US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

[Lafayette]

Sorry, no, you "research" doesn't prove anymore than that our economy is based on meritocracy.

Meritocracy, me arse.

Income Disparity is so important a factor in economics that it is taken very seriously.

Except for Rightist Twits who think immense riches are "their due" for having benefited from a warped Upper-income Taxation as well as fudging some markets illegally (ala SubPrime Mess) and bringing down the economy around our ears in a Great Recession that began in 2008 and lasted 5 long years (because the Right in the HofR refused stimulus-spending) until 2014 when the economy finally started creating jobs again ...

PS: Piketty is an ultra-liberal looney, who is generally laughed at in mainstream economics.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt anyone.

Of course, Picketty is a French socialist. No wonder you hate him.

He's also one helluva lot smarter than you are. He runs France's major Economics School.

But, that's irrelevant ... isn't it?

 

[Bullseye]

I have an advanced degree in Economics, and I worked my ass-off trying to get it.

Congratulations. I salute your accomplishment.

By no means did I "fudge" the numbers in order to get the results I desired.

Ok, call it cherry picking - designing your sample to produce the result you desire.

For which, btw, if ever discovered would have likely cost me my job teaching economics.

What planet do you live on ... ?

The real world, not the academic ivory tower you do.

 

[Bullseye]

Meritocracy, me arse.

So, can I assume you're only accepting minimum wage? Or are you getting more because of your advanced degree?

Income Disparity is so important a factor in economics that it is taken very seriously.

LOL, right, but you're accepting your pay even though it's likely much higher than the people that keep your office clean or trim the lawns and plants around your building, because you've EARNED that through you hard work of gaining an ADVANCED degree.

Except for Rightist Twits who think immense riches are "their due" for having benefited from a warped Upper-income Taxation as well as fudging some markets illegally (ala SubPrime Mess) and bringing down the economy around our ears in a Great Recession that began in 2008 and lasted 5 long years (because the Right in the HofR refused stimulus-spending) until 2014 when the economy finally started creating jobs again ...

"warped Upper-income Taxation"? You mean like paying a tremendous portion of the total revenue, a portion much larger than the actual income is to the total?

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt anyone.

Then why do you insist on using them on me?

Of course, Picketty is a French socialist. No wonder you hate him.[/quote=I don't hate him, I just think his theories are idiotic.

He's also one helluva lot smarter than you are. He runs France's major Economics School.

But, that's irrelevant ... isn't it?

Yeah, it is. In logic it's a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

 

[Lafayette]

There is your problem. No one is confined below the poverty threshold. When you believe that you have a self fulfilling prophecy.

More survival of the fittest bullshat.

The world has evolved to a higher level in terms of Income Fairness.

Not socialist income equality but Income Equitability. Meaning "characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable: equitable treatment of all citizens.

You were evidently left somewhere behind ...

 

[ludin]

More survival of the fittest bullshat.

The world has evolved to a higher level in terms of Income Fairness.

So are you willing to give up your pay for someone else that makes less in your company?
I am not. Neither are a lot of other people.

Not socialist income equality but Income Equitability. Meaning "characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable: equitable treatment of all citizens.

You were evidently left somewhere behind ...

People are paid based on their value to the market.
The more value they bring to the market the more they are worth.

 

[Pedestrian]

Except no one paid those rates. in 1952 the effective rate was 42% for the top 1%. in 2014 the effective rate was 36% an insignificant
difference.



Actually it isn't. the biggest reason wealth has skyrocketed is investment. those that invest and those that don't.
the biggest movement of middle class wealth investment came during the 80's and 90's when interest rates were through the roof.
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates-1984-2016/

From 1970-1980 the investment into CD and bonds earned people millions of dollars.
you will see the wealth gap increase as savings percentages decrease. why?
there is no reason to save and most people have no clue about investments.



Life isn't fair. YOu want to be more successful then invest invest invest.
lower your debt and save more than you spend.

that is how wealth is created. YOu will find that most people that are wealthy live well below their means.
54% have college diploma's.

if you look at the typical minimum wage worker most do not even have a high school diploma or only a high school diploma.

you need to stop your class warefare it does nothing.

OK enough on the class warfare. "If there is class warfare in America, my class is clearly winning." Warren Buffet.

What the CEOs (all exec. levels in Corp.) make is the very reason for the existence of capitalism in addition to what I call...the wealth factor.

The top 5% have and can make (not earn) million$ from the million$ they can afford to invest. Then after a year, something called
capital gains is taxed at HALF the tax rate of the top 1040 rates of income earners, from wages, tips and salaries.

