CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers’ Only by 12%

[Brain357]

Despite that wages are not going up or at the very best barely trickling up. That isn't the case for the "overhead".

U.S. Workforce Continues to Experience Wage Increases in 2019
PRESS RELEASE PR Newswire
May. 13, 2019, 06:00 AM
[...]
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported "over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.2 percent." In April, according to the recent BLS Employment Summary, "average hourly earnings for all employees on private payrolls rose by 6 cents to $27.77 while average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $23.31 in April."

PeopleTicker Labor Index shares a similar view of growth in jobs however, our compensation data indicates wage growth is higher than reported by the BLS when considering the contingent labor market. "The Manufacturing and Technology industries experienced increased wage growth in the first quarter of the year, said Musacchio. "The manufacturing industry has seen more than 5 percent growth in wages while hard-to-find technologies are seeing increases of over 10 percent."

The United States added 263,000 jobs last month, an increase with an average monthly gain of 213,000 over the prior 12 months according to the BLS. Unemployment declined by 0.2 percent to 3.6 percent, the lowest rate since December 1969. The job creation in April marks the 119th month of straight gains.
[...]
U.S. Workforce Continues to Experience Wage Increases in 2019 | Markets Insider

Been lots of min wage increases.

 

[Markle]

Despite that wages are not going up or at the very best barely trickling up. That isn't the case for the "overhead".

U.S. Workforce Continues to Experience Wage Increases in 2019
PRESS RELEASE PR Newswire
May. 13, 2019, 06:00 AM
[...]
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported "over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.2 percent." In April, according to the recent BLS Employment Summary, "average hourly earnings for all employees on private payrolls rose by 6 cents to $27.77 while average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $23.31 in April."

PeopleTicker Labor Index shares a similar view of growth in jobs however, our compensation data indicates wage growth is higher than reported by the BLS when considering the contingent labor market. "The Manufacturing and Technology industries experienced increased wage growth in the first quarter of the year, said Musacchio. "The manufacturing industry has seen more than 5 percent growth in wages while hard-to-find technologies are seeing increases of over 10 percent."

The United States added 263,000 jobs last month, an increase with an average monthly gain of 213,000 over the prior 12 months according to the BLS. Unemployment declined by 0.2 percent to 3.6 percent, the lowest rate since December 1969. The job creation in April marks the 119th month of straight gains.
[...]
U.S. Workforce Continues to Experience Wage Increases in 2019 | Markets Insider

Been lots of min wage increases.

 

[the other mike]

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss Americans living paycheck to paycheck despite a 40-year bull market in bonds where interest rates have been declining year after year for decades.

 

[pknopp]

I don't go to pro sports games or movies. Well, I don't go to the top levels. Minor league ball instill enjoy. Parking and the best seat in the place for $10 tops.

If you live near an NFL team that sucks, wait until about the end of the season and
like Browns tickets will go for $5 each. You'll pay more for parking and food for sure.

Browns tickets will be big bucks this year.

 

[Andylusion]

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

Yes, Union dues

That allow you to bargain on equal footing with management

And that's a nice theory. But it doesn't fit with reality. I remember the Teamsters strike years back now, and they did a full calculation of how much the workers lost from the strike, compared to the change in benefits the Union negotiated from the strike, and the result was they would have to work 25 years, just to break even with how much money they lost from striking.

Additionally, in order to pay the higher wages required by the union, the company cut planned increases in retirement benefits. Not only that, but doing so was a net-loss to the employee. Now if you don't know how that works, there are tax benefits for companies putting in to retirements systems.

So if you put $10,000 into a retirement plan, you get to put in the full $10,000. If you take that $10,000 away from retirement benefits, and put it into wages, then money is taxed. So the employee does not get $10,000 in additional wages, that they would have gotten in retirement benefits.

If you include that in the calculation of when the employees would break even from the loss of money from the strike, they never would break even.

