German CEO pay/worker 12:1 And US CEO pay 472:1

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Study hard and become a CEO, then.

That adds very very little to the conversation.

edit: I am a CEO

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Edumakated

So earning several million dollars a year for doing "a job" is ok? I have no problem with remuneration but 40 hours a week or less for being nothing more than playing the figurehead is nothing less than obscene.

No one who makes a lot of money works 40 hours a week. Most CEOs or any executive... heck almost anyone making six figures works like 60-80 hour weeks. 40 hours a week is for people who want below average pay. First year investment bankers work like 90 - 100 weeks. Same for lawyers at major law firms. ALL THE TIME. Most people complaining couldn't make it two weeks.

Is earning several million a year for playing a sport "ok"? What about several million a year for being an best selling author? How about several million a year for reading a teleprompter on TV? How about several million a year for playing records on the radio? We can play this game all day... why is making several million a year as a CEO egregious but not other fields?

Many many temp workers hold down 2-3 part time gigs totaling the hours you are talking about.

# of hours doesn't = high pay.


...

a reply to: seasonal

Can we get a link to the second(third if you consider the ratios a graph) graph about lobbying? That bottom text is tiny. I primarily want to see how gun rights/manufacturers rank.

a reply to: ksiezyc

Sorry I'm on my phone, you are on your own. Release the hounds!!

Why would I trust any data from FRED ? Just look at how they calculate unemployment. If you are unemployed and not seeking a job, you are employed. Unemployed more than 3 months ? You are considered employed. Working part time, but seeking full time job ? You are employed. So showing graphs without diving into how the figures were derived in the first place, is like taking fake news at face value without digging deeper.

If you really want to see the manipulation go learn how they calculate unemployment and CPI, or as I refer to it, CP LIE.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: seasonal
What can I say, today I was in a graph mood.

What could be the reasoning for the pay disparage for CEO pay the chart from 2013 shows? Are the CEO's of the US more talented than all the others? Or are the US workers so crappy that the 472:1 ratio is perfect? (A Harvard CEO pay estimate is 373:1).

As this graph shows the corporate profits have substantially risen while worker share of the "pie" has sharply declined. The graph also shows that this is a fairly recent occurrence. This is a very dangerous trend.

hbswk.hbs.edu...

And then we have lobbying.
The graph shows that pharma is the top dog when it comes to lobbying. This may be the very reason many can't afford health care. Pharma costs removes large amounts of money from the privatized socialist system pool of money to pay the very very high pharma costs. This effects US workers as the US is #1 in healthcare costs with little in the way setting the US system apart from any other industrialized nation besides cost.

This could quite possibly be the most concerning bit of info that I have seen today. The growing divide is usually accompanied by an opposite event to correct the inequality, and usually not pleasant. As a fairly successful small business owner I see a problem with how the money is being divided, and I can't see any rationalization to explain this.

This is one of the regulatory frame works that is contributing to economic inequality and stagnation in wage increases. The income of ceo's and other wealthy people have increased in the US, but not for other classes.

But predictably most conservatives and neo liberals claim saying so is class warfare and Muh socialism. The only class warfare being performed is powerful elites controlling our system and extracting most of wealth from everyone else.

Since the late 1970's productivity has increased but pay has not. This is a break away from the history of labor/employer relationships. This also is when CEO pay started to hit the stratosphere and unions became passe.

originally posted by: HanSolo31
Why would I trust any data from FRED ? Just look at how they calculate unemployment. If you are unemployed and not seeking a job, you are employed. Unemployed more than 3 months ? You are considered employed. Working part time, but seeking full time job ? You are employed. So showing graphs without diving into how the figures were derived in the first place, is like taking fake news at face value without digging deeper.

If you really want to see the manipulation go learn how they calculate unemployment and CPI, or as I refer to it, CP LIE.

Disinformation is a tool used to keep us guessing, and this is also used to divide us. This division has lead to the condition we find ourselves with the corps running rough shot over anyone and everyone.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

That doesn't excuse any info in the tread.

It does because the chart is a statistic about nothing made to rile up people who are envious of others....

Unless you get behind the numbers and how they are calculated, you can't really say that the stat is useful or insightful. For example, how do they figure the "lowest paid worker"... doesn't this change based on industry? So if the US has more industries like retail with hundreds of thousands of lower paid workers compared to say a european bank that may not have so many lower paid workers, is it really apples to apples?