Example: Bloomberg worth $3.3 billion become mayor of NY. I'd call that a full time job and more...much more. However, when [he] left the mayor ship, net worth was $33.3 billion. That 1100% in 12 years. How many middle class can even begin to approach that. That has quickly ballooned to $56 billion.

Not only is that relatively untaxed as compared to the highest earners but it's wealth of royalty that if taxed 50% from the beginning would leave say $28 billion.

Now tell me, is that not enough of an incentive ? And that 50% tax rate could be temporary until the fiscally insane congress...stops borrowing.

And do not start in on the jobs he created 0, or the risk he took, almost none. The US tax code's favor to capital, is flat out immoral and is turning more than half of the American population into debt paupers.

Philosophers call the US culture as a culture of prosperity where everybody is to work all they can, invest all they can to become...as rich as possible. Confirming below, de Tocqueville...never saw a country...!!

America is the world's modern financial Soddom & Gommorah.

 

[Pedestrian]

If those people have at least 1 mode of transportation a roof over their head, indoor plumbing, they are considered the top 1% in the world.



again why do you hate people that are more successful than you? Jealousy? i do believe it is.
mad because they took the opportunity and you can't? If you spent half as much time actually investing
and saving as you do on this forum complaining and griping then you could be wealthy as well.

They choose to invest and save you choose to grip and complain.



Yes i wonder why you care so much.



nope but again who cares. that is the cool thing about freedom. it allows you to do what you would like to do.



you like to spout number so here are some for you.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.
Forty-two percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. But can't run it because can't pay the higher elect. bill.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks. But can't afford the gas, tires upkeep and insurance.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. Soon to be 1/2, then a 3rd as more everyday...pull the plug.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more. So what, like a radio, a one time expense subject to a monthly elec. bill.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers. Again, so what ? Most of them ancient and almost inoperable.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation. Ridiculous, rich because you are distracted from the real world ?
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave. Skipping the ridiculous notion the poor are so well off because of electronic distractions.
Forty-two percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. Most of which are very old, falling apart lead laden pipes and paint, un-insurable with some even condemned.
The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. So ?
Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food. But they can't afford much else.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above recommended norms. So they are living past 50 now, or is it 60 ?

 

[What if...?]

If those people have at least 1 mode of transportation a roof over their head, indoor plumbing, they are considered the top 1% in the world.



again why do you hate people that are more successful than you? Jealousy? i do believe it is.
mad because they took the opportunity and you can't? If you spent half as much time actually investing
and saving as you do on this forum complaining and griping then you could be wealthy as well.

They choose to invest and save you choose to grip and complain.



Yes i wonder why you care so much.



nope but again who cares. that is the cool thing about freedom. it allows you to do what you would like to do.



you like to spout number so here are some for you.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.
Forty-two percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

You always dismiss any discussion of this topic.

However, history clearly shows that greed and power hunger are the reasons for every revolution ever.

 

[What if...?]

So, a "study" based on around 200 companies proves what? Given that there are over 10,000 public companies in the US I'd say not much.

Why is it a surprise that a person with a complex and highly responsible job gets paid more than the hourly workers in the company? Anyone here willing to take a pay cut so those in your company making less can catch up to you?

Equality means equal opportunity not equal outcome. Most of those top tier guys started on the bottom step. Their first jobs are frequently low skill, low pay ones but they don't stay there. Very few of us do. We work our way up as far as our skills and abilities (and ambition) will take us. Or we find a level we're comfortable with and level out.

the ideology and politics of jealousy and envy are wasteful and, to be frank -idiotic.

And greed and the hunger for power have been the end of every society where they ran unchecked.

 

[What if...?]

you tell me why Dwayne the Rock Johnson is paid 22 million per movie, and i will explain why CEO's are paid they they are

The rock is popular. A movie with him in it will.probably make money.

Ceo's sit on each others boards and vote each other raises.

Not the same dynamic.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry, no, you "research" doesn't prove anymore than that our economy is based on meritocracy. PS: Piketty is an ultra-liberal looney, who is generally laughed at in mainstream economics.

Looking at the quality of life of those on the lower end of the income scale it's hard to explain why income equality is bad.

Meaningless statistic. Or, maybe not: Maybe it shows that this country rewards hard work, risk taking, acquiring skills and knowledge, and entrepreneurship. You guys faith to realize wealth is boundless - just because I acquire more doesn't mean someone else is getting less. Wages are similar - there's a direct relationship between what a person add to the company and what he gets paid. You seem to agree with that, in principle.



Nobody "needs" to amass that much wealth but if they gain the experience, training and knowledge to demand a large wage why should they not do so? Or if they take the risks and make the sacrifices to build a business and make it grow why should they not reap the rewards?


