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

[the other mike]

Bezos’ base salary is a modest $81,840, and his total compensation (which includes things like security and benefits) is $1,681,840. But his insane wealth is due to the 16% stake in Amazon he owns, which alone is worth about $125 billion today.

If he offers profit sharing to some extent, that would make a difference, but it's not his fault the system is gamed the way it is.
We did the math to calculate how much money Jeff Bezos makes in a year, month, week, day, hour, minute, and second

Bezos’ base salary is a modest $81,840, and his total compensation (which includes things like security and benefits) is $1,681,840.

Yup. And since Amazon pays $0.00 in dividends, your $10 billion claim was a HUGE lie.

We did the math to calculate how much money Jeff Bezos makes in a year, month, week, day, hour, minute, and second

That's easy. Divide $1,681,840 by the number of months, weeks, days, hours, minutes or seconds.

Wrong. The system is the lie. His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland while he sets his own salary low to avoid taxes. Now run along and do something constructive - wax your new black Mercedes or something, Huckleberry.

His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland

He didn't sell stock, there is no $9 billion income. Moron.

He is not stupid enough to take $9 billion in income

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

Don't tell Angelo, he thinks he made that in salary or dividends paid by the second/minute/hour.

And this time next year my net worth will be $161 billion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bezos’ base salary is a modest $81,840, and his total compensation (which includes things like security and benefits) is $1,681,840.

Yup. And since Amazon pays $0.00 in dividends, your $10 billion claim was a HUGE lie.

We did the math to calculate how much money Jeff Bezos makes in a year, month, week, day, hour, minute, and second

That's easy. Divide $1,681,840 by the number of months, weeks, days, hours, minutes or seconds.

Wrong. The system is the lie. His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland while he sets his own salary low to avoid taxes. Now run along and do something constructive - wax your new black Mercedes or something, Huckleberry.

His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland

He didn't sell stock, there is no $9 billion income. Moron.

He is not stupid enough to take $9 billion in income

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

Don't tell Angelo, he thinks he made that in salary or dividends paid by the second/minute/hour.

And this time next year my net worth will be $161 billion.

I'd be surprised if your net worth was as high as $161 thousand.

 

[the other mike]

I'd be surprised in your net worth was as high as $161 thousand.

 

[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?

250 is an average

Meaning there are many CEOs who make much, much more

And how many of you have worked for a CEO who makes 250 times what you do?

It's not a difficult question so why can't any of you answer it?

 

[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?

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.........

So there's one

 

[Thinker101]

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....

Yep, debt not even close to lower.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You say that, and then change the context.

You were talking about it on a employee level, and now we're talking about the national debt and growth.

Yes, the tax cuts did do us good. I personally have got boast in the employee stock purchase program, directly linked to the lower taxes, resulting in higher profits, which in turn made my investment have a good return.

So yes, it did do us good.

As for GDP, I think the ill advised trade war crap is the primary problem there, combined with bad expensive health care mandates, are putting a drag on the economy.

It also does not help that we have a clearly hostile business environment. AOC single-handedly destroyed hundreds of jobs for New York City. The hostile environment does in fact have an effect on business.

And lastly, deficits have to do with spending. Again Michael Jackson made an estimate billion dollars, and was bankrupt before he died.

Deficits have nothing to do with taxes. Because you can't change how much money taxes collect. You can only change the tax rate. People can move money, to avoid high rates.

Again, the tax burden shifted to the wealthy during the 80s to 90s, because with lower rates, more wealthy were willing to pay the lower tax. As a result more did pay, and income from taxes went up, as the tax rate went down.

If you need more proof of this, look at the tax rates in Greece, and explain how they ended up going into default? You can't. But it's really simple... even thought tax rates were high, the people avoided the taxes, resulting in implosion of the tax base.

You need to keep your spending under the tax revenue. Not try and jack up tax revenue to the level of spending.

Deficits are a spending problem. Not a tax problem.

Remember, the entire yellow jacket protest in France, was started because the government increased spending, and tried to increase taxes on the public to pay for the spending. Specifically, a tax on petrol. The public revolted over that.

