Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[danielpalos]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

 

[SAYIT]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

 

[Brain357]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

 

[SAYIT]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

 

[Brain357]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

 

[SAYIT]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

CEO is often just a fancy title for the guy who owns the company and is paid not only a salary but also a share of the company's profits ... a return on investment. Are you suggesting we do as our socialists insist and dismantle capitalism because it isn't always fair to the people who invested nothing?

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

 

[Brain357]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

CEO is often just a fancy title for the guy who owns the company and is paid not only a salary but also a share of the company's profits ... a return on investment. Are you suggesting we do as our socialists insist and dismantle capitalism because it isn't always fair to the people who invested nothing?

You didn't answer my question.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Yes, supply side economics only means bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down, to Persons on the Right.

Some on the left believe more in results than in statistics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

sold any used bridges, chic?

sounds like mere, special pleading.

Clearly, this is the part that applies to you:

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.

what; the part about using statistics to better sell your "bridge"--Person on the Right.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

The cities I've been to in Europe are cleaner than the streets in our country. Likely because there are men and women with brooms making sure that gum wrappers and cigarette butts don't last long on the sidewalks or roadways.

We will never solve our problems as long has hate and fear dominate the conversation.

 

[SAYIT]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

"Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you." - Jasonfree[/QUOTE]

Europe is not socialist, nor is Social Security and I stand for any American's right to pursue his (or her) best interests as they deem fit and to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the confiscation of their wealth required by your "Workers Paradise" nightmare.

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

[jasonnfree]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

Europe is not socialist, nor is Social Security and I stand for any American's right to pursue his (or her) best interests as they deem fit and to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the confiscation of their wealth required by your "Workers Paradise" nightmare.

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.[/QUOTE]

Confiscation of wealth. I see you've been trained by the best.

 

[jasonnfree]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

Europe is not socialist, nor is Social Security and I stand for any American's right to pursue his (or her) best interests as they deem fit and to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the confiscation of their wealth required by your "Workers Paradise" nightmare.

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Confiscation of wealth. I see you've been trained by the best.[/QUOTE]

I Europe has socialist programs, they're probably socialist, unless you go to the real definition which gets pretty technical. If you accept social security or medicare, you're participating in social safety nets- socialist programs.

 

[SAYIT]

The cities I've been to in Europe are cleaner than the streets in our country. Likely because there are men and women with brooms making sure that gum wrappers and cigarette butts don't last long on the sidewalks or roadways.

We will never solve our problems as long has hate and fear dominate the conversation.

Interestingly, much of Europe still wallows in a centuries old caste system.
If your daddy was a street sweeper it is likely your destiny. I am, however, disgusted by those who thoughtlessly or willfully trash this country as the National Mall was recently trashed by 2015 Earth Day celebrants:
National Mall Trashed After Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day Concert - Christine Rousselle

 

[SAYIT]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

CEO is often just a fancy title for the guy who owns the company and is paid not only a salary but also a share of the company's profits ... a return on investment. Are you suggesting we do as our socialists insist and dismantle capitalism because it isn't always fair to the people who invested nothing?

You didn't answer my question.

I did but once again you didn't like my answer. I noticed you didn't answer mine.

 

[Brain357]

The cities I've been to in Europe are cleaner than the streets in our country. Likely because there are men and women with brooms making sure that gum wrappers and cigarette butts don't last long on the sidewalks or roadways.

We will never solve our problems as long has hate and fear dominate the conversation.

Interestingly, much of Europe still wallows in a centuries old caste system.
If your daddy was a street sweeper it is likely your destiny. I am, however, disgusted by those who thoughtlessly or willfully trash this country. The National Mall was recently trashed by 2015 Erth Day celebrants:
National Mall Trashed After Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day Concert - Christine Rousselle

That isn't true. Many countries in Europe now have more upward mobility than us.
U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility Economic Policy Institute

 

[Brain357]

The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

CEO is often just a fancy title for the guy who owns the company and is paid not only a salary but also a share of the company's profits ... a return on investment. Are you suggesting we do as our socialists insist and dismantle capitalism because it isn't always fair to the people who invested nothing?

You didn't answer my question.

I did but once again you didn't like my answer. I noticed you didn't answer mine.

Once again you answered some other question. If you really believe what you are saying you'd have answered the question. I am sure you know I am right.

 

[SAYIT]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

Europe is not socialist, nor is Social Security and I stand for any American's right to pursue his (or her) best interests as they deem fit and to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the confiscation of their wealth required by your "Workers Paradise" nightmare.

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Confiscation of wealth. I see you've been trained by the best. I Europe has socialist programs, they're probably socialist, unless you go to the real definition which gets pretty technical. If you accept social security or medicare, you're participating in social safety nets- socialist programs

I see you've been trained by the worst.
Having some socialist programs does not mean Europe is socialist. They still allow private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) and Social Security and Medicare are insurance policies paid for by working people during their working years.

 

[jasonnfree]

I get your point. Nothing will convince you and your fellow socialists that non-central gov't owned or controlled markets for products, services and labor can possibly be good for anyone but the 1%ers. Thing is, there are cesspools out there that employ your "Workers Paradise" dream but you and I both know you have no interest in living in any of them. You'd much rather enjoy the fruits of American style capitalism while you complain so bitterly about it.

Most of Europe does pretty good under socialism. I haven't heard of any republicans turning down socialist social security or medicare as a matter of principle. I don't know why, the multi billionaires that you people suck up to and defend will take care of you.

Europe is not socialist, nor is Social Security and I stand for any American's right to pursue his (or her) best interests as they deem fit and to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the confiscation of their wealth required by your "Workers Paradise" nightmare.

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Confiscation of wealth. I see you've been trained by the best.

And you by the worst.[/QUOTE]

Your trainers are on fox news and hate radio. My trainer was life, military, family, jobs, business.

 

[SAYIT]

Yeah, I too wish I had been born into the Good Old Boy Club but then I would have missed out on all the 80 hour work weeks & seeing my creations grow and bear fruit. The socialists to whom I refer don't care what kind of capitalism we are discussing ... they see it all as being in desperate need of destruction.

So do you think ceos making gross amounts of money is good capitalism? Obviously they should make a lot, the 40x the average worker of the 60s seems pretty fair. Any company can find a good competent ceo willing to work for that amount.

CEO is often just a fancy title for the guy who owns the company and is paid not only a salary but also a share of the company's profits ... a return on investment. Are you suggesting we do as our socialists insist and dismantle capitalism because it isn't always fair to the people who invested nothing?

You didn't answer my question.

I did but once again you didn't like my answer. I noticed you didn't answer mine.

Once again you answered some other question. If you really believe what you are saying you'd have answered the question. I am sure you know I am right.

Again you failed to answer my question clearly because you know I'm right.