The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio is now 312-to-1.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Stop being a dumbass and I won't tell the world your little secret.

No deal Huckleberry.
View attachment 241395

That just is further proof that you are a dumbass!

 

[JimBowie1958]

High ratios of CEO pay to the average workers pay in their company is not a stabilizing sort of thing.

In most industrialized countries around the world it is around 20:1 to 30:1.

In the USA workers wages have been stagnant when adjusted for inflation and taxes while CEOs pay has sky-rocketed. We have seen ratios of 300:1 up to 420:1 over the last 40 years.

The problem with that, aside from simple unfairness, is that this high ratio destabilizes the economy by concentrating the concentration of wealth higher than the 20:80 ratio of the Pareto Distribution. Systems that concentrate much higher than this natural ratio or subject to panics, fads (the sum of which = bubbles and busts), and causes an increase in discontent and social unrest.

To fix this we need to look at our economic policies to see what is favoring such imbalance and what might be done to smooth out the distribution of wealth by providing more opportunity for workers and tax breaks to companies that have a more equitable CEO to worker pay ratio.

To simply take the money through taxes and give it away is destructive to wealth creation and property rights and does not create a long term solution for workers, making them further dependent on the government.

 

[kyzr]

Lets just say I'm on Angelo's side on this issue. The top 1% are not gods that we need to worship from afar. The DC establishment system of "one hand washes the other" and both get rich is not a good long term system. I'll use the law that gave tax breaks to move jobs overseas as an example of capitalism that hurts the country.
How the Tax Plan Will Send Jobs Overseas - The Atlantic

Bain Capital and Gordon Gekko's method of Corporate Raiding doesn't generally help the workers.

You post like capitalism and socialism are binary systems. They are not. Teddy Roosevelt showed some of the type of governing that we need today. A more level playing field.

So, what do we do that does not infringe on people's liberty and freedoms?

For argument's sake, put in a compensation system like Japan's that keeps all the worker's compensation relative to the Exec compensation. Call it "distributed profit sharing" where the top execs don't get all the rewards/bonuses.

Do that in your company and maybe others will follow. You cannot use the force of law to do so.

Is that in the Constitution, or are you just pulling rank?
Agreed privately owned companies can do whatever the fuck they want. My argument is for publicly traded corporations, that get tax breaks, government contracts, etc.

So your real expertise is backpedaling? Do you realize now how few companies you are talking about as compared to the whole of the American economy? That is still improper.

As for the Constitution, the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce, so anyone who doesn't is exempt from your ruling by fait accompli. Right?

Agreed, I'd say that the Fortune 500 and the Russell 2000, the Dow 30, and even the Nasdaq all do interstate commerce.

You seem to have a specialty/propensity for pushing back on new ideas. That's fine if we work toward a real solution but so far we have been trying to float ideas to solve two problems:
1. How can we force Congress/Senate/President to pass Budgets on time and prohibit shutdowns. I haven't heard any brilliancies yet.
2. The 2nd problem we're trying to solve is the concentration of wealth, which if not addressed will lead to violence, it always has. Are you a "let them eat cake" aristocrat?

Anyway, how about posting a few ideas to address those two problems.
For extra credit, start a new thread in politics, put up a problem and propose a solution, unless you live in a perfect world?

 

[danielpalos]

The American dream is very much alive and well
for a few folks. ( According to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI ).

The global elite are getting ready to gather in the Swiss Alps for the World Economic Forum (WEF), and while the backdrop may be one of “deepening gloom over the global economic and political outlook,” a new analysis reveals that for at least some of the attendees, the outlook is sunnier than ever.

Released by Bloomberg just ahead of the gathering in Davos, it shows how the net worth of some of the “gold-collar executives” that will be attending have surged in the ten years since the financial crisis.

JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, now holds $1.5 billion—a threefold increase over the decade. Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of private equity giant Blackstone, meanwhile, saw his wealth surge sixfold, as his net worth is now $12.3 billion. Rupert Murdoch’s wealth similarly went up nearly sixfold, with his fortune now at $18.3 billion. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, for his part, is now worth $6.5 billion—a more than ninefold increase.

But, the reporting notes, while the economic elite are enjoying a bigger slice of the pie, for regular Americans, “Wages have stagnated and while equity markets have risen, fewer U.S. adults are invested in the stock market than in 2009.”

“The data illustrate the ever-widening gap between the true haves—those in the 0.1 percent—and the have-nots of a global economy,” it adds.

To further illustrate the divide, the reporting also points to a study released last year by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that in 2017, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 312-to-1.
Continued;
Davos Elites Are Wealthier Than Ever

equal protection of the law could be funded by employers; for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Junk Bonds not Junk Laws

there is no reason to not be Good capitalists whenever possible.

