CEO pay is 380 times average worker's

[IlarMeilyr]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

Here is really the only thing you need to know. How it happened doesn't really matter but it happened and it is not good for America. If you look at the chart, you will see that since the late 60's, the upper 10% of income earners have seen their income increase substantially. At the bottom, those with incomes in the lower 50% have seen hardly any growth at all. So the question is did this happen because those with larger incomes worked harder than those with lower incomes, or did it happen in great part because those at the top were able to find a way to keep wages low for those in the lower 50% in order to help create more wealth for themselves?

Now, if you truly believe that it's because those at the top have worked harder, then there really is nothing to discuss because we just believe two completely different things. I'm not saying those at the top haven't worked hard, but believing the reason those at the bottom have not benefited in any way from the nearly doubling of productivity among US workers in that time frame is because they were just too lazy and didn't work hard enough is a real fantasy, but is fact, most of these people are actually having to work much harder and much longer hours today just to get close to what the same people were earning 40 years ago. Remember that 40 years ago, many more wives stayed home and the husband was the sole money earner, yet households did almost as well back then as they do today with both husband and wife working.

However it has happened, we have allowed those at the very top to see their income increase dramatically, which has allowed their real wealth to just explode. The numbers in this chart only look at income. If we look at wealth, it really becomes scary what has happened.

And what claim of right do you have to "do" anything about that discrepancy in income?

 

[Redfish]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

Here is really the only thing you need to know. How it happened doesn't really matter but it happened and it is not good for America. If you look at the chart, you will see that since the late 60's, the upper 10% of income earners have seen their income increase substantially. At the bottom, those with incomes in the lower 50% have seen hardly any growth at all. So the question is did this happen because those with larger incomes worked harder than those with lower incomes, or did it happen in great part because those at the top were able to find a way to keep wages low for those in the lower 50% in order to help create more wealth for themselves?

Now, if you truly believe that it's because those at the top have worked harder, then there really is nothing to discuss because we just believe two completely different things. I'm not saying those at the top haven't worked hard, but believing the reason those at the bottom have not benefited in any way from the nearly doubling of productivity among US workers in that time frame is because they were just too lazy and didn't work hard enough is a real fantasy, but is fact, most of these people are actually having to work much harder and much longer hours today just to get close to what the same people were earning 40 years ago. Remember that 40 years ago, many more wives stayed home and the husband was the sole money earner, yet households did almost as well back then as they do today with both husband and wife working.

However it has happened, we have allowed those at the very top to see their income increase dramatically, which has allowed their real wealth to just explode. The numbers in this chart only look at income. If we look at wealth, it really becomes scary what has happened.

OK, lets assume that your chart and your analysis of it is correct. What specifically do you want to do about it?
or do you just want to bitch about it and whine because some people have more than you do?

 

[Jarhead]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

Here is really the only thing you need to know. How it happened doesn't really matter but it happened and it is not good for America. If you look at the chart, you will see that since the late 60's, the upper 10% of income earners have seen their income increase substantially. At the bottom, those with incomes in the lower 50% have seen hardly any growth at all. So the question is did this happen because those with larger incomes worked harder than those with lower incomes, or did it happen in great part because those at the top were able to find a way to keep wages low for those in the lower 50% in order to help create more wealth for themselves?

Now, if you truly believe that it's because those at the top have worked harder, then there really is nothing to discuss because we just believe two completely different things. I'm not saying those at the top haven't worked hard, but believing the reason those at the bottom have not benefited in any way from the nearly doubling of productivity among US workers in that time frame is because they were just too lazy and didn't work hard enough is a real fantasy, but is fact, most of these people are actually having to work much harder and much longer hours today just to get close to what the same people were earning 40 years ago. Remember that 40 years ago, many more wives stayed home and the husband was the sole money earner, yet households did almost as well back then as they do today with both husband and wife working.

However it has happened, we have allowed those at the very top to see their income increase dramatically, which has allowed their real wealth to just explode. The numbers in this chart only look at income. If we look at wealth, it really becomes scary what has happened.

Your chart spans a half a century. During that half a century, those at "the top" have turned over at least once, if not twice...and many of them were at the bottom a half century earlier.

Here is the bottom line....

Work at the bottom requires nothing but basic training and getting to work on time. With technology, many of those bottom jobs are even easier to accomplish than they used to be.

Technology, however, does not help those at the top. Those positons still require innovation in thinking, creativity, major decision making, forecasting ability, etc.

Salaries at the bottom have stagnated because the requirement for perfection has been eliminated.

Example....

20 years ago, a lathe turner would turn a 12 foot piece of copper stock manually...having to use his or her expertise to ensure quality of the product.

Now?

Machine shop owners invested in CNC machines...computerized lathes.....

And the lathe turner?

All he does in insert the stock and hit "on".....

So why should todays lather turner be better compensated?

 

[Brain357]

The problem is we have execs making huge amounts of money while paying workers so little they are collecting welfare. So the government and spending continues to grow. Too much spending is a problem.

