Is the US becoming a serf economy

[Unkotare]

One of the things I think we may ask ourselves here is this:

An executive earned 40 times the average wage in 1980.

An executive earned 500 times the average wage in 2000.

Which of those figures do you think is more realistic?

Because it can't be both.

The answer is: Stop being a little emo *****. Give up this Appeal to Emotion nonsense if you want a serious discussion. I'm not sure you do.

 

[initforme]

"the real power comes from what we call the 1%, and that their hold on the country is the lie that one day, we could be rich too. "

Perfect and EXACT description of the good ole usa. Its never been this skewed toward a small percentage of people since my 75 years on this earth. Scary times.

 

[squeeze berry]

One of the things I think we may ask ourselves here is this:

An executive earned 40 times the average wage in 1980.

An executive earned 500 times the average wage in 2000.

Which of those figures do you think is more realistic?

Because it can't be both.

The answer is: Stop being a little emo *****. Give up this Appeal to Emotion nonsense if you want a serious discussion. I'm not sure you do.

put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

 

[Toro]

I think this material shows that the wealthy in the US get an easier ride than they do in any other country on earth. Too easy.

I am pro-capitalist, pro-incentives and all for people earning the most they can in life, but I also believe wealthy people can pay a fair amount towards supporting the system that produces that wealth.

The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times.

For the US to create and grow - that needs to change.

Why does CEO compensation doesn't need to change so the economy will create and grow? There is no relationship between the two.

I will agree that CEO comp has gotten ridiculous. It wouldn't be ridiculous if there was an actual relationship between comp and performance. Unfortunately, there is little. There is no relationship between how well a CEO performs and how well he is comped. There is actually evidence that CEOs who are "stars" and brought in from the outside perform slightly worse than those who are promoted from within.

The other problem in America is weak corporate governance. Contrary to what those on the Left claim, corporations in America are not run to maximize profits. They are run to maximize the compensation of the top executives. That's simplistic but generally true. If there are corporate governance mechanisms that link the two, then executives will prioritize maximizing profits but that is often not the case. If you look at the roster of directors on the boards of the top 500 companies in America, very few are actual large owners of company stock, outside of founders. Also, the CEO is often the Chairman of the Board, which should clearly be a conflict of interest. That's not the case in the Nordic countries. The Nordics have the best corporate governance system in the world, where companies are controlled by the shareholders, unlike here in America. America should adopt the Scandinavian model of corporate governance.

Toro, you make some good points.
I certainly can't comment on all Fortune 500 companies, as I have not done the research, but I can tell you about the CEO salary of the company I work for. I observe his salary because I work for the company and keep up with the annual reports. Where I work, the CEO's salary is largely dependent upon his bonus. His bonus is based primarily upon company growth and company profit. About 80% of his salary is bonus and 90% of his bonus is based upon company performance as opposed to 20% of my bonus being based upon company performance.
A couple years ago, the company actually hit 150% of it's profit plan/goal, so everybody in the company had their company portion of the bonus calculated at 200% (for every 1% point above plan, the company pays 2% points above the bonus, for every 1% point below plan the company cuts 2% points off the bonus) Of course, that made the CEO's compensation huge that year. One of the differences between my bonus and the CEO's bonus is that mine is paid in cash, a lot of his is paid in stock grants, which is even more incentive for him to grow the value of the company.

I'm speaking in aggregate. There are some companies which are excellent on governance and incentives and there are others that are just awful.

 

[Londoner]

The nation state is dead. There is no "U.S."

Well, that was pretty ******* stupid. Back to Drama Club, you emo-clown. Or is it back to the Masterbating to Marx Club?

I was making a very specific claim about the fact that globalization created a transnational alliance of capital which was no longer bound geographically to a host nation, but had/has access to all the world's labor.

China - the largest U.S. retailer - gets 100% of manufacturing done in China - that is, one of the USA's largest companies is not bound by the nation the state.

Under the old model, capital was more tied to its host nation; the boundaries of the nation state meant something.

Each nation had its own unique laws, language and culture. BUT this uniqueness created inefficiency for investment capital, which wanted a universal, predictable legal structure so it would be easier for capital to flow to the cheapest labor and raw material. For this reason, the owners of capital started investing in the political structures of all nations in order to level them into one global economy. [FYI: if you think Socialism aims for top-down central control, you should study the military behavior of the U.S. Specifically, notice how it used the Cold War as an interventionist context to create a singular, Washington controlled global economy, to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the eagle's protective wing. There is no greater example of centralized control]

But how did Washington create a centralized, top-down global economy? How did it impose a singular state controlled market formula on the world? In the 3rd world (mostly the global south), this was done through IMF Loans. The goal was to find a corruptible dictator who was willing to sell his country down river by forcibly opening his country's resources to foreign investment (which resulted in outsiders controlling and reaping most of the benefits of that country's wealth-producing assets). This is why Mozedeq was ousted in favor of the Shaw, who was more friendly to western energy needs. But he was hated by his own people and served to move the region closer to radical Islam (the threat of which allowed GOP hawks to grow the Pentagon budget)

But you need to understand the point. Capital wanted unobstructed access to all the world's labor and resources - it did not want to be delayed at every border by having to respond to a different set of laws, customs, and regulations. So it invested heavily in the elections and political structure of nearly every nation in order to create a singular legal format. It leveled cultural differences as much as possible to make it easier for capital to flow. If an illegal Mexican worker could do the job cheaper, than the owners of capital looked the other way. This is why Reagan passed the largest Amnesty Bill in American history. He wanted to give capital easy access to cheap Mexican labor. He wanted it to be easier for American businesses to relocate to Mexico; and he wanted the Southern California agriculture, construction, and fast food industries to benefit from cheap illegal labor. This is why we have Mexifornia - because capital levels differences. The nation state is meaningless.