The unemployment compensation fund could be funded through bond issues.

improving the efficiency of our economy, and enabling greater market friendliness only improves "transparency for the private sector" by solving for the externality of simple poverty for the private sector.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

...., but then I repeat myself.

Old drunks tend to do that.

Then why don't you do it more often?

I don't drink thanks, because I don't want to die. Try your lame insults elsewhere.

Hate to break it to you, but you are still going to die...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

High ratios of CEO pay to the average workers pay in their company is not a stabilizing sort of thing.

In most industrialized countries around the world it is around 20:1 to 30:1.

In the USA workers wages have been stagnant when adjusted for inflation and taxes while CEOs pay has sky-rocketed. We have seen ratios of 300:1 up to 420:1 over the last 40 years.

The problem with that, aside from simple unfairness, is that this high ratio destabilizes the economy by concentrating the concentration of wealth higher than the 20:80 ratio of the Pareto Distribution. Systems that concentrate much higher than this natural ratio or subject to panics, fads (the sum of which = bubbles and busts), and causes an increase in discontent and social unrest.

To fix this we need to look at our economic policies to see what is favoring such imbalance and what might be done to smooth out the distribution of wealth by providing more opportunity for workers and tax breaks to companies that have a more equitable CEO to worker pay ratio.

To simply take the money through taxes and give it away is destructive to wealth creation and property rights and does not create a long term solution for workers, making them further dependent on the government.

High ratios of CEO pay to the average workers pay in their company is not a stabilizing sort of thing.

In most industrialized countries around the world it is around 20:1 to 30:1.

Chief Executives

If the data about average US workers from the EPI is correct, ($18.9 million/312), they make about $60,600.
That would make the CEO-worker ratio in the US less than 3.5.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

It is for the free markets to decide -- and right now they have decided that it's perfectly fine for CEO's to make 300 times more than their average salary employee -- to even complain about wage inequality is itself communist.

Furthermore, if these CEO's make decisions that hurt the stability of our economy -- it is up to the rest of us to bail them out so they can maintain those wage disparities. Trying to change this would only cause CEO's to take their talents to other countries that are not communist socialist anti-capitalists

 

[the other mike]

Hate to break it to you, but you are still going to die...

And he's only a year older than me.
That would be scary but I don't feel old yet
like he does. ( I don't drink either and quit
smoking 9 years ago )

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The American dream is very much alive and well
for a few folks. ( According to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI ).

The global elite are getting ready to gather in the Swiss Alps for the World Economic Forum (WEF), and while the backdrop may be one of “deepening gloom over the global economic and political outlook,” a new analysis reveals that for at least some of the attendees, the outlook is sunnier than ever.

Released by Bloomberg just ahead of the gathering in Davos, it shows how the net worth of some of the “gold-collar executives” that will be attending have surged in the ten years since the financial crisis.

JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, now holds $1.5 billion—a threefold increase over the decade. Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of private equity giant Blackstone, meanwhile, saw his wealth surge sixfold, as his net worth is now $12.3 billion. Rupert Murdoch’s wealth similarly went up nearly sixfold, with his fortune now at $18.3 billion. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, for his part, is now worth $6.5 billion—a more than ninefold increase.

But, the reporting notes, while the economic elite are enjoying a bigger slice of the pie, for regular Americans, “Wages have stagnated and while equity markets have risen, fewer U.S. adults are invested in the stock market than in 2009.”

“The data illustrate the ever-widening gap between the true haves—those in the 0.1 percent—and the have-nots of a global economy,” it adds.

To further illustrate the divide, the reporting also points to a study released last year by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that in 2017, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 312-to-1.
Continued;
Davos Elites Are Wealthier Than Ever

Yawn.

 

[flacaltenn]

The American dream is very much alive and well
for a few folks. ( According to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI ).

The global elite are getting ready to gather in the Swiss Alps for the World Economic Forum (WEF), and while the backdrop may be one of “deepening gloom over the global economic and political outlook,” a new analysis reveals that for at least some of the attendees, the outlook is sunnier than ever.

Released by Bloomberg just ahead of the gathering in Davos, it shows how the net worth of some of the “gold-collar executives” that will be attending have surged in the ten years since the financial crisis.

JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, now holds $1.5 billion—a threefold increase over the decade. Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of private equity giant Blackstone, meanwhile, saw his wealth surge sixfold, as his net worth is now $12.3 billion. Rupert Murdoch’s wealth similarly went up nearly sixfold, with his fortune now at $18.3 billion. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, for his part, is now worth $6.5 billion—a more than ninefold increase.

But, the reporting notes, while the economic elite are enjoying a bigger slice of the pie, for regular Americans, “Wages have stagnated and while equity markets have risen, fewer U.S. adults are invested in the stock market than in 2009.”

“The data illustrate the ever-widening gap between the true haves—those in the 0.1 percent—and the have-nots of a global economy,” it adds.