Haha, says admitted well-off person, trying to justify how things are for your own sake.

a reply to: Edumakated

That's not the point.
And why can't these companies just start profit sharing with employees? Or at least give them a decent pension. Toyota has an amazing pension, even for the guys who assemble parts for the production line.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

That's not the point.
And why can't these companies just start profit sharing with employees? Or at least give them a decent pension. Toyota has an amazing pension, even for the guys who assemble parts for the production line.

They don't have to.

Unions used to make sure (force) the corps to do the "right" thing. But if we look at productivity "sharing" since the mid 1970's it is ugly. This is also when the 1% started to put the pedal to the metal with wealth acquisition and unions crapped the bed.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Study hard and become a CEO, then.

That adds very very little to the conversation.

edit: I am a CEO

Also, there aren't that many such positions. Fighting to get to the top echelon quite simply isn't a real policy and regulatory framework for all of society. I often find that those that don't like our critiques of societal systems provide 'solutions' that aren't such for the very systems afore mentioned. They would only help some individuals.

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: seasonal
What can I say, today I was in a graph mood.

What could be the reasoning for the pay disparage for CEO pay the chart from 2013 shows? Are the CEO's of the US more talented than all the others? Or are the US workers so crappy that the 472:1 ratio is perfect? (A Harvard CEO pay estimate is 373:1).

As this graph shows the corporate profits have substantially risen while worker share of the "pie" has sharply declined. The graph also shows that this is a fairly recent occurrence. This is a very dangerous trend.

hbswk.hbs.edu...

And then we have lobbying.
The graph shows that pharma is the top dog when it comes to lobbying. This may be the very reason many can't afford health care. Pharma costs removes large amounts of money from the privatized socialist system pool of money to pay the very very high pharma costs. This effects US workers as the US is #1 in healthcare costs with little in the way setting the US system apart from any other industrialized nation besides cost.

This could quite possibly be the most concerning bit of info that I have seen today. The growing divide is usually accompanied by an opposite event to correct the inequality, and usually not pleasant. As a fairly successful small business owner I see a problem with how the money is being divided, and I can't see any rationalization to explain this.

This is one of the regulatory frame works that is contributing to economic inequality and stagnation in wage increases. The income of ceo's and other wealthy people have increased in the US, but not for other classes.

But predictably most conservatives and neo liberals claim saying so is class warfare and Muh socialism. The only class warfare being performed is powerful elites controlling our system and extracting most of wealth from everyone else.

Since the late 1970's productivity has increased but pay has not. This is a break away from the history of labor/employer relationships. This also is when CEO pay started to hit the stratosphere and unions became passe.

Right, I've agreed on that point in others posts.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

We agree on these points that's for sure.

Saying "go get the CEO job" is akin to crossing the arms and sticking ones tongue out.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

That's not the point.
And why can't these companies just start profit sharing with employees? Or at least give them a decent pension. Toyota has an amazing pension, even for the guys who assemble parts for the production line.

Most of these companies do have profit sharing. 401k plans. restricted stock units and options. Whether or not employees choose to partake though is on them.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yet total compensation has been stagnant since the late 1970's.

2 words

French. Revolution.

a reply to: Edumakated

yeah right the average employee in this country can barely pay their bills

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Yet total compensation has been stagnant since the late 1970's.

And we already discussed why that is... the stagnation is from increased competition (i.e. increased supply of workers).

What happened in the 70s?

1) Feminism... women entering the work force increasing the supply of workers available.
2) Globalism... as other countries start to modernize, companies learn how to manufacture overseas and exploit cheaper labor costs.
3) Technology... robotics, computers, and other hi-tech manufacturering means workers are more productive and costs are kept lower.
4) STEM / service sector... as economy moves from manufacturing to service, employers demand higher skilled / credentialed workers.

The average joe experiences stagnation because of those four factors.

This op doesn't present any kind of problem other than spewing statistics. I for one would rather live in a place where wealth is so abundant you can have a CEO making 475 times the average worker than someplace else where the cap is much lower..

a reply to: Edumakated

are you actively arguing for our current economic paradigm or would you say it's flawed?