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

[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.

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

 

[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 ?

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....

I see no evidence that wages are stagnant.

Besides, even if.... *IF* wages are stagnant.... I do not even see that as a problem.

I have never thought that I should be paid more... simply because I exist and suck air. What a ridiculous idea.

In any other situation, you would never apply such a standard to yourself. If you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and every year he charged you 10% more to do the exact same job.... it would just be a year or two before you would fire him, and mow the lawn yourself.

That same idea is true in the market. If I am just soldering some wires, I would not expect that next year, they would pay me a $1 more an hour, because I was able to do the same job for more than 12 months.

That is ridiculous. I'm really going to get paid $30 an hour in 15 years, just to solder wires together?

If you want to get paid more, you have to do something that has more value. When you provide more value, then you'll get paid more. Get a skill, or an ability, or a trade, or education in something, that produces more value.

Then you will be paid according to your higher level of productive value.

Again... this is how life works. You would never apply this strange non-value related standard, to yourself.

You would never, for example, pay the guy who changes your oil, the same as someone who builds an addition on your house.

Just because that oil change guy has been changing the oil in your cars for 20 years, doesn't mean that you are now going to pay him $200 an oil change... and pay the guy building your house $50 because he has only been working for you, for a week.

The value of the work, determines how much you are willing to pay him for it. The value to build a house is vastly greater, than the value to change your oil. And the fact the oil change guy has been doing it for 30 years, doesn't change anything.

 

[Markle]

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

Has it always been so difficult for you to read and comprehend?

As you know, the loophole created by President Bill Clinton continues today.

"Companies would still be allowed to deduct compensation for high-earning executives if it was deemed “performance” pay. So if you paid a CEO with a bonus, then you could deduct it all. And that bonus could be composed of stock options, so that the executive’s compensation rose along with the stock price.

Predictably, base salaries for CEOs and top executives froze, and bonuses took off. Overall compensation soared. If the idea was to reduce executive pay, it failed. In 1992, total compensation for CEOs at the top 350 firms was $4.9 million, according to the IPS study. By 2000, the end of the Clinton administration, it was up to $20.3 million, an increase of over 400 percent."

Bill Clinton Created This Terrible Corporate Loophole. Will Hillary Close It?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

250 is an average

You're lying.

Meaning there are many CEOs who make much, much more

Most make 4-5 times as much.

 

[the other mike]

Why America is the World’s First Poor Rich Country
So if you are earning $50k in America, it is a very different thing than earning $50k in France, Germany, or Sweden — in America, you must pay steeply for the basics of life, for basic necessities. Thus, incomes stretch much further in other countries, which enjoy a vastly higher quality of life, even though people there earn roughly the same amount, because they pay vastly less for basic necessities. Americans are rich, but only nominally — their money doesn’t buy nearly as much as their peers does, where it matters and counts most, for the basics of life.

What happens when societies don’t understand all the above? Well, a strange thing has happened to the American economy. While it’s true that things like TVs and Playstations have gotten cheaper, the costs of the basics of life have skyrocketed. All the things that really elevate people’s quality of life — healthcare, finance, education, transport, housing, and so on — have come to consume such a large share of the average household’s income that they have little left to save, invest, or spend on anything else.And what’s worse, while the basics of life have seen massive inflation, wages and incomes (not to mention savings and benefits and safety nets and opportunities) for most have stagnated. The result is an economy — and a society — that’s collapsing.

 

[basquebromance]

While GDP is going up, life expectancy is going down. "GDP" means bubkiss!

 

[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....

I see no evidence that wages are stagnant.

Besides, even if.... *IF* wages are stagnant.... I do not even see that as a problem.

I have never thought that I should be paid more... simply because I exist and suck air. What a ridiculous idea.

In any other situation, you would never apply such a standard to yourself. If you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and every year he charged you 10% more to do the exact same job.... it would just be a year or two before you would fire him, and mow the lawn yourself.

That same idea is true in the market. If I am just soldering some wires, I would not expect that next year, they would pay me a $1 more an hour, because I was able to do the same job for more than 12 months.

That is ridiculous. I'm really going to get paid $30 an hour in 15 years, just to solder wires together?

If you want to get paid more, you have to do something that has more value. When you provide more value, then you'll get paid more. Get a skill, or an ability, or a trade, or education in something, that produces more value.

Then you will be paid according to your higher level of productive value.

Again... this is how life works. You would never apply this strange non-value related standard, to yourself.