To further illustrate the divide, the reporting also points to a study released last year by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that in 2017, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 312-to-1.
Continued;
Davos Elites Are Wealthier Than Ever

The OP and folks agreeing to this just display how little leftists understand about "compensation"... CEOs are compensated by salary, stock, insurance, and other benefits. YOU idiots compare all this to salaries..

If they are gonna work 60 or 70 hours a week, fly away from home more than they are they, run the 6 or 8 business units of this company all over the world --- THEN -- they get an EQUITY STAKE in the business. That's GOOD for encouraging good decisions and performance and more importantly -- IT TAKES NOTHING FROM THE BUSINESS THAT WOULD GO TO EMPLOYEES... Not a cent..

You idiots whine because you equate equity stock programs with STEALING FROM EMPLOYEES...

It does not.. In fact, stock options are anywhere from 40% to 90% of a CEOs benefits.. If you're gonna whine about pay gaps --- then USE SALARIES as the metric...

You could take the CEO of BridgeStone out in the parking lot, tar and feather him/her, send them to Abu Dhabi never to return... If you SPLIT that salary amongst the employees, they MIGHT BE able to afford a set a BridgeStone tires. But in the following year, with the replacement, "budget bargain" CEO, likely 10% or more would face lay-offs or deferred raises from inferior management..

 

[the other mike]

Worker co-ops are the future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Worker co-ops are the future.

Worked for United Airlines.....DERP!

 

[flacaltenn]

Worker co-ops are the future.

The idea of not making a corporate profit puts these Co-Ops on the hairy edge of existence. I've read about some in Cleveland that ARE making an impact ---- BUT -----

If you can't convince workers that the company needs to expand and have a cash reserve -- it's like an individual who's living paycheck to paycheck with NO ROOM for mistakes or downturns or competition challenging you...,

It's a really fragile arrangement in terms of "career" or growth or survivability...

But -- have at it.. They will only be for niche markets and unique opportunities without a lot of competition or volatility in sales...

 

[the other mike]

For one quick example.
Say there's a town with 5000 layed-off workers who decide they all want to start their own company in the solar energy industry.

Why shouldn't they be able to ? Why does it have to be the Koch Brothers or the Waltons who are born with wealth and own everything ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

For one quick example.
Say there's a town with 5000 layed-off workers who decide they all want to start their own company in the solar energy industry.

Why shouldn't they be able to ? Why does it have to be the Koch Brothers or the Waltons who are born with wealth and own everything ?

Because corporations get the government to give them unfair advantage over small businesses, the latter of which are almost always much more efficient than bloated corporations.

 

[flacaltenn]

For one quick example.
Say there's a town with 5000 layed-off workers who decide they all want to start their own company in the solar energy industry.

Why shouldn't they be able to ? Why does it have to be the Koch Brothers or the Waltons who are born with wealth and own everything ?

Why SHOULD THEY start a solar company? There's 100s of them. And what's their talent and expertise to COMPETE with these others who are barely getting by...

That's why I said co-ops are good for niche markets.. You know what a niche is? In Cleveland what worked was a same day laundry service for hospitals and doctors offices. That's OK if the people you are trying to fit are NOT skilled workers.. Would be hard to take 100 mechanists and convince to "invest" in doing dirty laundry..

Read this ENTIRE article -- not just the quotes below. If you believe in co-op idea, you should force yourself to investigate.

Can Laundry and Lettuce Save Cleveland?

Co-ops can get a bad rap, with a lot of people picturing the small money-losing food co-ops that exist mostly to subsidize brown rice for old hippies. But in its 10 years of existence, Evergreen has become one of the more successful, ambitious, and inspiring examples of the species—and rather than trying to upend the capitalist system, it is using economics as its operational foundation. The business has found a market it can thrive in, provides services at competitive prices, and then passes the profits along to employees who will spend their earnings in the local economy, hopefully creating a "fiscal multiplier." The idea is that average workers being able to afford groceries and cars and houses is a more important form of economic growth than a company's stock price going up.

Besides providing laundry services for Cleveland Clinic, one of the top health-care systems in the country, the co-op grows hydroponic lettuce and herbs in a 3.5-acre greenhouse. It also recently ventured into solar installations for existing buildings whose owners want to decrease their energy footprints.

Evergreen's annual revenues are now over $6 million. The laundry operations are profitable and the lettuce growing will most likely enter the black this year. Currently the co-op has 225 employees, about 45 of whom are worker-owners. (People must stay for about a year before they qualify for the ownership bonus.) Expansion plans are in the works.

But their initial approach had a problem: It was overly political. Many people working for Evergreen believed the goal was primarily about pushing a liberal alternative to traditional corporate capitalism as opposed to helping Cleveland residents get steady jobs that would allow them to buy homes. "Evergreen seemed to be more concerned early on with ideology and less concerned with how to be competitive in the market," says a former Ohio elected official who asked not to be named.

