• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

The sample is surveyed. Responses are collected. Individuals are classified by category based on response. Everything is aggregated. Where do you see any "technique" to add or modify anything?


Question from poll worker: So you’re an airline pilot and were laid off. Why don’t you have a job now?

Respondent Answers: Because there aren’t any jobs available in my their line of work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: So how come you haven’t applied for a job in the last four weeks?

Respondent Answers: They haven’t been able to find work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I don’t have any skills or training.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: Well since you were laid off and you say you really need the money, and you applied to all of these places, why do you think they didn’t hire you?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m to old.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m discriminated upon.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



In all of the above examples, the respondent is actually unemployed, willing and able to work and all five of them can be classed (without their knowledge) as a Discouraged Worker. By definition they are no longer unemployed and they are removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.

The Unemployment rate goes down and the Government pats itself on the back.


Just to be clear... the following is a direct Cut & Paste from the US Department of Labor > Bureau of Labor Statistics > Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey > How the Government Measures Unemployment [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]


Who is not in the labor force? [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]


Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:

• They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
• They had previously been unable to find work.
• They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
• Employers think they are too young or too old, or
• They face some other type of discrimination.
 
No, 68% move at the second quintile or past it. Only 48% remain in the same quintile. How did you manage to confuse the chart and a basic explanation?
I'm not confusing it at all. You're just repeatedly not reading what I'm writing and/or fail to understand the chart.

43% of adults in 1st quintile: Parents were also in 1st quintile (max household income $20k)
25% of adults in 2nd quintile: Parents were in 1st quintile (max household income ($40k)
68% of adults in either 1st or 2nd quintile: Parents were in 1st quintile
Across the board, 30.8% of all adults stay in the same quintile as their parents.

That does NOT suggest a huge amount of mobility from the bottom quintile, and this is half the reason why we say that the top and bottom quintiles are sticky.

Yet again: If we had perfect intergenerational economic mobility (which, to be clear, no one expects to actually happen), then those numbers would be:
20% stay in 1st quintile
20% get to 2nd quintile
20% of all adults would stay in the same quintile as their parents

Get it...?


Also, I don't understand why you look up these charts without taking the time to understand what it represents.... Unit Labour Cost are indexed to 2009 changes. Q1 2009 = 100, while Q3 2014 = 103.8. This means that Unit Labour Cost has grown 3.8% within the past 6 years.
Unfortunately, you're the one misreading the chart. You're confusing the FRED's scale index with the CPIX.

"Index = 2009" doesn't mean it is indexed to 2009 dollars. In fact, the y-axis isn't in dollars at all. It's using 2009 as a REFERENCE POINT for the y-axis scale, which is why you can change it in the FRED graph generator settings. The BLS uses ULC as "an indicator of inflationary pressure on producers." (To index by inflation, you'd have to apply a transformation.)

Meanwhile, as I linked: The formula used by the BLS uses nominal dollars, rather than real dollars:

ULC = (C / H) / (O / H)

C = labor compensation (in nominal dollars)
RC = labor compensation (in real dollars... notice how RC is absent from the formula?)
H = hours
O = output

The formula isn't indexed to CPI. The FRED graph isn't either. Hence the charts showing that ULC, when adjusted for CPI, goes down rather than up.

That's why I changed the FRED graph to annual percentage change.


....a rise in labour costs higher than the rise in labour productivity may be a threat to an economy's cost competitiveness, in other words, too much inflation.
And yet, there are no indications that wages are significantly beating inflation. Again, there was the income chart I posted previously (which you seem to have ignored). We also have the percentage of change in private sector wages, again compared to percentage changes in CPIX:

fredgraph.png



And of course we have research:
A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class

On the chart on that page, you should see for 2000 to 2012:
• Inflation rose 33.3%
• Productivity rose 24.9%
• Compensation increased 10.4%

More:
For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center
Between 2000 and 2012, American wages grew
The Biggest Economic
Wage stagnation: The big freeze | The Economist

And productivity beating wages?
America Workers Are More Productive, But Their Wages Are Flat, And In Some Cases, Lower
Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study
Productivity Far Outpaces U.S. Factory Wages
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0


Thus I repeat: Since the only thing you have in your favor is one graph you apparently don't understand, and since there is a preponderance of data and analysis to the contrary, I'm not finding your version terribly persuasive.
 
Considering that you spew more inaccuracies than it takes for my 5000 character limit to debunk, I'll keep this limited the most inaccurate post.