You would never, for example, pay the guy who changes your oil, the same as someone who builds an addition on your house.

Just because that oil change guy has been changing the oil in your cars for 20 years, doesn't mean that you are now going to pay him $200 an oil change... and pay the guy building your house $50 because he has only been working for you, for a week.

The value of the work, determines how much you are willing to pay him for it. The value to build a house is vastly greater, than the value to change your oil. And the fact the oil change guy has been doing it for 30 years, doesn't change anything.

Stagnant wages are one of the main reasons economic growth is so weak. But that's not a problem for you. I guess you like trillion dollar deficits too.

 

[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?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

 

[Brain357]

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

Has it always been so difficult for you to read and comprehend?

As you know, the loophole created by President Bill Clinton continues today.

"Companies would still be allowed to deduct compensation for high-earning executives if it was deemed “performance” pay. So if you paid a CEO with a bonus, then you could deduct it all. And that bonus could be composed of stock options, so that the executive’s compensation rose along with the stock price.

Predictably, base salaries for CEOs and top executives froze, and bonuses took off. Overall compensation soared. If the idea was to reduce executive pay, it failed. In 1992, total compensation for CEOs at the top 350 firms was $4.9 million, according to the IPS study. By 2000, the end of the Clinton administration, it was up to $20.3 million, an increase of over 400 percent."

Bill Clinton Created This Terrible Corporate Loophole. Will Hillary Close It?

Yes it continued to increase after Bill just like it was increasing before Bill. He failed to stop it.

 

[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.

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

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....

I see no evidence that wages are stagnant.

Besides, even if.... *IF* wages are stagnant.... I do not even see that as a problem.

I have never thought that I should be paid more... simply because I exist and suck air. What a ridiculous idea.

In any other situation, you would never apply such a standard to yourself. If you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and every year he charged you 10% more to do the exact same job.... it would just be a year or two before you would fire him, and mow the lawn yourself.

That same idea is true in the market. If I am just soldering some wires, I would not expect that next year, they would pay me a $1 more an hour, because I was able to do the same job for more than 12 months.

That is ridiculous. I'm really going to get paid $30 an hour in 15 years, just to solder wires together?

If you want to get paid more, you have to do something that has more value. When you provide more value, then you'll get paid more. Get a skill, or an ability, or a trade, or education in something, that produces more value.

Then you will be paid according to your higher level of productive value.

Again... this is how life works. You would never apply this strange non-value related standard, to yourself.

You would never, for example, pay the guy who changes your oil, the same as someone who builds an addition on your house.

Just because that oil change guy has been changing the oil in your cars for 20 years, doesn't mean that you are now going to pay him $200 an oil change... and pay the guy building your house $50 because he has only been working for you, for a week.

The value of the work, determines how much you are willing to pay him for it. The value to build a house is vastly greater, than the value to change your oil. And the fact the oil change guy has been doing it for 30 years, doesn't change anything.

Stagnant wages are one of the main reasons economic growth is so weak. But that's not a problem for you. I guess you like trillion dollar deficits too.

The solution to deficits is to lower spending.

I'm always baffled by this logic. Do you go buy a $50,000 car, then walk into your bosses office and say "Hey I have higher bills now, and I wouldn't want a deficit, so you need to pay me more!".

NO you would not.

If you opened an oil change shop, and bought a new house, would you tell the next customer "Hey I need $100 for oil changes from now on because I bought a house!".

No you would not.

Deficits is a problem of spending. Michael Jackson by many estimates, made roughly a Billion dollars over the course of his life. When he died, he was not only in debt, but on the verge of bankruptcy. The solution to deficits is cutting spending. Cut Medicare, Social Security, and all the other entitlements.

And otherwise, it does not matter how much in taxes you have, you will always end up with a deficit. Under Obama, our deficit was so high, that if you cut all spending on the military completely.... zero dollars for the military.... we would still have had a deficit. Go look it up. The numbers are public knowledge.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

 

[Brain357]

Quite the fairytale.

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

 

[Andylusion]

While GDP is going up, life expectancy is going down. "GDP" means bubkiss!

Are you seriously suggesting that GDP going down, is not a negative?

The two things are not related. Life expectancy going down is due to the rise of left-wing policies that support criminals, penalize police, increase murders and violence, and the pro-drug policies that have resulted in Heroin, and the needle littered streets of California.

Unless you can claim that the entire country being poorer and in recession, would improve any of those problems above....

