U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than In Many Latin American Countries

[Rshermr]

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not.

You keep repeating your mantra as if it were rational, which it is not.

What I just said is that it is not a market system. It is a highly monopolistic market with very few competitors. Obviously, there are usually competitors. And, step, you are trying to change my words. That is a bit dishones, don't you think?

Your claim is utter stupidity.

Everyone wants the top job.

The Board has millions to choose from.

But what they want are performers. What is the job of the board of directors? To maximize shareholder value. How do they do that? A professional management team, usually comprised of a CEO, CFO, CIO and Sales/Marketing. The competition for these jobs is fierce. Basic price of admittance is generally an MBA or equivalent degree and a whole lot of experience. The BoD hires them because they perform, they increase the holdings of those who invested in the company.

Tell me, when you hire someone to work on you car, do you rate the "fairness" of your decision? I mean, do you look to make sure that the mechanic you use doesn't make more than other mechanics? Do you demand the mechanic be certified? Why not have a skid row bum work on your car? They need the money more, it would be more fair.

As for CEO pay, you're spewing class hatred and total bullshit.

The average total compensation for a CEO in the United States is $500,000 a year. That includes bonuses.

Chief Executive Officer Salary - Salary.com

That's a lot of money, double what I make, but not the obscene numbers you leftists float. You take Eisner, Tim Cook, and Jeffery Immelt and then represent them as the norm, when they are anything but. The average Hollywood star makes 3 to 5 times what a CEO does, but you'll still have sleazy fucks like Matt Damon stand with a straight face condemning CEO pay.

What you need to understand, my poor ignorant con, is that what you provided was ceo SALARIES. Now, if you believe that those salaries represent what they make in COMPENSATION, you are really, really ignorant.

As for CEO pay, you're spewing class hatred and total bullshit.

The average total compensation for a CEO in the United States is $500,000 a year. That includes bonuses.

Chief Executive Officer Salary - Salary.com

Here, from the source you provided, is a quote:

"CEOs make most of their money through incentives
As a general rule, base salary accounts for just 20 percent of a CEO's pay. The other 80 percent comes from performance-based pay."

You are talking about the ceo's salary. So, multiply by five. But that is not all. Look at the following to get an idea of the scope of the difference:

"t's good to be the king, or CEO, as the case may be. At least when it comes to pay. With a staggering total compensation package of $378 million for 2011, Apple's Tim Cook takes the cake for the highest Fortune 50 CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio. Indeed, it takes 6,258 typical Apple worker salaries to match Cook's total pay. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the ratio for Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett was 11-to-1. Overall, most CEOs took home an average 379 staffers' worth in base pay."
Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

See the difference. Before you start to say someone is spewing bullshit, check out your source. Dipshit.

 

[eflatminor]

For example, Big Pharma and the Health Care lobby rule this fucking country. Hell; Medicare has to pay the goddamn asking price for prescription meds, vis a vis, Medicare Part D, which is fucking ridiculous. Yet, our trial regs to bring new medical devices or meds to market are off the fucking scale. Getting new stuff to market in Europe and elsewhere is WAY easier. How could that be if their lobbyist have so much influence? BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THAT WAY!!! It keeps small players out of this market, which is fucking goldmine. Let the little guy get through clinical trials elsewhere, and if it looks like they have something, the Big Guys, who control the USA market, buy them up and run it thorugh cinical trials here. PURE MARKET MONOPOLIZATION, in regulation drag, by folk who whine about regulations to throw up a smoke screen in front of what's really happening: THEY WROTE THE FUCKING REGULATION!!!!

Merely one example.

An excellent example. In my opinion, one that demonstrates perfectly why the federal government should not meddle in the market for healthcare, which was never an enumerated power anyway. The more the feds get involved in markets (healthcare and education being prime examples), the more costs outpace the overall rate of inflation. Without that government cronyism, those mega companies could not rule anything they didn't earn from consumers making voluntary choices.

I understand you may advocate a different solution.

 

[Rshermr]

Nope; businesspeople of all political ideologies need markets that can buy their product or service, or the enterprise fails.