Are they? A few funds really smack it out of the park with 11-15% returns, but most 401(k) long-term returns are apparently in the 5-6% range. Freedom!

No, they haven't. You just made that up. the American Funds Growth Fund of America and the Fidelity Contrafund (two funds that are in most 401k) have made returns from 14.3% - 16.7%. on a long term average. So either you are looking at some really bad funds or you don't know what you are talking about. I should also take this time to point out that I'm a CFA. You can't just make up some things regarding finance and expect to get away with it.

I'd be willing to change my mind if you posted actual statistics that show 401(k) recipients as better off than pension recipients...

Huh? 401Ks are financial instruments. You only determine their effectiveness and performance by looking at returns. Of which case, we can look at the data. As I have said before, The American Growth Fund of America has consistently outperformed its benchmark. The net expense ratio is less than 1% with the fund outperforming the S&P consistently. The same is true with the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth funds and many other funds. These funds have consistently out performed their benchmarks.

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_06-13.No387.K-DBs.pdf

lol, if you say so

snip

You're not reading any of the information you provide me. None of those sources discuss CEO compensation in regards to company performance. Two of them discuss compensation relative to stock performance, while the other two reference a study I've already mentioned.

I assume you're referring to Jeff Smisek in 2012? His pay shrank by 41%... to $7.9 million. In a year when United Airlines lost $723 million. His base pay (just shy of $1 million) didn't change.

You don't seem to understand this very much. Your base pay isn't the pay that is determined by performance. That is why it is considered your 'base pay.' Your base salary is only 20% or less of your overall compensation as CEO. Everything else is based on performance.

United also cut 1300 jobs early in 2012, and another 600 in January 2013...

I thought you were very clueless before, but somehow you've managed to surprise me.

1) The entire airline industry severely suffered from the financial crisis. The recession severely affected the amount of travel consumers did, as well as their method of travel. Airline companies weren't losing money because they were ran ineffectively. They were losing money because there was a sluggish demand for airline trips. United Continental Holdings wasn't the only company suffering, the global airline industry is in a bear market.

2) Jeff Smisek was given a paid his merger-related performance metrics, which was scheduled to be paid in 2012 - 2014, not for any performance regarding running an effective company. Whatever he received in those years was in addition to whatever he earned (or did not earn) in those particular years.

3) What do the layoffs that occurred in 2012 have to do with the bonuses he acquired 2 years prior?

4) He wasn't fired because he prevented the company from going under in 2010 with a successful merger, hence the bonuses.

5) Jeff Smisek didn't receive a bonus... At all.

6) Jeff Smisek compensation was linked directly to his performance.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100517/000104746913004972/a2214585zdef14a.htm

In 2010, with the closing of the United Continental Merge (which saved United from bankruptcy), Smisek his income grew 237% in 2011, most of which was the growth in Annual Incentive Rewards. Very little regarding Smisek income changed between 2011 - 2012. The only thing that really changed was his stock rewards. The stock awards was benchmarked on company performance regarding company solvency and stability. The company grew in overall sales, but failed to retain cost. Pre-tax income performance targets for 2012 under the AIP were threshold—$300 million, target—$1.015 billion, and stretch—$1.5 billion. Pre-tax earnings was -$724 million, therefore, Smisek and other executives didn't meet their goal. As a result, Smiek was only eligible for 29% of his stock rewards.

Overall, Smisek was paid well when he saved the company from going under. He wasn't paid as well when he failed to retain cost, which is a function of pre-tax margins. That is what CEO performance is. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
I'm not confusing it at all. You're just repeatedly not reading what I'm writing and/or fail to understand the chart.

43% of adults in 1st quintile: Parents were also in 1st quintile (max household income $20k)
25% of adults in 2nd quintile: Parents were in 1st quintile (max household income ($40k)
68% of adults in either 1st or 2nd quintile: Parents were in 1st quintile
Across the board, 30.8% of all adults stay in the same quintile as their parents.

That does NOT suggest a huge amount of mobility from the bottom quintile, and this is half the reason why we say that the top and bottom quintiles are sticky.

Yet again: If we had perfect intergenerational economic mobility (which, to be clear, no one expects to actually happen), then those numbers would be:
20% stay in 1st quintile
20% get to 2nd quintile
20% of all adults would stay in the same quintile as their parents

Get it...?