Again, spending is the problem. Cut the spending. That is the solution.

 

[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.

You say that, and then change the context.

You were talking about it on a employee level, and now we're talking about the national debt and growth.

Yes, the tax cuts did do us good. I personally have got boast in the employee stock purchase program, directly linked to the lower taxes, resulting in higher profits, which in turn made my investment have a good return.

So yes, it did do us good.

As for GDP, I think the ill advised trade war crap is the primary problem there, combined with bad expensive health care mandates, are putting a drag on the economy.

It also does not help that we have a clearly hostile business environment. AOC single-handedly destroyed hundreds of jobs for New York City. The hostile environment does in fact have an effect on business.

And lastly, deficits have to do with spending. Again Michael Jackson made an estimate billion dollars, and was bankrupt before he died.

Deficits have nothing to do with taxes. Because you can't change how much money taxes collect. You can only change the tax rate. People can move money, to avoid high rates.

Again, the tax burden shifted to the wealthy during the 80s to 90s, because with lower rates, more wealthy were willing to pay the lower tax. As a result more did pay, and income from taxes went up, as the tax rate went down.

If you need more proof of this, look at the tax rates in Greece, and explain how they ended up going into default? You can't. But it's really simple... even thought tax rates were high, the people avoided the taxes, resulting in implosion of the tax base.

You need to keep your spending under the tax revenue. Not try and jack up tax revenue to the level of spending.

Deficits are a spending problem. Not a tax problem.

Remember, the entire yellow jacket protest in France, was started because the government increased spending, and tried to increase taxes on the public to pay for the spending. Specifically, a tax on petrol. The public revolted over that.

Again, spending is the problem. Cut the spending. That is the solution.

And what jobs did AOC kill exactly? Oh never mind, you babble too much. This is about CEO pay and that is clearly way too high. They have quite the scam going.

 

[Correll]

I'm blaming them for workers wages not keeping up with rises in productivity.

My concern is not some sort of relative comparison between workers and CEOs, but a desire for a better outcome for American workers, ie higher wages.

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.

I see that you are claiming a cause and effect.


NOw, support it, and you will actually have a point.

 

[Correll]

On the flip side, labor unions and workers who organized those were singularly responsible for China, India, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, etc. being the economic powers they are today, thereby causing the massive loss of American jobs. Did you expect all those American manufacturers to buckle and lose profit because of the extortion from organized labor?

And I suppose you now claim to want those jobs back? That is funny.

That was one of Trump's primary messages. Did you miss the primaries?


Why do you think that is funny?

Because the republican war on unions is why they left in the first place.

It does not make sense that decreased union membership HERE, is a reason to send jobs overseas.

Union jobs were sent to China. Hence decreased membership and stagnant wages.

1. That is the opposite of what you just claimed.


2. And still does not explain why you think it is funny.

 

[Correll]

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.

Why do you say "pretend"?

It’s a political game. They don’t care about workers, they sent the jobs away in the first place.

So, you missed that entire debate about Free Trade Ideologues vs economic self interest Populism in the primaries?



What actually happened was the Free Trade Ideologues used to rule the GOP. They got their way for a long time.


The results were not what they promised.


Eventually, far too slowly, imo, the less Ideologically and more pragmatic republicans, managed to sway the party to a new direction.


The Free Traders who sent the jobs overseas, were not pretending. They believe in Free Trade.


The Economic Nationalists who want those jobs back, are not pretending. We want those jobs back.


This should not be confusing to you.

Republicans turned good paid union workers into villains which made it ok to buy products from other countries. Previously people wanted to buy USA made.

I think you give Republicans too much credit.


When cheaper goods are made available, people buy them.


You don't want those goods bought? Then support Trump in his attempts to change trade policy.


INdeed, contact the white house and demand higher tariffs.


You do know that Trump is the ONLY one, looking to push back on this issue you pretend to care about, right?

 

[Brain357]

And I suppose you now claim to want those jobs back? That is funny.