My reference was the study itselfl it clearly set their data was from the top 225 of the Fortune 500 companies.

There was an abrupt change in the wealth distribution dynamics in the mid seventies.

We all were getting richer each year at about the same rate from ww2 til then.

Not making enough more to keep up with Inflation, actually getting fatter. Wage increases above inflation.

With the lowest quintile actually doing a bit better than the rest.

Then that came to an end. All of a sudden.

The lower 80% saw their wages flatten out. Barely keeping up with inflation. Affording the same lifestyle it did in the mid seventies.

At the same time the wealth of the top 20% went up. Dramatically. A simple glance at the graphs clearly shows it was a transfer from the lower 80% to the top 20%.

They no longer needed to share the growth of the country with the majority so they simply stopped. We can debate whether that's cool or not. But its what happened.

Had this been the result of a changing post ww2 economy the arc of the upper quintile and corporate profits would have trended more or less as it had been. NOT gone up massively.

 

[Pedestrian]

And greed and the hunger for power have been the end of every society where they ran unchecked.

Well I do envy those that have more free speech in the bank...million$ more. We soon see how their free speech rights are a whole lot more equal, than...90% of Americans.

I do envy those who can buy and sell things, make million$ even billion$ and pay a federal tax rate equal to those earning $50,000.

Envy must be part of the American culture the way millionaires envy billionaires, doing everything they can to become a billionaire.

And as we know in the American culture of prosperity...that's not nearly enough.

 

[Pedestrian]

In the 1960s, the pay ratio was 16 to one... I have to go soon, look up pay ratios in Europe.

Now, it's 100 to one, 200 to one, some places it's even higher.

Read Price of Inequality by Stiglitz for the full story.

Look at Rome at its heyday. 1 million people, 50,000 professional class, artisans and intelligentsia, 950,000...living in the dirt.

Prompted the great Roman senate grain handout, literally buying their votes with food. Sounds like a very possible American future.

 

[ludin]

OK enough on the class warfare. "If there is class warfare in America, my class is clearly winning." Warren Buffet.

What the CEOs (all exec. levels in Corp.) make is the very reason for the existence of capitalism in addition to what I call...the wealth factor.

The top 5% have and can make (not earn) million$ from the million$ they can afford to invest. Then after a year, something called
capital gains is taxed at HALF the tax rate of the top 1040 rates of income earners, from wages, tips and salaries.

Capital gains is divided into several things. Long term and short term.
Short term capital gains are counted as income.
Long term capital gains is counted at the 20% mark or whatever it is 15% i think.

Example: Bloomberg worth $3.3 billion become mayor of NY. I'd call that a full time job and more...much more. However, when [he] left the mayor ship, net worth was $33.3 billion. That 1100% in 12 years. How many middle class can even begin to approach that. That has quickly ballooned to $56 billion.

which means he should be investigated on insider trading deals or corruption deals that allowed him to benefit.

Not only is that relatively untaxed as compared to the highest earners but it's wealth of royalty that if taxed 50% from the beginning would leave say $28 billion.
Now tell me, is that not enough of an incentive ? And that 50% tax rate could be temporary until the fiscally insane congress...stops borrowing.
And do not start in on the jobs he created 0, or the risk he took, almost none. The US tax code's favor to capital, is flat out immoral and is turning more than half of the American population into debt paupers.
Philosophers call the US culture as a culture of prosperity where everybody is to work all they can, invest all they can to become...as rich as possible. Confirming below, de Tocqueville...never saw a country...!!
America is the world's modern financial Soddom & Gommorah.

The whole point is it doesn't matter what someone else makes. that doesn't stop you from doing the same thing.
just because tim earned 1m dollar doesn't mean that jill can't.

our system is not designed like that. this is not monopoly.

 

[late]

Look at Rome at its heyday. 1 million people, 50,000 professional class, artisans and intelligentsia, 950,000...living in the dirt.

Prompted the great Roman senate grain handout, literally buying their votes with food. Sounds like a very possible American future.

The costs of empire are what kills empires.

Extreme income inequality and corruption are joined at the hip, born that way. You don't inherit a future, you build it, and that is something we don't do half as much as we used to.

 

[Pedestrian]

you tell me why Dwayne the Rock Johnson is paid 22 million per movie, and i will explain why CEO's are paid they they are

The 'Rock' is boxoffice and his movies earn much more because of it.

CEOs with the destruction of corporate democracy over the last 1/2 of the 20th century, rape the stockholders and investors who as a result...can do nothing.

Boards of Directors are made up of other CEOs and corp. exec, who increase their own pay, when they increase ALL exec. pay.

All of the above was illegal and subject to an extremely high levels of regulation during the time when ALL of our conservative founding fathers...hated the corp.