Turn off talk radio.

 

[Unkotare]

One of the things I think we may ask ourselves here is this:

An executive earned 40 times the average wage in 1980.

An executive earned 500 times the average wage in 2000.

Which of those figures do you think is more realistic?

Because it can't be both.

The answer is: Stop being a little emo *****. Give up this Appeal to Emotion nonsense if you want a serious discussion. I'm not sure you do.

put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

That's why you make 500 times less.

 

[Steelplate]

One of the things I think we may ask ourselves here is this:

An executive earned 40 times the average wage in 1980.

An executive earned 500 times the average wage in 2000.

Which of those figures do you think is more realistic?

Because it can't be both.

The answer is: Stop being a little emo *****. Give up this Appeal to Emotion nonsense if you want a serious discussion. I'm not sure you do.

wow great input...go...run along and play now.....

 

[Political Junky]

"the real power comes from what we call the 1%, and that their hold on the country is the lie that one day, we could be rich too. "

Perfect and EXACT description of the good ole usa. Its never been this skewed toward a small percentage of people since my 75 years on this earth. Scary times.

Yes, the middle class who go along with the cons on this are either really stupid or lying.

 

[alan1]

"the real power comes from what we call the 1%, and that their hold on the country is the lie that one day, we could be rich too. "

Perfect and EXACT description of the good ole usa. Its never been this skewed toward a small percentage of people since my 75 years on this earth. Scary times.

Yes, the middle class who go along with the cons on this are either really stupid or lying.

The economically depressed that trust rich folks like Mr Obama and Mr Biden are what?

 

[Unkotare]

China - the largest U.S. retailer - gets 100% of manufacturing done in China - .

No, it does not.

 

[Unkotare]

Each nation had its own unique laws, language and culture. [.

As they still do.

 

[Unkotare]

But how did Washington create a one-world, centralized, top-down economy?.

It did not, you hysterical fool.

 

[Saigon]

Toro, you make some good points.
I certainly can't comment on all Fortune 500 companies, as I have not done the research, but I can tell you about the CEO salary of the company I work for. I observe his salary because I work for the company and keep up with the annual reports. Where I work, the CEO's salary is largely dependent upon his bonus. His bonus is based primarily upon company growth and company profit. About 80% of his salary is bonus and 90% of his bonus is based upon company performance as opposed to 20% of my bonus being based upon company performance.
A couple years ago, the company actually hit 150% of it's profit plan/goal, so everybody in the company had their company portion of the bonus calculated at 200% (for every 1% point above plan, the company pays 2% points above the bonus, for every 1% point below plan the company cuts 2% points off the bonus) Of course, that made the CEO's compensation huge that year. One of the differences between my bonus and the CEO's bonus is that mine is paid in cash, a lot of his is paid in stock grants, which is even more incentive for him to grow the value of the company.

I think bonuses do highlights some of the disparity between rewards for senior executies and normal staff - which I contend work counter to the interests of many firms.

We had a company here which paid €7 million in shares as a bonus to a CEO, under whose guidance the firm lost 20% of its share price, and became mired in controversy.

How motivating is that going to be for the staff, who earn mediocre salaries, earn very small bonuses, and often have little chances of career advancement at a company who recruit senior management externally anyway?

Unkotare -

I have put you on ignore mode to discourage the spamming.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare -

I have put you on ignore mode to discourage the spamming.

Good luck with the next level of your ESL class.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"the real power comes from what we call the 1%, and that their hold on the country is the lie that one day, we could be rich too. "

Perfect and EXACT description of the good ole usa. Its never been this skewed toward a small percentage of people since my 75 years on this earth. Scary times.

This is what happens when someone never grows up.

He adopts a partisan media phrase and claims it's something we all use.

Then cries that the fact that anyone 'can' become rich is a lie < THAT alone makes him a buffoon.

Scary times? Yes, children are frequently afraid b/c they don't know better.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Unkotare -

I have put you on ignore mode to discourage the spamming.

Good luck with the next level of your ESL class.

He has you on ignore, so unless I reply to what you said, he will never know you said it.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare -

I have put you on ignore mode to discourage the spamming.

Good luck with the next level of your ESL class.

He has you on ignore, so unless I reply to what you said, he will never know you said it.

That's part of the fun.

 

[GreatDay]

"the real power comes from what we call the 1%, and that their hold on the country is the lie that one day, we could be rich too. "

Perfect and EXACT description of the good ole usa. Its never been this skewed toward a small percentage of people since my 75 years on this earth. Scary times.

This is what happens when someone never grows up.

He adopts a partisan media phrase and claims it's something we all use.

Then cries that the fact that anyone 'can' become rich is a lie < THAT alone makes him a buffoon.

Scary times? Yes, children are frequently afraid b/c they don't know better.

may not be impossible, but by far most people with money got it the old fashion way, they were born that way…


Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York Times

 

[Saigon]

may not be impossible, but by far most people with money got it the old fashion way, they were born that way…


Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York Times

Statistics do tend to back this up.

People on this thread have raised names like Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, but realistically these people are not one in a million, they are one in a hundred million.

It is still possible to have that one amazing 'get rich quick' idea, but much harder than it was a generation ago. That should concern all of us, I think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

may not be impossible, but by far most people with money got it the old fashion way, they were born that way…


Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York Times

Statistics do tend to back this up.

People on this thread have raised names like Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, but realistically these people are not one in a million, they are one in a hundred million.

It is still possible to have that one amazing 'get rich quick' idea, but much harder than it was a generation ago. That should concern all of us, I think.

So how many rich ero's are their that made it on their own?