That was one of Trump's primary messages. Did you miss the primaries?


Why do you think that is funny?

Because the republican war on unions is why they left in the first place.

It does not make sense that decreased union membership HERE, is a reason to send jobs overseas.

Union jobs were sent to China. Hence decreased membership and stagnant wages.

1. That is the opposite of what you just claimed.


2. And still does not explain why you think it is funny.

No its exactly what I claimed. Republicans started a war on unions, making it acceptable to ship jobs overseas. Shipping jobs overseas lowered union membership. Remember when repubs said things would be great without unions? Another policy in which they were very wrong.

 

[Brain357]

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

Why do you say "pretend"?

It’s a political game. They don’t care about workers, they sent the jobs away in the first place.

So, you missed that entire debate about Free Trade Ideologues vs economic self interest Populism in the primaries?



What actually happened was the Free Trade Ideologues used to rule the GOP. They got their way for a long time.


The results were not what they promised.


Eventually, far too slowly, imo, the less Ideologically and more pragmatic republicans, managed to sway the party to a new direction.


The Free Traders who sent the jobs overseas, were not pretending. They believe in Free Trade.


The Economic Nationalists who want those jobs back, are not pretending. We want those jobs back.


This should not be confusing to you.

Republicans turned good paid union workers into villains which made it ok to buy products from other countries. Previously people wanted to buy USA made.

I think you give Republicans too much credit.


When cheaper goods are made available, people buy them.


You don't want those goods bought? Then support Trump in his attempts to change trade policy.


INdeed, contact the white house and demand higher tariffs.


You do know that Trump is the ONLY one, looking to push back on this issue you pretend to care about, right?

Actually there was a time when people wanted to buy American. Then repubs ruined that with their war on Unions.

It's all quite lost now. Trump is just moving jobs from China to other Asian countries.

 

[pknopp]

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

Why do you say "pretend"?

It’s a political game. They don’t care about workers, they sent the jobs away in the first place.

So, you missed that entire debate about Free Trade Ideologues vs economic self interest Populism in the primaries?



What actually happened was the Free Trade Ideologues used to rule the GOP. They got their way for a long time.


The results were not what they promised.


Eventually, far too slowly, imo, the less Ideologically and more pragmatic republicans, managed to sway the party to a new direction.


The Free Traders who sent the jobs overseas, were not pretending. They believe in Free Trade.


The Economic Nationalists who want those jobs back, are not pretending. We want those jobs back.


This should not be confusing to you.

Republicans turned good paid union workers into villains which made it ok to buy products from other countries. Previously people wanted to buy USA made.

I think you give Republicans too much credit.


When cheaper goods are made available, people buy them.


You don't want those goods bought? Then support Trump in his attempts to change trade policy.

Moving production to Thailand does not change the problem.

 

[Correll]

I'm blaming them for workers wages not keeping up with rises in productivity.

My concern is not some sort of relative comparison between workers and CEOs, but a desire for a better outcome for American workers, ie higher wages.

Rises in productivity are the result of companies investing in automation not that the worker is "producing" more.

1. I'm not so sure about that.

2. And I don't care. Wages were rising with it, before Massive Third World immigration. Now they don't.

 

[Frannie]

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 ?

Nonsense check your math fartwad, if this were true you could not afford your cigarettes

 

[BluesLegend]

Salaries of the top 10 highest paid CEO's combined was .0008 of GDP. That's 8/10ths of 1/10th of 1%.

 

[Correll]

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

Not if the labor market is flooded with cheap foreign labor. Power will always been with the employer in such a situation.

 

[Leo123]

I worked in manufacturing in Silicon Valley for 20 years then, environmental regulations made it impossibly expensive for companies to continue. Add to that, liberal policies that made it more expensive to hire and maintain American workers. That is exactly when all those manufacturers went overseas. Basically Democrat-Liberal policies.

 

[Markle]

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 ?

There are two types of greed. Good greed and bad greed.

Bad greed is criminals.

Good greed gets us up in the morning, raring to go out and compete!