More ruthless, and clever trust/monopolizers can get bigger pieces of the pie, whatever its size. But the pie is what it is, and none can make it bigger, without government intervention or other forces driving wages higher, and growing the middle class.

Yes, I agree with that. But I believe that the distribution of the economy is still the problem. If it is larger, the issue is that the wealthy will still get the lions share, the middle class will still get their small share. Wealth distribution remains the same. Except that those with the wealth will continue to work the politicians they pay to get a bigger and bigger portion of increasing revenues.

Not that billionaries are a problem. Indeed, the few Microsoft created along with 1000s of millionaires has been a boom to the local Seattle economy.

But when workers are making more, and markets are growing, shit begins to happen in economies, which are not only highly dynamic, but fickle as all get out. A big part of the Great Recession was that businesses reduced staff by roughly double the rate of sales losses. They panic and plan for a worse future -- and become a self-fulling prophecy. And when things get going, they're fickle in reverse, and can over hire, banks lend more, new start ups get VC capital, likely for a more rosy future than is expected, once again, being a self-fulfilling prophecy to the positive side.

And while middle and lower class do better, upper classes do better still. Business owners, investors and top execs get pay-backs that scale with the success of their enterprises, which are subject to boader market forces. Average workers only get new co-worker's names they need to memorize, in essence; their paychecks do not get bigger when sales grow, with exception of commission sales, which often has the commission stucture reformulated whenever it's getting so lucrative that companies fear a de-incentive.

Good comments. I agree. I was a svp of a small multinational software company for a while, and saw exactly what you are discussing. And, by the way, when unemployment was high, the HR dept knew they could cut salaries, or at least not increase them, because, after all, where were the employees going to go.

You may well have seen this piece. I find it really interesting in discussing the problem with income (as opposed to wealth) distribution. And yes, the link between the two is obvious, just not real immediate:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

 

[Koios]

For example, Big Pharma and the Health Care lobby rule this fucking country. Hell; Medicare has to pay the goddamn asking price for prescription meds, vis a vis, Medicare Part D, which is fucking ridiculous. Yet, our trial regs to bring new medical devices or meds to market are off the fucking scale. Getting new stuff to market in Europe and elsewhere is WAY easier. How could that be if their lobbyist have so much influence? BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THAT WAY!!! It keeps small players out of this market, which is fucking goldmine. Let the little guy get through clinical trials elsewhere, and if it looks like they have something, the Big Guys, who control the USA market, buy them up and run it thorugh cinical trials here. PURE MARKET MONOPOLIZATION, in regulation drag, by folk who whine about regulations to throw up a smoke screen in front of what's really happening: THEY WROTE THE FUCKING REGULATION!!!!

Merely one example.

An excellent example. In my opinion, one that demonstrates perfectly why the federal government should not meddle in the market for healthcare, which was never an enumerated power anyway. The more the feds get involved in markets (healthcare and education being prime examples), the more costs outpace the overall rate of inflation. Without that government cronyism, those mega companies could not rule anything they didn't earn from consumers making voluntary choices.

I understand you may advocate a different solution.

The Health Care market meddles in Government, not the other way around. Who do you think wrote the Obamacare bill? Congress? Fuck no. The Health Care Lobby, emphasis on Health Insurance, who got millions of new customers, many at tax-payer expense, thanks to Obama"care."

Meanwhile, single-payer kicks fucking ass. Medicare, even with lobbyist tinkering (Medicare Part D is widely considered the worst bill ever written, fiscally speaking) is vastly more efficient, cost-wise and reduced administrative overhead-wise, than Private Insurance, by a mile.

Universal coverage in most other countries is half what we pay, in aggregate.

 

[Koios]

Yes, I agree with that. But I believe that the distribution of the economy is still the problem. If it is larger, the issue is that the wealthy will still get the lions share, the middle class will still get their small share. Wealth distribution remains the same. Except that those with the wealth will continue to work the politicians they pay to get a bigger and bigger portion of increasing revenues.

Not that billionaries are a problem. Indeed, the few Microsoft created along with 1000s of millionaires has been a boom to the local Seattle economy.