 

[Andylusion]

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

 

[Brain357]

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

Did the huge corporate tax cut do us any good? We have trillion dollar deficits and 2% gdp growth.

 

[Thinker101]

Two reasons. One, they didn't have accurate numbers on how much CEOs were making in the 70s. Prior to the 70s, compensation over a certain amount, was not collected. It would similar to having a question "how much do you earn" with the answers being $30K or less. $30K to $100K, and $100K or over.

CEOs were getting more compensation than the numbers you see prior to the 70s, reflect.

Second, it is well known that a CEO has many different ways of avoiding paying taxes. They can put the money into trusts. They can have the company purchase a property in Switzerland for executives, that just happen to be on the ski slopes. They can pay for private jet services.

There are hundreds of ways to hide money from the tax man.

The irony is that your own post proves that.

Tell me... did employee wages fall in the 1970s? No they did not. Yet CEO wages went up. So where did that money from come? It was money the CEOs were already getting in perks. But because taxes were lower, they collected it in direct compensation.

This is why if you look at who pays income taxes.... the burden of taxes was more on the lower and middle class in the 1970s. From the 80s to today, the burden has shifted more and more to the upper income tier.

Why is that? Because when taxes are lower, more of the wealthy are willing to pay those taxes.

Just like when corporate taxes were high, more and more companies were investing their money overseas. Now with lower taxes, more companies are bringing those profits back to the US.

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

Did the huge corporate tax cut do us any good? We have trillion dollar deficits and 2% gdp growth.

Yes we do...thank you Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yes, Union dues

That allow you to bargain on equal footing with management

 

[Brain357]

You mean when the wealthy are making all the money they by default pay more taxes.

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

Did the huge corporate tax cut do us any good? We have trillion dollar deficits and 2% gdp growth.

Yes we do...thank you Obama.

Deficits were much lower under Obama....

 

[rightwinger]

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....

I see no evidence that wages are stagnant.

Besides, even if.... *IF* wages are stagnant.... I do not even see that as a problem.

I have never thought that I should be paid more... simply because I exist and suck air. What a ridiculous idea.

In any other situation, you would never apply such a standard to yourself. If you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and every year he charged you 10% more to do the exact same job.... it would just be a year or two before you would fire him, and mow the lawn yourself.

That same idea is true in the market. If I am just soldering some wires, I would not expect that next year, they would pay me a $1 more an hour, because I was able to do the same job for more than 12 months.

That is ridiculous. I'm really going to get paid $30 an hour in 15 years, just to solder wires together?

If you want to get paid more, you have to do something that has more value. When you provide more value, then you'll get paid more. Get a skill, or an ability, or a trade, or education in something, that produces more value.

Then you will be paid according to your higher level of productive value.

Again... this is how life works. You would never apply this strange non-value related standard, to yourself.

You would never, for example, pay the guy who changes your oil, the same as someone who builds an addition on your house.

Just because that oil change guy has been changing the oil in your cars for 20 years, doesn't mean that you are now going to pay him $200 an oil change... and pay the guy building your house $50 because he has only been working for you, for a week.

The value of the work, determines how much you are willing to pay him for it. The value to build a house is vastly greater, than the value to change your oil. And the fact the oil change guy has been doing it for 30 years, doesn't change anything.

Stagnant wages are one of the main reasons economic growth is so weak. But that's not a problem for you. I guess you like trillion dollar deficits too.

The solution to deficits is to lower spending.

I'm always baffled by this logic. Do you go buy a $50,000 car, then walk into your bosses office and say "Hey I have higher bills now, and I wouldn't want a deficit, so you need to pay me more!".

NO you would not.

If you opened an oil change shop, and bought a new house, would you tell the next customer "Hey I need $100 for oil changes from now on because I bought a house!".

No you would not.

Deficits is a problem of spending. Michael Jackson by many estimates, made roughly a Billion dollars over the course of his life. When he died, he was not only in debt, but on the verge of bankruptcy. The solution to deficits is cutting spending. Cut Medicare, Social Security, and all the other entitlements.

And otherwise, it does not matter how much in taxes you have, you will always end up with a deficit. Under Obama, our deficit was so high, that if you cut all spending on the military completely.... zero dollars for the military.... we would still have had a deficit. Go look it up. The numbers are public knowledge.

The solution to deficits is to balance taxes with spending.

Cutting taxes with no decrease in spending means deficits
Everyone wants their taxes cut, but it should come with an explanation of what services will be cut