And to make matters worse... a big requirement of the strike was to eliminate part-time jobs in favor of full time jobs. So 3 part-time employees lost their job, so that 1 full time person would get employed. That is a ton of jobs people were working, intentionally destroyed by the Unions.

Far from being a benefit that allows workers to 'bargain on equal footing', the unions destroyed jobs, and made their members poorer.

And that experience is mirrored everywhere.

None of the non-union employees at Honda in 2010, were wishing they could "bargain on equal footing with manage" like those at GM, who after the unions rammed the company into the ground, resulted in thousands of jobs lost.

And you can put any number of examples in there. Hostess, Chrysler, Eastern Airlines. The list goes on.

The irony really is that, again... if any of the union supporters on the left, applied union rules to themselves.... they would never accept it.

During the hostess strike... one of the union rules that management wanted to eliminate, was a rules that required multiple people, do a single job.

The Twinkie is Dead! Long Live the Twinkie!

Under the latest turnaround plan, the sticking point was Hostess's distribution operations, source of the Hostess horror stories filling the media. Union-imposed work rules stopped drivers from helping to load their trucks. A separate worker, arriving at the store in a separate vehicle, had to be employed to shift goods from a storage area to a retailer's shelf. Wonder Bread and Twinkies couldn't ride on the same truck.​

The management of Hostess required that they eliminate all these extra jobs. You didn't need two different trucks, to deliver products both produced at the same plant, to the same store. You didn't need to have a different guy showing up in a different vehicle, because the driver of the truck was not allowed to unload the truck.

It was crap like this, that made Hostess unprofitable. The union would rather keep their rules and force everyone to be unemployed because the company imploded, then to simply eliminate rules that destroyed their jobs.

Again... all the people on the left who claim they love the unions so much... would never tolerate this, if they themselves had to deal with it.

No one would hire a guy to black top their driveway....

End paying twice the cost, because two people had to show up in separate vehicles, because the power washer, and the sealer, can't be in the same vehicle.

And then pay three times the cost, because they had to pay a third guy to show up, because neither of the first two are allowed to power wash the driveway, or apply the sealer themselves.

No one would do this. No one. Not a single person, including every left-wing idiots on this forum, would pay 3X the price, because of some wonky rules. You would fire those three guys, and either hire someone who doesn't work for a union, and will do it all himself, or you would do it all yourself.

But you would never pay 3 times the cost, because of idiotic rules.

Yeah, you claim to support it, when the Union imposes that on a company? And then complain that unions are being destroyed. Well yeah, and they should be. And honestly you are a hypocrite if you claim otherwise.

 

[BluesLegend]

Salaries of the top 10 highest paid CEO's combined was .0008 of GDP. That's 8/10ths of 1/10th of 1%.

Which is a lot in a country of over 300 million.

LOL You fell for it, that's $5 per person. Told you so libs suck at math

 

[RodISHI]

Cool. Everyone should work hard to become a CEO.

Hard work doesn't make you a ceo. Unless you were born rich, you aren't in the running.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born rich?

Actually Bill Gates had a silver spoon. Mary Maxwell Gates - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_Sr.

Steve Jobs on the other hand was adopted by a working class family.

 

[jc456]

This is how life works.

You do not get paid more, simply because your neighbor got paid more.

By what logic, do you suggest that you... without doing anything to earn an increase in pay... should get paid more, simply because you are envious of someone else who is paid more?

CEOs get paid more, because they provide more good to society.

Say I run a oil change shop. I hire you to do oil changes. How many people do you help? Assuming roughly 2 customers per hour, that's about 16 people a day that you specifically help.

Now I being CEO, open 20 oil change shops, assuming two working bays, and 7 AM to 7 PM service, that's roughly 200 people a day that have a service they want, because of me.

Which should be paid more?

And see, as I invest more of my money, back into providing more services by opening more stores, my pay will continue to increase.