But when workers are making more, and markets are growing, shit begins to happen in economies, which are not only highly dynamic, but fickle as all get out. A big part of the Great Recession was that businesses reduced staff by roughly double the rate of sales losses. They panic and plan for a worse future -- and become a self-fulling prophecy. And when things get going, they're fickle in reverse, and can over hire, banks lend more, new start ups get VC capital, likely for a more rosy future than is expected, once again, being a self-fulfilling prophecy to the positive side.

And while middle and lower class do better, upper classes do better still. Business owners, investors and top execs get pay-backs that scale with the success of their enterprises, which are subject to boader market forces. Average workers only get new co-worker's names they need to memorize, in essence; their paychecks do not get bigger when sales grow, with exception of commission sales, which often has the commission stucture reformulated whenever it's getting so lucrative that companies fear a de-incentive.

Good comments. I agree. I was a svp of a small multinational software company for a while, and saw exactly what you are discussing. And, by the way, when unemployment was high, the HR dept knew they could cut salaries, or at least not increase them, because, after all, where were the employees going to go.

You may well have seen this piece. I find it really interesting in discussing the problem with income (as opposed to wealth) distribution. And yes, the link between the two is obvious, just not real immediate:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

I'm indeed familair with the article and many others dealing with the issue. And thanks!! We former exec veeps of multinationals (me on the hardware side) gotta know what's up if we hope to keep our companies moving in the right direction. Kudos for you obviously doing so.

 

[eflatminor]

For example, Big Pharma and the Health Care lobby rule this fucking country. Hell; Medicare has to pay the goddamn asking price for prescription meds, vis a vis, Medicare Part D, which is fucking ridiculous. Yet, our trial regs to bring new medical devices or meds to market are off the fucking scale. Getting new stuff to market in Europe and elsewhere is WAY easier. How could that be if their lobbyist have so much influence? BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THAT WAY!!! It keeps small players out of this market, which is fucking goldmine. Let the little guy get through clinical trials elsewhere, and if it looks like they have something, the Big Guys, who control the USA market, buy them up and run it thorugh cinical trials here. PURE MARKET MONOPOLIZATION, in regulation drag, by folk who whine about regulations to throw up a smoke screen in front of what's really happening: THEY WROTE THE FUCKING REGULATION!!!!

Merely one example.

An excellent example. In my opinion, one that demonstrates perfectly why the federal government should not meddle in the market for healthcare, which was never an enumerated power anyway. The more the feds get involved in markets (healthcare and education being prime examples), the more costs outpace the overall rate of inflation. Without that government cronyism, those mega companies could not rule anything they didn't earn from consumers making voluntary choices.

I understand you may advocate a different solution.

The Health Care market meddles in Government, not the other way around. Who do you think wrote the Obamacare bill? Congress? Fuck no. The Health Care Lobby, emphasis on Health Insurance, who got millions of new customers, many at tax-payer expense, thanks to Obama"care."

Agreed. Of course, it took politicians willing to step outside of their enumerated powers and willing meddling in markets to make that bill law. As a libertarian, I stand against those politicians. I advocate a government limited to a few enumerated powers so they have NO ability to even consider such a law.

 

[Rshermr]

Not that billionaries are a problem. Indeed, the few Microsoft created along with 1000s of millionaires has been a boom to the local Seattle economy.

But when workers are making more, and markets are growing, shit begins to happen in economies, which are not only highly dynamic, but fickle as all get out. A big part of the Great Recession was that businesses reduced staff by roughly double the rate of sales losses. They panic and plan for a worse future -- and become a self-fulling prophecy. And when things get going, they're fickle in reverse, and can over hire, banks lend more, new start ups get VC capital, likely for a more rosy future than is expected, once again, being a self-fulfilling prophecy to the positive side.

And while middle and lower class do better, upper classes do better still. Business owners, investors and top execs get pay-backs that scale with the success of their enterprises, which are subject to boader market forces. Average workers only get new co-worker's names they need to memorize, in essence; their paychecks do not get bigger when sales grow, with exception of commission sales, which often has the commission stucture reformulated whenever it's getting so lucrative that companies fear a de-incentive.

