CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers’ Only by 12%

[Blues Man]

I'll ask again since no one answered me the first time

How many of you people work at a business where the CEO makes 250 times what you do?

 

[Markle]

Bill [Clinton] is overpaying bad ceos for poor performance? I had no idea.

You have no clue, do you? Perhaps you should do a bit of research before digging yourself deeper into a hole.

 

[Markle]

Remember 30 years ago there were no billionaires ( a handful around the world). Go back and watch Oliver Stone's movie Wall Street- it's more of a financial documentary than a Hollywood film. Multi-millionaire ( $50 - $100 million) was a big deal back then. Do you remember what the minimum wage was ? $3.35 an hour ( 40 hours for 52 weeks no vacation is about $7000 a year)

That is a big reason there are thousands of billionaires now and everyone else is in debt.

And that means what?

It means Americans let ourselves get screwed over the past 4 decades
and we're basically just now realizing it.... OWS, Bernie's 'political revolution'....these are signs of a sleeping giant awakening.

Wall Street is a great movie. The Wall Street 2 dvd has a good director's cut narrated by Oliver Stone. The sleeping giant sounds like a Noam Chomsky reference from his book about hegemony.

 

[Brain357]

Bill [Clinton] is overpaying bad ceos for poor performance? I had no idea.

You have no clue, do you? Perhaps you should do a bit of research before digging yourself deeper into a hole.

Come now lets hear how right now Bill Clinton is overpaying ceos for poor performance.

 

[Markle]

Bill [Clinton] is overpaying bad ceos for poor performance? I had no idea.

You have no clue, do you? Perhaps you should do a bit of research before digging yourself deeper into a hole.

Come now lets hear how right now Bill Clinton is overpaying ceos for poor performance.

THANK YOU! I knew you wouldn't take a hint. Progressives are so easily led!

Economic Policy
Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.
By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012
[...]
In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

According to a new paper from Temple University's Steven Balsam published by the Economic Policy Institute, the big flaw in 162(m) was its broad exemption of "performance-based" pay. The $1 million cap only applied to traditional salaries, bonuses and grants of company stock. Stock options (that is, stock grants that take time to vest and are meant to provide a performance incentive to workers) and other performance incentives are considered performance-based pay and are deductible even in excess of $1 million. So, unsurprisingly, businesses starting paying executives more in the form of stock options, such that fully 55 percent of deductible executive pay was "performance pay" between 2007 and 2010.
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

 

[Brain357]

Bill [Clinton] is overpaying bad ceos for poor performance? I had no idea.

You have no clue, do you? Perhaps you should do a bit of research before digging yourself deeper into a hole.

Come now lets hear how right now Bill Clinton is overpaying ceos for poor performance.

THANK YOU! I knew you wouldn't take a hint. Progressives are so easily led!

Economic Policy
Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.
By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012
[...]
In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

According to a new paper from Temple University's Steven Balsam published by the Economic Policy Institute, the big flaw in 162(m) was its broad exemption of "performance-based" pay. The $1 million cap only applied to traditional salaries, bonuses and grants of company stock. Stock options (that is, stock grants that take time to vest and are meant to provide a performance incentive to workers) and other performance incentives are considered performance-based pay and are deductible even in excess of $1 million. So, unsurprisingly, businesses starting paying executives more in the form of stock options, such that fully 55 percent of deductible executive pay was "performance pay" between 2007 and 2010.
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

Yes his attempt to limit ceo pay failed. He isn't on the boards of these companies giving out huge raises however. It's funny you claim he's overpaying ceos now...

 

[rightwinger]

I'll ask again since no one answered me the first time

How many of you people work at a business where the CEO makes 250 times what you do?

250 is an average

Meaning there are many CEOs who make much, much more

 

[jc456]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

 

[Brain357]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

 

[jc456]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

 

[Brain357]

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

Oh please share a link then to support your claim.

 

[pknopp]

I'll ask again since no one answered me the first time

How many of you people work at a business where the CEO makes 250 times what you do?

Best I can tell, 400 times. We merged a short while ago. The outgoing CEO of the merged company got around 800 times the compensation on his out year. I suppose that may not equal total compensation, just wages. But all the same.........

 

[Brain357]

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

New Study Confirms that Right-To-Work Laws Are Associated with Significantly Lower Wages

 

[Andylusion]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

This is how life works.

You do not get paid more, simply because your neighbor got paid more.

By what logic, do you suggest that you... without doing anything to earn an increase in pay... should get paid more, simply because you are envious of someone else who is paid more?

CEOs get paid more, because they provide more good to society.

Say I run a oil change shop. I hire you to do oil changes. How many people do you help? Assuming roughly 2 customers per hour, that's about 16 people a day that you specifically help.