48% of adults from the bottom have their children state within the same quintile.
27% of adults from the bottom have their children move up to the 2nd bottom quintile.
17% of adults from the bottom have their children move up to the middle quintile

This does suggest income mobility, aside from the other data I have presented.


Unfortunately, you're the one misreading the chart. You're confusing the FRED's scale index with the CPIX.

"Index = 2009" doesn't mean it is indexed to 2009 dollars. In fact, the y-axis isn't in dollars at all. It's using 2009 as a REFERENCE POINT for the y-axis scale, which is why you can change it in the FRED graph generator settings. The BLS uses ULC as "an indicator of inflationary pressure on producers." (To index by inflation, you'd have to apply a transformation.)

Your comprehension is very bad.

I didn't say 2009 = 100 meant dollars. I said they were index to 2009 changes. Any changes in Unit Labour Cost starts from 2009. Since 2009, Unit Labor Cost increased 3.9%. And as you said, the reason why the BLS use ULC is the reason why ULC isn't adjusted for inflation. It already measures inflation.

Meanwhile, as I linked: The formula used by the BLS uses nominal dollars, rather than real dollars:

It's supposed to be in nominal dollars. There is no formula for measuring real unit labour cost, because Unit Labour Cost already tracks inflation. Unit Labour Cost aren't index to adjust for inflation. They're index to keep inflation in perspective. This is why there is a high correlation between ULC and inflation.

And yet, there are no indications that wages are significantly beating inflation. Again, there was the income chart I posted previously (which you seem to have ignored). We also have the percentage of change in private sector wages, again compared to percentage changes in CPIX:

Wages don't have to significantly beat inflation to outpace productivity. That is exactly what wages are doing for the past 6 years.

Thus I repeat: Since the only thing you have in your favor is one graph you apparently don't understand, and since there is a preponderance of data and analysis to the contrary, I'm not finding your version terribly persuasive.

If you want to go on a Googling rampage, go right ahead. Nothing you research refutes this datapoint, because its so basic that most economist understand this. You don't have to find it persuasive, but those are the facts. The facts are, Unit Labor Cost have increased steadily for 6 years. This means wages have outpaced productivity for the past 6 years. When unit labour cost increase, wages outpace productivity. That's not debatable.
 
Last edited:
While that can happen in some agencies...those that are mostly policy and put out some statistics, I have never seen nor heard of it happening with any dedicated statistical agency such as Census, BEA, BLS, NASS, etc.

Why didn't you mention the IRS? the EPA? the USGCRP? or The DOJ?


All government workers are human. A large majority of government workers are Democrats. A certain percentage of those workers are die hard Obama supporters. You can't tell me that there isn't any fudging of the rules at a micro level that doesn't have a cumulative effect on the output of dedicated statistical agencies such as Census, BEA, BLS, NASS, etc. I find your naivety overwhelming. If that's what you really believe, then you are either looking through rose colored glasses or turning a blind eye to reality. In either case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. :roll:

There is no incentive.
Really. Oh my.
 
Yes & No… While, like you point out, the UE rate is Unemployed/labor force and the labor force participation rate is Labor force / population. But it doesn’t end there. As the author pointed out, the population is being decreased because, as the chart above demonstrates, more and more people are now being classified as Discouraged Workers.
Discouraged workers are going down. The author was clearly claiming the government changed the labor force participation rate and that was used to calculate the number of unemployed. By saying only jobs and population are hard numbers, he is stating that the number of unemployed is derived from the participation rate.

And, as you know, those who have no job and are classed as marginally attached or Discouraged Workers—are by definition — counted as “not in the labor force”.
Of course. But that cannot be manipulated as the author implied...it's all based on responses.


I’ll start with a question: If, during the survey call, an unemployed worker states that he hasn’t looked for a job in the last 4 weeks because he believes that there is no job available to them in their line of work, where should this person be placed?
Not in the Labor Force. Any further sub-classification would depend on when he last looked for work, desire for work, and availability for work.

Previously, this person would would be classified as unemployed.
That is not quite true. Before 1967 it might have been true, depending. The definition of Unemployed was:
all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
Note the caveat that it was meant to apply to situations where the say, the mine shut down and all the men are out of work. Discrimination was specifically not included.
From 1967-1993, the definition was
comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Nothing remotely like discouraged would be in that definition. In 1994 the part "were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days" was removed, but no other changes to the definition of unemployed were made.


While still unemployed and in need of work,
But they're not unemployed, by definition. And whether or not they need a job is not known...it's irrelevant.