Not once in my life have I heard someone complain about the fact that Peyton Manning makes $43 million/year. He only works for 6 months! Doesn't he make 400 times+ more than the average stadium employee?

Does Peyton really work 400 times harder than the hot dog guy who busts his ass up and down the stairs for minimum wage pay?

Why does this argument only apply to CEOs, who on average work 12 months out of the year, and do a heck of a lot more than throw a stupid football around for entertainment purposes!!?


.

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

 

[Jarhead]

The problem is we have execs making huge amounts of money while paying workers so little they are collecting welfare. So the government and spending continues to grow. Too much spending is a problem.

Not once in my life have I heard someone complain about the fact that Peyton Manning makes $43 million/year. He only works for 6 months! Doesn't he make 400 times+ more than the average stadium employee?

Does Peyton really work 400 times harder than the hot dog guy who busts his ass up and down the stairs for minimum wage pay?

Why does this argument only apply to CEOs, who on average work 12 months out of the year, and do a heck of a lot more than throw a stupid football around for entertainment purposes!!?


.

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

So you think those that decide to hire that CEO at that salary know less about what they are doing than you or I do?

Sure, sometimes a mistake is made......like Mark Sanchez of the Jets.....but on the most part, I believe the board of companies know what they are doing.

You think you know better than they do?

 

[KevinWestern]

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

 

[boedicca]

Lets say a company has 100,000 minimum wage 40 hour a week employees...

The CEO make 4 Million a year.

The federal government passes a law that increases minimum wage 5 an hour.

that is an increase in payroll of 500K an hour (not including tax matching)

That is an increase in payroll of 20 million a week......100 million a year.

Exactly how will decreasing the CEO's salary to 250K a year help THAT increase in operating costs?

Where will the money come from?

The consumer.

So the consumer gets an increase of 200 a week in salary but his cost of living goes up 200 a week.

Sound like a plan to you?

I call shenanigans. Your plan requires the moonbats to understand Math.

Math is HARD!

 

[rdean]

Jobs in China don't help Americans on food stamps.

Indeed, If Apple brought the jobs back to the US they would employ over 720,000 people.

Apple employs... 20,000 overseas...Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...d-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

NAFTA was powerful. Manufacturing jobs are leaving now. The former manufacturers are crowding in other low paying jobs such as Marts and Fast foods. The average worker in fast food today is 32 if I remember correctly.

The Anti-Outsourcing bill of 2010 failed and it shouldn't have. It was money at play and most people have never heard of it.

Some said we don't need manufacturing in America, "It's low skill work". Manufacturing jobs have an office full of college educated workers. We need Industry.

It's the profit junkies that say we don't need Industry. Ironically it's the people without profit that agree with them.

I know. Isn't that hilarious?

Republicans desperately wanted to put a "pioneer of outsourcing" into the White House. Worse, Mitt explained he wanted to cut teachers here and bring in immigrants with degrees and help them start businesses. He said we need the "skilled" labor.

Red States put out huge ad campaigns trying to entice skilled workers from Blue States. And business wants to bring in skilled workers from overseas. Unfortunately, the GOP Base's "anti science, anti technology and anti education" policies have worked against them. Business and their leadership both feel the Republican base is a lost cause and those people are simply incapable of "learning". When they scream, "We don't want immigrants taking our jobs", they are talking about ditch digging and picking food because they aren't really qualified to compete against the "skilled".

 

[Redfish]

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Still waiting for any of you on the left to tell us what you want done about CEO pay. What specifically do you want done and who do you want to do it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

People need to stop worrying about what other people earn and concentrate on the own successes and failures.

 

[Redfish]

Indeed, If Apple brought the jobs back to the US they would employ over 720,000 people.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...d-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

NAFTA was powerful. Manufacturing jobs are leaving now. The former manufacturers are crowding in other low paying jobs such as Marts and Fast foods. The average worker in fast food today is 32 if I remember correctly.

The Anti-Outsourcing bill of 2010 failed and it shouldn't have. It was money at play and most people have never heard of it.

Some said we don't need manufacturing in America, "It's low skill work". Manufacturing jobs have an office full of college educated workers. We need Industry.

It's the profit junkies that say we don't need Industry. Ironically it's the people without profit that agree with them.

I know. Isn't that hilarious?

Republicans desperately wanted to put a "pioneer of outsourcing" into the White House. Worse, Mitt explained he wanted to cut teachers here and bring in immigrants with degrees and help them start businesses. He said we need the "skilled" labor.

Red States put out huge ad campaigns trying to entice skilled workers from Blue States. And business wants to bring in skilled workers from overseas. Unfortunately, the GOP Base's "anti science, anti technology and anti education" policies have worked against them. Business and their leadership both feel the Republican base is a lost cause and those people are simply incapable of "learning". When they scream, "We don't want immigrants taking our jobs", they are talking about ditch digging and picking food because they aren't really qualified to compete against the "skilled".

you never cease to amaze with the abject stupidity of your posts. Nothing you said is true. Not a sigle word of it.

Does kos have eletrodes implanted in your tiny brain telling you what stupid talking points to vomit out next?