Now I being CEO, open 20 oil change shops, assuming two working bays, and 7 AM to 7 PM service, that's roughly 200 people a day that have a service they want, because of me.

Which should be paid more?

And see, as I invest more of my money, back into providing more services by opening more stores, my pay will continue to increase.

You, being an employee on the other hand, have invested nothing. You risk losing nothing. The worst that can happen to you is that you lose your job and find another. The worst that can happen to me, is that the business fails, and all the money I invested will be lost forever.

That average fast food franchise owner, has put in an average of one million dollars into their store. This is their own money. Money they could lose entirely if the business fails.

What would you, being an employee lose? Nothing.

The last CEO I worked for, had saved up half a million dollars in cash, and pulled out a mortgage on both his own home, and his father's home, to buy the business. If the business failed, he would not only be out the half million dollars, but potentially lose his home, and his parents home.

Again... what would you, being an employee, lose?

So when you say CEO pay has increased, while employee pay has not increased comparatively.... yes.... good... rightly so.

 

[Brain357]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

This is how life works.

You do not get paid more, simply because your neighbor got paid more.

By what logic, do you suggest that you... without doing anything to earn an increase in pay... should get paid more, simply because you are envious of someone else who is paid more?

CEOs get paid more, because they provide more good to society.

Say I run a oil change shop. I hire you to do oil changes. How many people do you help? Assuming roughly 2 customers per hour, that's about 16 people a day that you specifically help.

Now I being CEO, open 20 oil change shops, assuming two working bays, and 7 AM to 7 PM service, that's roughly 200 people a day that have a service they want, because of me.

Which should be paid more?

And see, as I invest more of my money, back into providing more services by opening more stores, my pay will continue to increase.

You, being an employee on the other hand, have invested nothing. You risk losing nothing. The worst that can happen to you is that you lose your job and find another. The worst that can happen to me, is that the business fails, and all the money I invested will be lost forever.

That average fast food franchise owner, has put in an average of one million dollars into their store. This is their own money. Money they could lose entirely if the business fails.

What would you, being an employee lose? Nothing.

The last CEO I worked for, had saved up half a million dollars in cash, and pulled out a mortgage on both his own home, and his father's home, to buy the business. If the business failed, he would not only be out the half million dollars, but potentially lose his home, and his parents home.

Again... what would you, being an employee, lose?

So when you say CEO pay has increased, while employee pay has not increased comparatively.... yes.... good... rightly so.

Quite the fairytale.

 

[Andylusion]

I'll ask again since no one answered me the first time

How many of you people work at a business where the CEO makes 250 times what you do?

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

New Study Confirms that Right-To-Work Laws Are Associated with Significantly Lower Wages

Yeah, it would be better if they were unemployed.

 

[Andylusion]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

This is how life works.

You do not get paid more, simply because your neighbor got paid more.

By what logic, do you suggest that you... without doing anything to earn an increase in pay... should get paid more, simply because you are envious of someone else who is paid more?

CEOs get paid more, because they provide more good to society.

Say I run a oil change shop. I hire you to do oil changes. How many people do you help? Assuming roughly 2 customers per hour, that's about 16 people a day that you specifically help.

Now I being CEO, open 20 oil change shops, assuming two working bays, and 7 AM to 7 PM service, that's roughly 200 people a day that have a service they want, because of me.

Which should be paid more?

And see, as I invest more of my money, back into providing more services by opening more stores, my pay will continue to increase.

You, being an employee on the other hand, have invested nothing. You risk losing nothing. The worst that can happen to you is that you lose your job and find another. The worst that can happen to me, is that the business fails, and all the money I invested will be lost forever.

That average fast food franchise owner, has put in an average of one million dollars into their store. This is their own money. Money they could lose entirely if the business fails.

What would you, being an employee lose? Nothing.

The last CEO I worked for, had saved up half a million dollars in cash, and pulled out a mortgage on both his own home, and his father's home, to buy the business. If the business failed, he would not only be out the half million dollars, but potentially lose his home, and his parents home.

Again... what would you, being an employee, lose?

So when you say CEO pay has increased, while employee pay has not increased comparatively.... yes.... good... rightly so.

Quite the fairytale.

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

 

[Markle]

Yes his attempt to limit ceo pay failed. He isn't on the boards of these companies giving out huge raises however. It's funny you claim he's overpaying ceos now...

Comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

 

[Markle]

I'll ask again since no one answered me the first time

How many of you people work at a business where the CEO makes 250 times what you do?

250 is an average

Meaning there are many CEOs who make much, much more

Good for them!

 

[Brain357]

Yes his attempt to limit ceo pay failed. He isn't on the boards of these companies giving out huge raises however. It's funny you claim he's overpaying ceos now...

Comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

Your link doesn't blame Bill. It simply states his attempt to stop the overpaying of ceos failed. Did you read your own link?