He (along with everyone else considered Not In The Labor Force) is then removed from the list of Unemployed.
Ther's no list. The count is made and aggregated.
In effect, he vanishes from the calculation and the Unemployment great drops by one person.
That's also true for anyone who stops looking for work for any reason. Why are you considering the Discouraged "still unemployed?" They have no more effect on the labor market than any other person Not in the Labor Force.
 
...
That's also true for anyone who stops looking for work for any reason. Why are you considering the Discouraged "still unemployed?" They have no more effect on the labor market than any other person Not in the Labor Force.

Some people pretend to believe that not working = unemployed.

When we all know that someone is only considered unemployed if they are looking for work but don't have a job.

That way they can claim that our unemployment rates is 40%, and thus make the economy look far worse off than it is. It's intellectual dishonesty, nothing more and nothing less.
 
Question from poll worker: So you’re an airline pilot and were laid off. Why don’t you have a job now?

Respondent Answers: Because there aren’t any jobs available in my their line of work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: So how come you haven’t applied for a job in the last four weeks?

Respondent Answers: They haven’t been able to find work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I don’t have any skills or training.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: Well since you were laid off and you say you really need the money, and you applied to all of these places, why do you think they didn’t hire you?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m to old.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m discriminated upon.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.
None of those are valid questions, and even if they were, none of the responses are enough to classify someone as Discouraged.
Let's assume we've already established the respondent does not own a business or farm, is not temporarily absent from a job, did not work at all during the reference week and is not on temporary layoff (expecting to be recalled within 6 months):
"Have you been doing anything to find work during the last four weeks?" If the answer is "no" or "yes" but the job search method is passive (looked at want ads, picked up an application) then the person is not unemployed (which requires active job search)
"Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"
"What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS?"
"Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?"
"Did you actually WORK at a job or business during the last 12 months?" Follow up if yes: "Did do any of this work during the last 4 weeks?" and "Since you LEFT that job or business have you looked for work?
"Last Week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?"
IF the answers show the person wants a job, could have started a job if offered, looked for work in the last 12 months and gives the reason as
  • Believes no work available in line of work or area
  • Couldn't find any work
  • Lacks necessary schooling, training, skills or experience
  • Employers think too young or too old
  • Other types of discrimination
THEN he would be classified as Discouraged. But note that none of that actually matters....lack of job search is enough to put the person Not in the Labor Force. As far as calculating the Labor Force, Discouraged, other Marginally attached, not available, don't want, etc are all the same.
Why do you want to make a special exception? What impact do discouraged have on the Labor Market for the current month that others Not in the Labor Force don't?


And that's not a "technique?" The government can't decide they want a lower UE rate and use Discouraged to lower it. It's not arbitrary.

And again....The Number of Discouraged has been DROPPING! The drop in the Labor Force Participation is due to fewer people wanting to work.
 
Why didn't you mention the IRS? the EPA? the USGCRP? or The DOJ?
Those were implied in the "those that are mostly policy and put out some statistics"

All government workers are human. A large majority of government workers are Democrats. [/quote]
Where did you get that idea from?

A certain percentage of those workers are die hard Obama supporters.[/qutoe] And a certain percentage loathe him.
You can't tell me that there isn't any fudging of the rules at a micro level that doesn't have a cumulative effect on the output of dedicated statistical agencies such as Census, BEA, BLS, NASS, etc.
Actually, I can. At the micro level there is no way to know what if any effect a change would have. And there's too much oversight and double-checking, and sharing between some agencies (BLS, BEA, and Census have sharing agreements for some data series) The conspiracy would have to be huge. But since you seem convinced it happens, please present your evidence.

There were allegations that such manipulation was done in 2012 and this was investigated by the Dept of Commerce office of the Inspector General.
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT U.S. Census Bureau Unsubstantiated Allegations that the Philadelphia Regional Office Manipulated the Unemployment Survey Leading up to the 2012 Presidential Election to Cause a Decrease in the National Unemployment Rate
An interesting part:
Addressing allegations raised in the media, we found no evidence that the national unemployment rate was manipulated by staff in the Philadelphia Regional Office in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. To accomplish this, our analysis concluded that it would have taken 78 Census Bureau Field Representatives working together, in a coordinated way, to report each and every unemployed person included in their sample as “employed” or “not in labor force” during September 2012, an effort which likely would have been detected by the Census Bureau’s quality assurance procedures.