 

[Brain357]

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Yes some CEOs make over 1000x
CEO vs. worker pay: 10 companies with the biggest gaps - McDonald's - CSMonitor.com

Is manning deciding how much to pay the guy selling hot dogs? Will he play till he is 60?

You see the ceo is deciding to make tons of money while paying employees very little. It's a big difference. Walmart pays so little employes are collecting welfare. So the government grows and we all pay for this corporate welfare.

 

[Redfish]

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Yes some CEOs make over 1000x
CEO vs. worker pay: 10 companies with the biggest gaps - McDonald's - CSMonitor.com

Is manning deciding how much to pay the guy selling hot dogs? Will he play till he is 60?

You see the ceo is deciding to make tons of money while paying employees very little. It's a big difference. Walmart pays so little employes are collecting welfare. So the government grows and we all pay for this corporate welfare.

what do you want done about it and who do you want to do it? Answer, or STFU about it.

 

[Brain357]

I wouldn't pay somebody that much to play football. But everyone can see how well he plays. I'm not so sure every ceo is so valuable to the team.

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Still waiting for any of you on the left to tell us what you want done about CEO pay. What specifically do you want done and who do you want to do it?

I would change corporate taxes. If a company pays good wages and benefits and keeps the workforce here they can pay zero taxes. If a company pays little and sends jobs overseas then they pay maximum taxes.

 

[Brain357]

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Yes some CEOs make over 1000x
CEO vs. worker pay: 10 companies with the biggest gaps - McDonald's - CSMonitor.com

Is manning deciding how much to pay the guy selling hot dogs? Will he play till he is 60?

You see the ceo is deciding to make tons of money while paying employees very little. It's a big difference. Walmart pays so little employes are collecting welfare. So the government grows and we all pay for this corporate welfare.

what do you want done about it and who do you want to do it? Answer, or STFU about it.

You must love big government and corporate welfare.

 

[Redfish]

Every CEO doesn't make 400 times more than his/her average employee, and every sports star who makes tens of millions of dollars isn't as valuable as Peyton. The discussion goes both ways.

Still waiting for any of you on the left to tell us what you want done about CEO pay. What specifically do you want done and who do you want to do it?

I would change corporate taxes. If a company pays good wages and benefits and keeps the workforce here they can pay zero taxes. If a company pays little and sends jobs overseas then they pay maximum taxes.

Ok, good ideas, how does that reduce CEO pay? How do you define "good wages" ? Is a good wage for a wal mart clerk the same as a good wage for a shipyard welder? Who decides if a wage is "good" ?

 

[Redfish]

Yes some CEOs make over 1000x
CEO vs. worker pay: 10 companies with the biggest gaps - McDonald's - CSMonitor.com

Is manning deciding how much to pay the guy selling hot dogs? Will he play till he is 60?

You see the ceo is deciding to make tons of money while paying employees very little. It's a big difference. Walmart pays so little employes are collecting welfare. So the government grows and we all pay for this corporate welfare.

what do you want done about it and who do you want to do it? Answer, or STFU about it.

You must love big government and corporate welfare.

hate big government. What you fools call corporate welfare is the US tax code. The tax code was written by congress and the dem party has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years------------so the dems that you love so much are responsible for the corporate welfare that you hate so much.

 

[Brain357]

Still waiting for any of you on the left to tell us what you want done about CEO pay. What specifically do you want done and who do you want to do it?

I would change corporate taxes. If a company pays good wages and benefits and keeps the workforce here they can pay zero taxes. If a company pays little and sends jobs overseas then they pay maximum taxes.

Ok, good ideas, how does that reduce CEO pay? How do you define "good wages" ? Is a good wage for a wal mart clerk the same as a good wage for a shipyard welder? Who decides if a wage is "good" ?

It would raise up the bottom. I could care less what CEOs make if they take care of employees. Them getting rich off corporate welfare is the problem. The min wage would be one that keeps employees off welfare, it would go up from there.

 

[Redfish]

another question for the libs--------how does CEO pay hurt the workers, the consumers, or the country? Do CEOs pay income taxes? Does 30-50% of their income go to the government?

Why is this such a big deal to you libs? Jealousy? envy?

 

[Redfish]

I would change corporate taxes. If a company pays good wages and benefits and keeps the workforce here they can pay zero taxes. If a company pays little and sends jobs overseas then they pay maximum taxes.

Ok, good ideas, how does that reduce CEO pay? How do you define "good wages" ? Is a good wage for a wal mart clerk the same as a good wage for a shipyard welder? Who decides if a wage is "good" ?

It would raise up the bottom. I could care less what CEOs make if they take care of employees. Them getting rich off corporate welfare is the problem. The min wage would be one that keeps employees off welfare, it would go up from there.

OK, lets say that walmart gives all employees a 20% raise. What does that do to walmart prices and their annual sales? answer: prices will go up, sales will go down, employees will be laid off, stores will close------------but you fricken libs will be happy, before they got laid off they were making a "living wage".

I cannot believe the ignorance displayed by the left on this topic.