He realized that if a business was seen as a charity instead of a viable company that sold a product, it hurt the prospects for growth and made it more difficult to fulfill the goal of providing jobs for those who needed them. So McMicken decided to get back to basics. Lower costs by improving worker efficiencies. Go out and get clients who were not associated with the big anchors. Help the employees understand how the market rewards and punishes. "And we had to learn as a group that getting a CEO for a big company to buy a product or service from you, to get on to their page for consideration, well, everything moves slowly," he says. "But what you have to learn—and this has nothing to do with being a co-op—is that you keep having to pound on doors until you make the sale. That was a big learning curve for many."

"I think it is clear that what they are doing in Cleveland is taking capitalism and collectivism and pulling out and combining the best of parts of both," says Jessica Gordon-Nembhard, a professor of community justice and social economic development at John Jay College in New York. "Studies have shown that employee ownership increases productivity, results in better job satisfaction, decreases job turnover, and helps the company to be more profitable. Not every company would benefit from co-op ownership, but some will, and they could have a positive effect in many cities when done right."

How much of a difference co-ops can make on the ground is difficult to assess. A company with 300 employees largely earning less than $13 an hour will obviously never have the same impact as a behemoth like Amazon bringing 50,000 high-income jobs to a place. But it can move the needle of neighborhood stability in a positive direction.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the end analysis, those "successful" Cleveland co-ops contribute $13/hour for 300 workers. It's what the market can bear and what the economics dictate. A singly Walmart would be 4 times more productive for that community...

 

[whitehall]

The salary difference between the CEO of J.P. Morgan and the guy who works in the mail room? Give me a freaking break. Why not focus on the DOW or the GDP or the fact that unemployment is at a historic low? Won't fit the liberal agenda. No shit.

 

[the other mike]

In the end analysis, those "successful" Cleveland co-ops contribute $13/hour for 300 workers. It's what the market can bear and what the economics dictate. A singly Walmart would be 4 times more productive for that community...

Not the scenario I had in mind.

I'm talking about 5000 people all equally-invested in a Solar Energy company. A company that manufactures, distributes and installs solar panels. No outside private ownership or subcontractors involved.

A basic breakdown would be --200 executives who would be elected democratically ( product design, architecture, sales, management, bookkeeping, human resources etc ) 800 skill-level 1 (electricians, engineers, maintenance technicians...), 2500 skill-level 2 (delivery drivers, installation, repairs...), and 1500 skill-level 3 (manufacturing, warehouse, vehicle and equipment maintenance...)

Salaries would be based on skill and education level, experience and other basic qualifications but relatively fair. ( ranging from $900,000 a year top to $100,000 bottom maybe plus everyone gets profit-sharing ). The managers of the company will be elected and reelected every few years and so on.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the end analysis, those "successful" Cleveland co-ops contribute $13/hour for 300 workers. It's what the market can bear and what the economics dictate. A singly Walmart would be 4 times more productive for that community...

Not the scenario I had in mind.

I'm talking about 5000 people all equally-invested in a Solar Energy company. A company that manufactures, distributes and installs solar panels. No outside private ownership or subcontractors involved.

A basic breakdown would be --200 executives who would be elected democratically ( product design, architecture, sales, management, bookkeeping, human resources etc ) 800 skill-level 1 (electricians, engineers, maintenance technicians...), 2500 skill-level 2 (delivery drivers, installation, repairs...), and 1500 skill-level 3 (manufacturing, warehouse, vehicle and equipment maintenance...)

Salaries would be based on skill and education level, experience and other basic qualifications but relatively fair. ( ranging from $900,000 a year top to $100,000 bottom maybe plus everyone gets profit-sharing ). The managers of the company will be elected and reelected every few years and so on.

That's all real eager beaver planning.. Have you LOOKED at the Solar panel manufacturers? America has lost every one of those except maybe one. It's a high INVESTMENT venture and the profit margins are piss poor.. So unless you RAISE $100Mill for a panel factory and have a design that BETTER than what is available -- you should put the brakes on.. To be BETTER than what's out there -- You probably need another 20 to 40Mill for R&D before you even START the rest of the business.

Why would you think that ONE solar VENTURE has to do EVERYTHING? It's these kind of misconceptions about how things actually work that get leftist "best intentions" ignored.. Like the concept of no "subcontractors" involved. That's really a non-starter. EVERY vertically integrated company has a very DEEP "supply chain". Which provides components and materials and specialized engineering that any CEO would be FOOLISH to reinvent themselves..

Don't think you ought to launch on this until you actually research a particular business, understand the markets and competition, and have something UNIQUE TO OFFER that the competitors don't and isn't already patented.

Learn how business and markets and technology is ACTUALLY developed if you want to save the world..