Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hillary earns more per hour than the top ten CEOs

By one measure Hillary earned more than America s top 10 CEOs WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[Edgetho]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes

I hate it when you make me look words up

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hillary earns more per hour than the top ten CEOs

By one measure Hillary earned more than America s top 10 CEOs WashingtonExaminer.com

And there is no doubt she will run based on the same Liberal myth exposed in the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes

I hate it when you make me look words up

And, a sign of a conservative: we actually look up words.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Your're a very sad person aren't you PC? Ever write something celebrating your own side's accomplishments? Or dya only have negativity in your soul to denounce your opposition?

Your post brings to mind the poetry of Yeats....

This, in particular:
"Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends." - William Butler Yeats


And, of course, having a low-life like you as the opposite is an inadvertent compliment.

Don't ever change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

The only thing that's exploded here is your brain aneurysm.

No doubt your A.D.D. prevented you from reading the entire post...or you would have seen that I anticipated your post:

So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

 

[Eaglewings]

Interesting that you can find something about liberals in this story~

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting that you can find something about liberals in this story~

Pleeeezzzzeee...

You're not stupid enough to attempt to deny the provenance of the 'income inequality' fable....

.....or the political perspective of the AFL-CIO???


Are you?

'Fess up to your stupidity....
...don't bother revealing that you're one of those hand-wringing Liberal paracletes.

 

[Moonglow]

Hillary earns more per hour than the top ten CEOs

By one measure Hillary earned more than America s top 10 CEOs WashingtonExaminer.com

And there is no doubt she will run based on the same Liberal myth exposed in the OP.

Which is stupid political torch used by candidates in the 1800's when they were agriculture candidates versus the GOP which had the support of the industrialist in the USA..

 

[AmericanFirst]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes have been moaning about 'income inequality' in an attempt to convince those who function via envy and jealousy that they are VICTIMS!

The playbook never changes.

2. And as proof, they point to CEO salaries...and whine about how unfair the disparity is when compared to the 'average worker.'

"Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners. With CEO compensation analysis season in full swing, the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating that American CEOs in 2013 earned an average of $11.7 million–an eye-popping 331 times the average worker's$35,293.Apr 15, 2014"
Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average ...
www.forbes.com/.../report-ceos-earn-331-times-as-much-as-average-...

a. Reading further, the report should give one pause:
"...the AFL-CIO released data this morning stating blah blah blah....."





3. "....this frequently cited AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay is an example of “statistical bait-and-switch.” Or call it a “statistical canard” or a “statistical fallacy.” Here’s why:

The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs, according to BLS data here, and b) the average worker pay for production and nonsupervisory workers, which represents only 8.5 million factory workers out of a total of 136.3 million payroll employees nationwide.

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

b....more accurate description would be to call it a ratio of the pay for 350 of the highest-paid US CEOs to the pay of only 6.2% of the American labor force, or a ratio of an unrepresentative, infinitesimally small, and statistically insignificant group of CEOs to a small minority and unrepresentative group of US factory workers. It’s a completely bogus and meaningless comparison.



4. ....a more statistically valid comparison of CEO pay to average worker in the US pay by considering: a) theaverage annual pay of all US CEOs in every year from 2002 to 2013 (data here) and b) theaverage annual pay of all US workers in a comprehensive, national BLS dataset that includes workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations (132.6 million workers for 2013). Based on those data, the average CEO earned $178,400 last year, the average worker earned $46,440, and the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” was 3.84:1,


5. ...the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 12 years, averaging 3.8:1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89:1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69:1 in both 2005 and 2006.


6. In 2013, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $14,500, and therefore the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was only 12.3:1 compared to the grossly inflated 774:1 ratio reported by the AFL-CIO."
When we consider all US CEOs and all US workers the CEO-to-worker pay ratio falls from 331 1 to below 4 1



Liberal and 'Liar" both begin with "L."
Coincidence?
Hardly.




So sorry that the above post involved numbers, facts, and logic.....

....which, of course, removes said content from the interests of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats.

Your're a very sad person aren't you PC? Ever write something celebrating your own side's accomplishments? Or dya only have negativity in your soul to denounce your opposition?

Prove her wrong. Dimwits are more negative. Hillary is a phony liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberal elites and their hand-wringing simpleton paracletes

I hate it when you make me look words up

You must hate it all the time.

It's against the rules in politics to troll.

I hate rules.

I have no problem with rules against trolling on message boards because I've witnessed too many good boards sabotaged by trolls. They'll pick a board and dominate it and drive the good posters off.

It's what they do. I was a mod once on a board with no rules. Aye carumba!

In a Mennonite community and all the posters did was trash each others businesses out. It was crazy.



Never again. Not even with rules. Pity the poor mod is my motto now.

1. "...too many good boards sabotaged by trolls. They'll pick a board and dominate it and drive the good posters off."
Good point.

2. But I've never used the term, because I'm not certain of the meaning.
It seems to mean 'I don't agree...but I'm not articulate enough to counter the post."


3. And...I must admit...I kinda like to fight.

 

[Agit8r]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

 

[SAYIT]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

You so snarky.

 

[Agit8r]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

 

[Marxist]

This is referring to the most most paid CEO'S, as stated, and the inequality is completely real when looking at how much they receive compared to their workers, it's not necessarily a lie, the media from both sides pushes out misinformed information.

 

[Marxist]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

By "Nonetheless" you are tacitly agreeing that, again, I've belted one out of the park with this OP.

"100% accurate and dispositive" would have been appropriate.
But you're probably saving said adjectives for my next OP.

Wise.

Forbes may have some valid criticism of a particular study. Nonetheless, the wealth disparity increases, as does the disparity in political influence between monied interests and The People. That is no myth, and a real problem for anyone who isn't a fascist.

It's a horrid fact, capitalism by nature pushes the wealth into the hands of a few as time goes on, we have observed this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Enough with the trolling and the insults. If you can't discuss the topic then stay out of the thread.

 

[healthmyths]

Nonetheless, the economic trend is moving toward more concentrated wealth in the hands of fewer individuals and companies. Until that is turned around, there is a problem to be solved.

if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. ...the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

WHAT problem?
You are doing something that NOT ONE of the wealthiest men in the world in the 1915 could do! NOT ONE wealthy person could do what you do daily!
A) use the Internet.
B) SEE/TALK with anyone in the world anywhere.
Both of which the poorest person can do in the USA what the wealthiest person in 1915 never even imagined!

Tell me what is the problem?