Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Here is a nice chart. Saw that one earlier when I was posting stuff for Ton to refute with his own data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 the thing you posted said CEO compensation was up 27% in 2010, as it started working its way toward pre-recession levels. which tells you their compensation fell by significantly MORE than 27% in the year or two before that. there appears to be a lot of volatility in how they are compensated, based on hitting targets, stock price, etc. showing one side of that volatility while pretending the other side doesn't exist is a disingenuous lie. Pretty f'n rich coming from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Saw that one earlier when I was posting stuff for Ton to refute with his own data. again, why try to refute an irrelevant point? i concede that CEO pay is not correlated to average worker pay. you win the point. the point is irrelevant, but if it makes you feel better, you win it. nice work. athletes make more too. musicians too. actors ... there are some real rich actors. hey, there are some politicians making a pretty nice salary too ... now, how does this in any way link to improving our current situation? even if you can take all CEO pay across the country, it would not help us out of this mess. it would be nice to see you get beyond your class warfare hangup and think about real solutions that will move the needle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Another piece of data in the weight of evidence approach that shows the tea partier movement is far less popular with mainstream Americans and significantly more attractive to the radical extremists in our society relative to OWS. If one equates New Yorkers with mainstream Americans. Myself, I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 again, why try to refute an irrelevant point? i concede that CEO pay is not correlated to average worker pay. you win the point. the point is irrelevant, but if it makes you feel better, you win it. nice work. athletes make more too. musicians too. actors ... there are some real rich actors. hey, there are some politicians making a pretty nice salary too ... now, how does this in any way link to improving our current situation? even if you can take all CEO pay across the country, it would not help us out of this mess. it would be nice to see you get beyond your class warfare hangup and think about real solutions that will move the needle. It's not a case of taking it. I don't advocate that. I simply posit that in times past the economic system worked for the benefit of an enormous number of people, pretty much everyone. It now works for a fewer number of people to a greater extent than before and a larger number of people to a much lesser extent than before. If you think it's irrelevant that the system is only working at it's highest potential for a decreasing number of people, then that's your opinion. Fine, but a quick glance at history would indicate that it isn't a healthy direction to be headed in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Does anyone really deny anymore that vs. Capitalism? Some of you might still be ashamed to admit that that's exactly what this is... but the longer this continues, the easier it is for the rest of us to see what you're really about. :drumcircle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 It's not a case of taking it. I don't advocate that. I simply posit that in times past the economic system worked for the benefit of an enormous number of people, pretty much everyone. It now works for a fewer number of people to a greater extent than before and a larger number of people to a much lesser extent than before. If you think it's irrelevant that the system is only working at it's highest potential for a decreasing number of people, then that's your opinion. Fine, but a quick glance at history would indicate that it isn't a healthy direction to be headed in. You can look at the "working class" salaries versus the salaries of "the rich" now and say there is a larger disparity than there was 40 years ago, and on the surface you would be right. My question is what is the disparity in total compensation when you also include government services in the total compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Does anyone really deny anymore that vs. Capitalism? Some of you might still be ashamed to admit that that's exactly what this is... but the longer this continues, the easier it is for the rest of us to see what you're really about. :drumcircle: That's really a silly and simplistic way to look at it. Not true at all and the right wingers on this board are falling into the same trap that left wing folks fell into when criticizing the trap party early on. Edited October 20, 2011 by Trojanmojo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 That's really a silly and simplistic way to look at it. Not true at all and the right wingers on this board are falling into the same trap that left wing folks fell into when criticizing the trap party early on. yeah, the real difference is that the tea party was pissed at washington for bailing out wall street, and the occupy folks are pissed at wall street for getting bailed out. as to which of these is a more rational response to the state of affairs, YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 yeah, the real difference is that the tea party was pissed at washington for bailing out wall street, and the occupy folks are pissed at wall street for getting bailed out. as to which of these is a more rational response to the state of affairs, YMMV. There's a lot more to both sides than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You can look at the "working class" salaries versus the salaries of "the rich" now and say there is a larger disparity than there was 40 years ago, and on the surface you would be right. My question is what is the disparity in total compensation when you also include government services in the total