You, being an employee on the other hand, have invested nothing. You risk losing nothing. The worst that can happen to you is that you lose your job and find another. The worst that can happen to me, is that the business fails, and all the money I invested will be lost forever.

That average fast food franchise owner, has put in an average of one million dollars into their store. This is their own money. Money they could lose entirely if the business fails.

What would you, being an employee lose? Nothing.

The last CEO I worked for, had saved up half a million dollars in cash, and pulled out a mortgage on both his own home, and his father's home, to buy the business. If the business failed, he would not only be out the half million dollars, but potentially lose his home, and his parents home.

Again... what would you, being an employee, lose?

So when you say CEO pay has increased, while employee pay has not increased comparatively.... yes.... good... rightly so.

Quite the fairytale.

Which part is inaccurate to reality?

A ceo did everything they do now in the 70's. CEOs in other countries do the job too. Why is it ours are getting all the big raises now? To claim it's good they are getting grossly overpaid when studies show no link to performance is just funny.

son, we can't help you! trust us though, the adults are getting it done.

You just stay in fairytale land.

That is your area

 

[candycorn]

Its as good an explanation of what happened to the pension benefits that used to be paid out….

 

[jc456]

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

Did the huge corporate tax cut do us any good? We have trillion dollar deficits and 2% gdp growth.

You say that, and then change the context.

You were talking about it on a employee level, and now we're talking about the national debt and growth.

Yes, the tax cuts did do us good. I personally have got boast in the employee stock purchase program, directly linked to the lower taxes, resulting in higher profits, which in turn made my investment have a good return.

So yes, it did do us good.

As for GDP, I think the ill advised trade war crap is the primary problem there, combined with bad expensive health care mandates, are putting a drag on the economy.

It also does not help that we have a clearly hostile business environment. AOC single-handedly destroyed hundreds of jobs for New York City. The hostile environment does in fact have an effect on business.

And lastly, deficits have to do with spending. Again Michael Jackson made an estimate billion dollars, and was bankrupt before he died.

Deficits have nothing to do with taxes. Because you can't change how much money taxes collect. You can only change the tax rate. People can move money, to avoid high rates.

Again, the tax burden shifted to the wealthy during the 80s to 90s, because with lower rates, more wealthy were willing to pay the lower tax. As a result more did pay, and income from taxes went up, as the tax rate went down.

If you need more proof of this, look at the tax rates in Greece, and explain how they ended up going into default? You can't. But it's really simple... even thought tax rates were high, the people avoided the taxes, resulting in implosion of the tax base.

You need to keep your spending under the tax revenue. Not try and jack up tax revenue to the level of spending.

Deficits are a spending problem. Not a tax problem.

Remember, the entire yellow jacket protest in France, was started because the government increased spending, and tried to increase taxes on the public to pay for the spending. Specifically, a tax on petrol. The public revolted over that.

Again, spending is the problem. Cut the spending. That is the solution.

And what jobs did AOC kill exactly? Oh never mind, you babble too much. This is about CEO pay and that is clearly way too high. They have quite the scam going.

Amazon 25000 jobs in her state! Yep stay stupid and naive you wear it well

 

[jc456]

Its as good an explanation of what happened to the pension benefits that used to be paid out….

Pension is a economic killer

 

[jc456]

Wrong. The system is the lie. His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland while he sets his own salary low to avoid taxes. Now run along and do something constructive - wax your new black Mercedes or something, Huckleberry.

His capital gains $9 billion income is going to the Cayman Islands and Switzerland

He didn't sell stock, there is no $9 billion income. Moron.

He is not stupid enough to take $9 billion in income

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

$9 billion in added wealth is another story

Don't tell Angelo, he thinks he made that in salary or dividends paid by the second/minute/hour.

And this time next year my net worth will be $161 billion.

I'd be surprised if your net worth was as high as $161 thousand.

Most probably 161 dollars

 

[Andylusion]

They paid more taxes, when tax rates were lower, than when they were higher.

