Jump to content

CEOs Earn 271 Times the Avg Worker


1989NDN

Recommended Posts

This is the hidden content, please

 

The average CEO made 271 times the earnings of the typical worker last year, while more than 42 million Americans made less than $15 an hour.

Look no further for an explanation of the growing economic inequality and slow economic growth in the United States.

The average CEO compensation at the 350 largest firms in the United States, including cashed-in stock options, was $15.6 million in 2016, according to data collected by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. When the pay is calculated using the value of the stock options when they were issued, but not cashed, the average pay was $13 million.

 

RELATED: 

This is the hidden content, please

The average compensation package was slightly down in 2016 when considered as a ratio to what the average American earns. CEOs made 271 times the average American compared to 286-to-1 in 2015 and 299-to-1 in 2014.

Remember, though, that the era of celebrity CEOs and astronomical earnings is relatively recent. In 1989, the CEOs at America's top companies made only $59 for every $1 a typical worker earned, and in 1965 the ratio was only 20-1.

To understand how this pattern can add up, the news site 

This is the hidden content, please
 over the last seven years and found they were paid more than $9.7 billion. The Affordable Care Act did not slow things down, with the CEOs getting an average 11 percent raise every year since 2010.

Average Americans, meanwhile, saw their pay go up 2.3 percent a year over the same period, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In the past, I've railed against the buddy system at too many boards of directors that has pumped up CEO pay. A chief executive fills board seats with other business leaders who know that when one CEO gets a big raise, consultants will recommend every corporation give every CEO a pay hike.

RELATED: 

This is the hidden content, please

The problem is that astronomical pay takes money directly from the pockets of shareholders, who see lower returns because so much cash is going to labor costs. Since labor is the highest cost at most companies, CEOs routinely lay off workers and hire cheaper labor to boost company profits. Perversely, the boards then give the CEOs a raise for implementing layoffs.

Meanwhile 42 million Americans make less than $15 an hour, according to federal statistics. Most of them are more than 30 years old and have some college. The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour for eight years, but if it were pegged to inflation and productivity gains, it would be $12 an hour.

RECENT:

This is the hidden content, please

When critics rail against the slow economic growth since the Great Recession of 2008, they too often forget that 70 percent of the U.S. economy is consumer-driven. If consumers can't afford to buy things because wages are too low, the economy can't grow.

That's why groups like the 

This is the hidden content, please
 want a higher minimum wage to stimulate the economy. Past economic data shows that higher wages for the poor stimulate the U.S. economy far better than tax cuts for the rich.

"The fact is that it's nearly impossible for anyone to live on the minimum wage in this country," said Keith Mestrich, president of Amalgamated Bank and a member of Patriotic Millionaires. "The economy is on the mend and we need to make sure all boats have a chance to rise. We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and we need to do it now."

RELATED: 

This is the hidden content, please

There is a difference between rewarding successful people and feeding greed at the expense of company shareholders. And boards need to get control over CEO compensation.

More importantly, though, we need to reduce the pay ratio by raising the pay of the average American worker. If nothing else, the 2016 election demonstrated that the American worker feels undervalued and mistreated. Raising the minimum wage would address that anger.

Failure to act at both the top and bottom of the pay scale, though, will lead to greater disparity, less economic mobility and a smaller middle class. And that would betray all of the work done in the 20th century to make the United States one of the wealthiest and most egalitarian nations on earth.

___________________________________________________________________

In the comments section, someone wrote:   In 1914, Henry Ford gave his workers a huge daily pay raise because he know that to sell his cars, his workers had to afford to buy them. His $5/day wage was more than double what most were making at that time. It is about the equivalent of $120/day now, which is about $30,000 a year or about $15/hr.

 

Discuss/debate...rail against those in the middle of the political spectrum that believe in capitalism, but also believe in social responsibility and taking care of people struggling to make ends meet (and, no, I'm not talking about people who are scamming government programs for "free money" ... I'm talking about the elderly, working poor, and children).  Reducing CEO pay is not the be-all, end-all solution, but the system seemed to work well in 1965 when the ratio was only 20:1 vs. what it is now at 286:1.  I'm not asking for socialism, just social responsibility so we can take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

3...2...1...anticipated responses:  "You're a socialist; you're a communist; who's going to pay for this; you support welfare kings/queens; you can't have it both ways, i.e., you can't be a free market capitalist and advocate for social responsibility; I don't want the government in my life; Texas should secede from the United States; Trump won, the voters have spoken; the issue discussed in the article is ridiculous; where is the evidence; where is a cite to an authoritative peer-reviewed article; this solves nothing; I'm rich and I don't care; I work for my money and I don't want to give it to the government; let the churches take care of the poor, etc."

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...