compensation. I'd say that it's irrelevant but I'd be very willing to review a list of said government services that you refer to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'd say that it's irrelevant but I'd be very willing to review a list of said government services that you refer to. Well as you know there is salaries and total compensation. How much has total compensation gone up? Additionally you now have fewer people that are net tax payers than ever before. How many kids in schools are given free lunch and breakfast? How much free child care is there out there? What about grants and loans for college students? My point is while the take home pay may be less proportionally than it used to be compared to "the rich", other compensation and government gifts for lack of a better word is up. I'd like to know, how much change there has been in total compensation including government gifts rather than just salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 That's really a silly and simplistic way to look at it. Not true at all and the right wingers on this board are falling into the same trap that left wing folks fell into when criticizing the trap party early on. Wut, I thought the tea partiers didn't like having a black mooslim president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Does anyone really deny anymore that vs. I really hope more people here will watch that video. That is not a few people, that message is what they all crave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Well as you know there is salaries and total compensation. How much has total compensation gone up? Additionally you now have fewer people that are net tax payers than ever before. How many kids in schools are given free lunch and breakfast? How much free child care is there out there? What about grants and loans for college students? My point is while the take home pay may be less proportionally than it used to be compared to "the rich", other compensation and government gifts for lack of a better word is up. I'd like to know, how much change there has been in total compensation including government gifts rather than just salary. I'm not a professional CPA, but here's a pretty quick summary as I'm led to understand some of the evolution of CEO compensation... Any discussion about CEO 'compensation' isn't talking about salaries, because the majority of CEOs don't make considerably more than a million dollars in pure salary thanks to 162(m) of the tax code, which disallows public companies a tax deduction for salaries in excess of a million dollars-- i.e. the company is at a disadvantage for allowing large salaries. It *does* occasionally happen, but it's a lot more rare than you'd think. When 162(m) took effect, CEOs began structuring their compensation more around performance incentives rewarded via bonuses and stock options (which 162(m) doesn't cover). Then Sarbanes-Oxley happened, and shortly after the FASB bent to the IASB and changed the accounting practices for stock options on the businesses side to be an expense. This didn't do much to limit executive compensation (companies tended to eat the expense to hire executives) but it *kililed* stock option compensation for the majority of the non-executive work force (previously, options weren't an expense and, as such, companies would spread them around more). This is a huge reason why the multiple seems so out of whack right now. When we decide to try and stop businesses from giving bonuses (the next thing after salaries and stock options) businesses will find ANOTHER way to reward executives and we'll have to scramble to stop that. Honestly, the whole concept of trying to limit executive pay should be completely rethought because the tail-chasing approach we're using is just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm not a professional CPA, but here's a pretty quick summary as I'm led to understand some of the evolution of CEO compensation... Any discussion about CEO 'compensation' isn't talking about salaries, because the majority of CEOs don't make considerably more than a million dollars in pure salary thanks to 162(m) of the tax code, which disallows public companies a tax deduction for salaries in excess of a million dollars-- i.e. the company is at a disadvantage for allowing large salaries. It *does* occasionally happen, but it's a lot more rare than you'd think. When 162(m) took effect, CEOs began structuring their compensation more around performance incentives rewarded via bonuses and stock options (which 162(m) doesn't cover). Then Sarbanes-Oxley happened, and shortly after the FASB bent to the IASB and changed the accounting practices for stock options on the businesses side to be an expense. This didn't do much to limit executive compensation (companies tended to eat the expense to hire executives) but it *kililed* stock option compensation for the majority of the non-executive work force (previously, options weren't an expense and, as such, companies would spread them around more). This is a huge reason why the multiple seems so out of whack right now. When we decide to try and stop businesses from giving bonuses (the next thing after salaries and stock options) businesses will find ANOTHER way to reward executives and we'll have to scramble to stop that. Honestly, the whole concept of trying to limit executive pay should be completely rethought because the tail-chasing approach we're using is just silly. So in an attempt to appease the envious and bring down high compensation, they inadvertently screwed the envious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Well as you know there is salaries and total compensation. How much has total compensation gone up? Additionally you now have fewer people that are net tax payers than ever before. How many kids in schools are given free lunch and breakfast? How much free child care is there out there? What about grants and loans for college students? My point is while the take home pay may be less proportionally than it used to be compared