I find your naivety overwhelming. If that's what you really believe, then you are either looking through rose colored glasses or turning a blind eye to reality. In either case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. :roll:

Really. Oh my.
 
Well, I briefly read the study (or the relevant parts, anyway). I don't really see much of that evidence. For the most part, you can see that performance-based stock compensation has increased 7.2% from 2009 to 2013 (page 13). It also shows that performance awards are the most prevalent form of compensation (page 21). I haven't seen anything regarding CEO underperforming or performing well for these awards.

Again, what the article (not the study) does is evaluate CEO performance by looking at their compensation relative to stock performance. This is one of the most popular ways of determining whether or not a CEO is overpaid, which only makes sense if you are an investor. Stock prices are a reflection of future earnings. When the company makes more revenue, stock prices increase and CEO compensation must increase as an inevitable result. As an investor, the CEO's must have investors best interest at heart and make sure shareholder's equity is preserved. However, when Board of Directors determine CEO compensation, it is determined on a wide range of different factors, and each company is different. I don't see any factors determining an increase in CEO performance compensation or time based stock (or the decline in options).

You have nothing to support the notion that CEO pay is based on performance other than your opinion.

Noted....
 
Question from poll worker: So you’re an airline pilot and were laid off. Why don’t you have a job now?

Respondent Answers: Because there aren’t any jobs available in my their line of work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: So how come you haven’t applied for a job in the last four weeks?

Respondent Answers: They haven’t been able to find work.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I don’t have any skills or training.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: Well since you were laid off and you say you really need the money, and you applied to all of these places, why do you think they didn’t hire you?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m to old.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



Question from poll worker: How come you haven’t been able to find a job?

Respondent Answers: Because I’m discriminated upon.

Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



In all of the above examples, the respondent is actually unemployed, willing and able to work and all five of them can be classed (without their knowledge) as a Discouraged Worker. By definition they are no longer unemployed and they are removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.

Forgot to add...your deal of "removed from the labor force" is not quite accurate. 1/4 of the sample is rotated every month. Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, and back in for 4, with the montly sample divided into 8 panels so that there are roughly equal households in their first month, second month, third month, fourth month, 1st month back, 2nd month back, third month back, last month. You make it sound like there's some static list of people individually put into slots. In addition....the survey is by Street Address, not occupants, so if a family moves out and a new family moves in, then the new family will become the survey respondents.

Someone classified as Discouraged could have been classified as "does not want a job now," "not available for work" or could have not been in the population at all the month before (was not yet 16, was out of the country, was serving on active duty military, was in prison, or an institution). So they would not be "removed."
 
You have nothing to support the notion that CEO pay is based on performance other than your opinion.

Noted....

Very little of what I said was my own opinion. Half of it based on my 12 year experience in capital markets, while the other half is based on your own evidence, which doesn't seem to support your assertions. If you want to argue that CEOs are overpaid due to poor stock performance and retaining shareholders' equity, that is one thing. However, there is really nothing in your study which shows that CEO compensation isn't derived from any metric of company performance. For the most part, your study shows that the component with the largest growth in CEO compensation is performance-based stock.

Screen-Shot-2014-12-10-at-11.52.20-AM.png

Why is this? This is because bonuses have slowly replaced short-term incentive planned payouts (also, not my opinion. Its stated in the study). The nature of these goals varies depending on the business, company strategy and other conditions specified by the board of directors. It can be anything from increasing revenue or marketshare, developing new products, improving profit margins and/or expanding into a new market. These goals are determined using a three tier benchmark system: threshold (below expectations), target (met expectations) and stretch (exceed expectations). This is different from long-term incentive planned payouts, which aligns more with the equity performance (returns to shareholders, earnings per share, returns on assets etc), not company performance. This ranges anywhere from three to five years, and is one of the largest components of CEO compensation.

CEO pay is determined by performance, but performance is benchmarked differently. For the most part, we can see that the largest growth in CEO compensation is through performance awards, but you won't know what type of criteria was met until you've looked at each corporation and evaluate how executive compensation aligns with their short-term and long-term goals.
 
Last edited:
According to the Gallup employment survey, underemployment is actually up slightly since early August.

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Keep in mind that Gallup's definition of "Underemployed" is worked less than 30 hours/week and wants to work more. No questions about availability to work full time nor reason for working part time.
The BLS measure of Part Time for economic reasons is worked less than 35 hours/week, wants to and is available to work 35+ and is working less due to slow business or inability to find full time work.
 
Back
Top Bottom