000 had been put into the Standard & Poor's 500 stocks, it would have been worth $9,090. To Mr. Klinger, these findings suggest that the theory that one person, the CEO, is responsible for creating most of a corporation's value is dead wrong. "It takes many employees to make a corporation profitable."

　　With profits down, corporate boards may make more effort to tame executive compensation. And executives are making greater efforts to avoid pay cut. Since CEOs, seeing their options "under water" or worthless because of falling stock prices, are seeking more pay in cash or in restricted stock.

　　经济减速，失业增加，但首席执行官的报酬却依然风光——至少迄今为止还是这样。《商业周刊》的年度调查发现365家美国最大型公司的首席执行官(CEO)去年的报酬平均为3lO万美元——比1994年上升了1.3%。

　　为什么他们的所得大约是一个普通工厂工人工资的4.85倍?这比1999年的475倍和1980年的42倍都上升了。原因之一可能是专家们所谓的“瓦伯格湖效应”。[1]公司董事会倾向于认为“所有首席执行官都在平均水平之上”——改编自盖瑞森·凯勒著名的公共电台系列节目《牧场之家好伙伴》中的一个段子，原句是说镇上的所有孩子都是“平均水平之上”。顾问们向董事会提交有关公司首席执行官薪酬的调查。[2]因为董事们不愿意承认他们的首席执行官是平均水平之下，董事会的薪酬委员会就会把他们的薪酬定在平均水平之上。结果就是，首席执行官得到的薪酬节节上升。

　　为首席执行官得高薪而辩护的人声称，因为对有经验的首席执行官的需求很强烈，是自由市场把他们的薪酬推高。他们进一步辩解说，大多数董事会会制订一揽子薪酬结构计划，以反映首席执行官的业绩。如果公司和股票绩优，首席执行官的所得就越多。所以有高薪首席执行官的公司就能够为他们的股东创造巨大的财富。

　　[4]可是，对于股东来说，那些本应表现相当杰出的首席执行官们1999年的业绩却相当糟糕，令人颇为吃惊——本报告的作者斯科特·克林格如是说。此报告是由波士顿的“争取公平经济联合组织”发表的。如果一位投资者在1999年底拿1万美元分别购买10家给首席执行官最高薪酬的公司的股票，到2000年底投资会缩水到8132美元;如果用l万美元来买标准普尔500的股票，其价值则只降低为9090美元。[3]以克林格而言，这些发现表明，“一家公司的大部分价值是由首席执行官一个人创造的”这一理论是十分错误的。“一家公司赚钱，应该归功于众多雇员的共同努力。”

　　[5]随着利润的下降，公司董事会可能会花更大力气削减首席执行官的薪酬，而首席执行官们则在花更大的力气来避免薪金的削减。首席执行官们看到他们的期权目为股票价格下降而贬值甚或毫无价值，于是都在争取更多的以现金或受限制胜票的方式的薪酬。