You want the wealthy to pay less tax, and end up with the lower and middle class being forced to take most of the burden? Just jack up tax rates to 1970s levels.

Of course they do, we have a weak middle class now. Wages mostly stagnant for all but the wealthy.

If we have a weak middle class (which I think is absolutely debatable), it still has nothing to do with taxation, and the wealth. Do you think that if you jack up taxes, that somehow everyone is going to get a pay raise? By what logic is that?

You really think my company is going to have huge taxes levied against them, is then going to magically turn around with the money they no longer have, and offer it in pay raises?

Did the huge corporate tax cut do us any good? We have trillion dollar deficits and 2% gdp growth.

You say that, and then change the context.

You were talking about it on a employee level, and now we're talking about the national debt and growth.

Yes, the tax cuts did do us good. I personally have got boast in the employee stock purchase program, directly linked to the lower taxes, resulting in higher profits, which in turn made my investment have a good return.

So yes, it did do us good.

As for GDP, I think the ill advised trade war crap is the primary problem there, combined with bad expensive health care mandates, are putting a drag on the economy.

It also does not help that we have a clearly hostile business environment. AOC single-handedly destroyed hundreds of jobs for New York City. The hostile environment does in fact have an effect on business.

And lastly, deficits have to do with spending. Again Michael Jackson made an estimate billion dollars, and was bankrupt before he died.

Deficits have nothing to do with taxes. Because you can't change how much money taxes collect. You can only change the tax rate. People can move money, to avoid high rates.

Again, the tax burden shifted to the wealthy during the 80s to 90s, because with lower rates, more wealthy were willing to pay the lower tax. As a result more did pay, and income from taxes went up, as the tax rate went down.

If you need more proof of this, look at the tax rates in Greece, and explain how they ended up going into default? You can't. But it's really simple... even thought tax rates were high, the people avoided the taxes, resulting in implosion of the tax base.

You need to keep your spending under the tax revenue. Not try and jack up tax revenue to the level of spending.

Deficits are a spending problem. Not a tax problem.

Remember, the entire yellow jacket protest in France, was started because the government increased spending, and tried to increase taxes on the public to pay for the spending. Specifically, a tax on petrol. The public revolted over that.

Again, spending is the problem. Cut the spending. That is the solution.

And what jobs did AOC kill exactly? Oh never mind, you babble too much. This is about CEO pay and that is clearly way too high. They have quite the scam going.

Are you not aware that Amazon openly planned to build an office building, that potentially could provide over 100,000 jobs directly in AOC's district, and that she complained, attacked and accused Amazon so much, that they canceled their plans?

I get that I speak at length on topics. I believe there are topics that require longer answers than Twitter style debates.

Yes, I gather that you think CEO pay is too much. I wonder if you would be as open to making judgement calls on other people's wages, if someone were criticizing how much you are paid.

Regardless... it's not your money. You working at a company, doesn't make the companies money, your money to determine what happens with it.

The owners of the company, determine what happens with the money, just like you in your home determines what happens with your money.

If you decide to give $1000 to your 15 year old daughter, for the latest iPhone, should I be able to tell you that is wrong, or excessive?

I think it is excessive. I think giving your teenage daughter a phone that costs over $100 is excessive. My parents never did that for me. If I wanted something, they would point to the Wendy's and say "they're hiring. The sign in the window says so".

So I think you are way over paid, if you can give your children phones and crap.

If I did that to you, in public like this..... you would say it was none of my business, and to keep my mouth shut, it's your money and you can do what you want with it.

And you know what? You're right!.

Same is true of how much CEOs are paid. Mind your own freaking business. Why are people so consumed with greed and envy, that they have shove their nose up everyone's financial butt, and claim is smells bad? Mind your business. Didn't you have parents that taught you that?

One of the key lessons my parents taught me growing up. Now I am starting to find out, I'm one of the minority of people in the country that had parents good enough to teach that.