to "the rich", other compensation and government gifts for lack of a better word is up. I'd like to know, how much change there has been in total compensation including government gifts rather than just salary. Let me list your free gifts from the government: Some people don't pay tax (actually not true since everyone working pays SS tax but lets allow this canard to pass) Free child care Grants and loans for college students Hmmmm, not a very long list. Let's take a look at them one by one. Has it ever struck you that people who don't pay tax may not be able to because they aren't paid enough, perhaps as a result of one or more pay cuts enforced by their employer or a result of losing their job and taking one at half the wage?? I am not convinced that this is something people who do get paid enough to pay tax should aspire to. Doesn't free child care remove one excuse for those no-good bone idle shiftless bums hanging off the welfare tit not working? You should be celebrating that these welfare parasites (wholly responsible for the entire US deficit) are working for their $7.50 / hour, shouldn't you? Last I checked, loans are repayable. Grants are indeed available only to those of limited means but I would have thought those could be seen as an investment, given the lack of an educated workforce in many places. So, is that it? Is that the whole list of freebies that should be counted as part of the compensation of every median household? Because it was median household income that was under discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Whoops, I missed the free lunch and breakfast for children. We definitely need to add that to the compensation total. Freeloading little bastards. Better yet, we should make it a universal benefit so that it isn't only the leech-like poor whose children get free breakfast. It's not fair that only the poor get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 It's not a case of taking it. I don't advocate that. I simply posit that in times past the economic system worked for the benefit of an enormous number of people, pretty much everyone. It now works for a fewer number of people to a greater extent than before and a larger number of people to a much lesser extent than before. If you think it's irrelevant that the system is only working at it's highest potential for a decreasing number of people, then that's your opinion. Fine, but a quick glance at history would indicate that it isn't a healthy direction to be headed in. focusing specifically on CEO vs. average worker pay is not the metric to determine whether the system is working or not. the 4% rise you noted could indeed be monumentally huge in light of a declining economic environment. why is the environment declining? it certainly is not because CEOs are not paying people more and more and more ... even if they are getting more. irrelevant. companies are continually reevaluating salary curves and approaches in light of competition and in light of our regional/global economy. this is so they can position themselves to compete and keep costs under control. again, if you don't pay talented people, they can leave and your company will suffer. it is actually a nice check and balance system. moving on from this, i'm not sure what you refer to when you say "the system" then. Is this capitalism? is it some nameless, faceless villian that wants to keep people down? i'd love to know what it is and then i'd love to know what you would recommend to improve it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Which Huddler Lib is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 moving on from this, i'm not sure what you refer to when you say "the system" Economic system, as is stated in the first paragraph. You support what is in place as of now. I get it. Enjoy. I hope you still enjoy it in twenty years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 i'd love to know what it is and then i'd love to know what you would recommend to improve it ... I guess, if numbers 1 through 5 were adopted (basically trying to make politicians less of an organized crime syndicate) I couldn't give a frack less what CEOs made. I'm not saying it is the leading reason for anything, but more of a symptom of the corruption in Washington instead of it being the main cause of the problem. The majority of Americans are being had because the elite wealthy and corporations are buying and selling our politicians to the point that very few really represent their constituency in more than talk. And our two party system (as in all other party's are currently a joke) doesn't give the populace a chance to vote out the politicians as both sides of the aisle are 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag, mainly known for saying what they think people want to hear while doing their best to line their pockets while selling out the general populace. So I'm not really trying to tell business what they can pay there CEOs, but I'm pretty sure if corporations didn't enjoy so many benefits and the unequaled access and influence they have on politicians, the market for pay wouldn't be so skewed and middle America would be enjoying more growth than they have in the previous few decades. If politicians didn't need so much corporate money to run for re-election, we might actually get people who would make more decisions for the betterment of the country as their primary concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Which Huddler Lib is this? Who is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 focusing specifically on CEO vs. average worker pay is not the metric to determine whether the system is working or not. You're right about that, it isn't the be all and end all. It is a symptom. What metric should I focus on to be persuaded that all is well and working exactly as it should, as you claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Found this interesting and mostly relevant to the topic at hand. What percent are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.