The courts and the greedy took over right around the middle of the 19th century and was totally corrupt.

 

[Pedestrian]

Alright. That is a good one.

Not really.

 

[Pedestrian]

That tells the whole story.

Next

Hardly, doesn't even begin to justify or rationalize anything about corp. exec. pay. Many of which make in a year what the Rock did for that movie after
outlandish incompetence. See Jamie Dimon. Lost $7 billion on one screw-up but kept his job and got million$ in salary ($27 million every year) and
bonuses and has a personal net worth of $1.1 billion.

Movies don't even rank with the likes of wall street. There is no comparison.

 

[Pedestrian]

Congratulations. I salute your accomplishment.

Ok, call it cherry picking - designing your sample to produce the result you desire.

The real world, not the academic ivory tower you do.

Yes, the real world reveals the unmatched greed and avarice in the American (and western) economies.

 

[Lafayette]

TRULY PATHETIC!

People are paid based on their value to the market.
The more value they bring to the market the more they are worth.

Nope. We are masters of our destiny, and WE DECIDE. Not "the market".

A minimum-wage of $7.25/hour is ridiculous in a country where the Poverty-Threshold is $12/hour.

So, we must find the courage to pass a law that stipulates the National Minimum-Wage at $12/hour.

See this table here. Only eight states "plan" to have a Minimum Wage at or above $12/hour within the not too distant future.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic for the Greatest Nation on Earth ... !

 

[Bullseye]

There was an abrupt change in the wealth distribution dynamics in the mid seventies.

We all were getting richer each year at about the same rate from ww2 til then.

Interesting narrative. Not sure it's totally accurate, but still interesting.

I think the post WW II upswing was a result of us being relatively un damaged by the war while Europe and Asia was destroyed. We became supplier to the world and companies could afford substantial raises because they had no completion. but that changed as Asia and Europe rebuilt. We saw more and more competition and US companies were forced to hold down costs as much as possible to compete.

That said, I think if you looked at the quality of life for the bottom 20% or 40% today vs their QOL in the 70's or 80% you see they're far better off today. Maybe their wage hasn't grown that much above inflation but what the spend their money on has improved light years.

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, the real world reveals the unmatched greed and avarice in the American (and western) economies.

Funny, for an alleged conservative you sure spew those LW mantras easily.

 

[Pedestrian]

The costs of empire are what kills empires.

Extreme income inequality and corruption are joined at the hip, born that way. You don't inherit a future, you build it, and that is something we don't do half as much as we used to.

If I understand you correctly then what's been obviously missing is American statesmen. Instead, America gets petty little, power barons,

concerned only with their own short term self interest. Germany, Japan others have a concerted govt./private industrial policies.

America...none. American businesses and corp. are free to build up or destroy the America economy for its people.

They have chosen to destroy it exporting every job they can and importing every foreign professional they can, with the effect of lowering the prevailing wage.

"Americans are going to have to give up their cushy high paying jobs." Steve Forbes. A man whose only claim to fame (or infamy) was to pick the right father.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Hardly, doesn't even begin to justify or rationalize anything about corp. exec. pay. Many of which make in a year what the Rock did for that movie after
outlandish incompetence. See Jamie Dimon. Lost $7 billion on one screw-up but kept his job and got million$ in salary ($27 million every year) and
bonuses and has a personal net worth of $1.1 billion.

Movies don't even rank with the likes of wall street. There is no comparison.

That's a very hostile post considering I am mostly in agreement with you.

I like to say it's been great before I say good bye, but mistakenly insulting someone on their first post does not bode well for any kind of meaningful relationship down the road.

Good bye

 

[Pedestrian]

There was an abrupt change in the wealth distribution dynamics in the mid seventies.

We all were getting richer each year at about the same rate from ww2 til then.

Interesting narrative. Not sure it's totally accurate, but still interesting.

I think the post WW II upswing was a result of us being relatively un damaged by the war while Europe and Asia was destroyed. We became supplier to the world and companies could afford substantial raises because they had no completion. but that changed as Asia and Europe rebuilt. We saw more and more competition and US companies were forced to hold down costs as much as possible to compete.

That said, I think if you looked at the quality of life for the bottom 20% or 40% today vs their QOL in the 70's or 80% you see they're far better off today. Maybe their wage hasn't grown that much above inflation but what the spend their money on has improved light years.

The bottom 40% of American earners are in fact poorer than they were in 1980.

That means a continuing, accelerating decline of incomes and standard of living with an increase in per capita and household debt.

The bottom 1/2 of Americans will eventually run out of borrowing power entirely and then the economy starts a slow march to hell.