 

[Jitss617]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

The more democrats create regulations the more rich people can monopolize

 

[OKTexas]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

Pretty funny that workers wages stopped rising not long after we changed immigration laws to allow massive Third WOrld immigration.


But hey, let's not try changing the things that cause "inequality". That misses the point.


The point is just to talk about it. And make vague anti-American posts.

They stopped rising after we cut the bottom out from unions.

Workers who can’t organize are left on their own. Easy prey to corporate masters

I never worked a job that didn't pay what I was willing to accept to do the work. Never had a master either, it's a shame you think so little of yourself.

.

 

[Correll]

YOu can comment on what you want as a goal for policy.

I want U.S. companies that signed bad deals with China to abuse their cheap labor and are now complaining about those deals, taxed hard enough to be forced back or out of business.

"forced back" so they could avoid the taxes by coming BACK and bringing the jobs BACK?

Sure.

And this is so different from Trump and taxes how?

Trump has never enacted taxes, but you know that. I hate discussing things with people who are intentionally dishonest. It does explain Trump though.

Sorry, meant to say, trump and TARIFFS, how?

 

[pknopp]

I want U.S. companies that signed bad deals with China to abuse their cheap labor and are now complaining about those deals, taxed hard enough to be forced back or out of business.

"forced back" so they could avoid the taxes by coming BACK and bringing the jobs BACK?

Sure.

And this is so different from Trump and taxes how?

Trump has never enacted taxes, but you know that. I hate discussing things with people who are intentionally dishonest. It does explain Trump though.

Sorry, meant to say, trump and TARIFFS, how?

Taxes and tariff's are not the same thing.

 

[Correll]

It does not make sense that decreased union membership HERE, is a reason to send jobs overseas.

Union jobs were sent to China. Hence decreased membership and stagnant wages.

1. That is the opposite of what you just claimed.


2. And still does not explain why you think it is funny.

No its exactly what I claimed. Republicans started a war on unions, making it acceptable to ship jobs overseas. Shipping jobs overseas lowered union membership. Remember when repubs said things would be great without unions? Another policy in which they were very wrong.

1. Not quite the way I remember it.

2. Yes, I do remember when republicans said without unions, AND SOME OTHER FACTORS, that things would be great again. And yes, they were wrong.


3. Hence why I support changing the policies that led to those disappointing results. You are here supporting the status quo.

What we need is more unions. If service jobs become union the problems are solved. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. And there is really no reason for manufacturing to pay more than service jobs. I think most would find manufacturing to be the easier job.

How does Germany have twice the level of manufacturing employment that we do?

 

[pknopp]

Union jobs were sent to China. Hence decreased membership and stagnant wages.

1. That is the opposite of what you just claimed.


2. And still does not explain why you think it is funny.

No its exactly what I claimed. Republicans started a war on unions, making it acceptable to ship jobs overseas. Shipping jobs overseas lowered union membership. Remember when repubs said things would be great without unions? Another policy in which they were very wrong.

1. Not quite the way I remember it.

2. Yes, I do remember when republicans said without unions, AND SOME OTHER FACTORS, that things would be great again. And yes, they were wrong.


3. Hence why I support changing the policies that led to those disappointing results. You are here supporting the status quo.

What we need is more unions. If service jobs become union the problems are solved. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. And there is really no reason for manufacturing to pay more than service jobs. I think most would find manufacturing to be the easier job.

How does Germany have twice the level of manufacturing employment that we do?

They didn't allow manufacturing to offshore.

 

[RodISHI]

An Economic Policy Institute study shows that the dramatic increase in CEO compensation has a large impact on increasing inequality--worker pay could have doubled without the rise in CEO income.
CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers' Only by 12%

But, greed is good isn't it ?

The more democrats create regulations the more rich people can monopolize

The people are giving these corporations more power and the ability to sway politics however they want when they simply put their retirements with fund managers that are investing in these companies. The people are slitting their own throats. The fund managers and CEO's in many of these mega companies are just playing whoever is willing to put their money with them.