Good comments. I agree. I was a svp of a small multinational software company for a while, and saw exactly what you are discussing. And, by the way, when unemployment was high, the HR dept knew they could cut salaries, or at least not increase them, because, after all, where were the employees going to go.

You may well have seen this piece. I find it really interesting in discussing the problem with income (as opposed to wealth) distribution. And yes, the link between the two is obvious, just not real immediate:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

I'm indeed familair with the article and many others dealing with the issue. And thanks!! We former exec veeps of multinationals (me on the hardware side) gotta know what's up if we hope to keep our companies moving in the right direction. Kudos for you obviously doing so.

right, well into a merger, after three years. If you run into a better article out there about the subject and get a chance, post it.

 

[Koios]

An excellent example. In my opinion, one that demonstrates perfectly why the federal government should not meddle in the market for healthcare, which was never an enumerated power anyway. The more the feds get involved in markets (healthcare and education being prime examples), the more costs outpace the overall rate of inflation. Without that government cronyism, those mega companies could not rule anything they didn't earn from consumers making voluntary choices.

I understand you may advocate a different solution.

The Health Care market meddles in Government, not the other way around. Who do you think wrote the Obamacare bill? Congress? Fuck no. The Health Care Lobby, emphasis on Health Insurance, who got millions of new customers, many at tax-payer expense, thanks to Obama"care."

Agreed. Of course, it took politicians willing to step outside of their enumerated powers and willing meddling in markets to make that bill law. As a libertarian, I stand against those politicians. I advocate a government limited to a few enumerated powers so they have NO ability to even consider such a law.

They didn't step outside of their powers. They passed it, albeit, it came about rather ironically: The bill, which orginated in the Senate, where they were pretty-much giving head to Leiberman (Insurance-heavy state) and coupla other Blue Dogs, was merely to get the ball rolling. They had some cream puff shit for the lobbyists in it, which fingers crossed, The House would approve, some or most of. Then fate: Kennedy dies, and the most "secure" Dem Seat in the history of forever, goes to a Republican. Oh fuck. Health Care Reform is dead ... or so everyone thought for a nanosecond. Then Obama and Pelosi pull a fast one: pass the Senate bill, entact. Lobbyists got everything they'd wished, which was far more than they expected. And then they whine about Govmint takeover. Laughable, were it not that the American People still have marginal health care services at an atronomical cost.

 

[Oddball]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, go scurrying for the tall grass when the subject of such disparities in pay and benefits between the bureaucratic moocher class and the people working out in the real world saddled with the tax bills to pay the far-above-average pay and benefits for the flunky who empties wastebaskets at city hall and the DoT paper shufflers....People who retire after 30 years of producing nothing anyone else wants to buy with full pensions with benefits, many of whom turn around and double dip.

Nope....Not a peep out of them about the AFSCME parasite.

 

[eflatminor]

The Health Care market meddles in Government, not the other way around. Who do you think wrote the Obamacare bill? Congress? Fuck no. The Health Care Lobby, emphasis on Health Insurance, who got millions of new customers, many at tax-payer expense, thanks to Obama"care."

Agreed. Of course, it took politicians willing to step outside of their enumerated powers and willing meddling in markets to make that bill law. As a libertarian, I stand against those politicians. I advocate a government limited to a few enumerated powers so they have NO ability to even consider such a law.

They didn't step outside of their powers.

I understand we likely disagree about the idea of federal restrictions in the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment. Don't want to go there in this tread. My point is that this bill, along with thousands of others, should not have been something Washington should have even been able to consider much less pass into law. I understand you may disagree, but as a libertarian, I honestly believe restricting government to a few numbered powers is the only way to stop the cronyism you so rightfully pointed out.

 

[Koios]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, go scurrying for the tall grass when the subject of such disparities in pay and benefits between the bureaucratic moocher class and the people working out in the real world saddled with the tax bills to pay the far-above-average pay and benefits for the flunky who empties wastebaskets at city hall and the DoT paper shufflers....People who retire after 30 years of producing nothing anyone else wants to buy with full pensions with benefits, many of whom turn around and double dip.

Nope....Not a peep out of them about the AFSCME parasite.

Tell it to the losers in the single-wide next door to you. I'm sure they'll be in awe of the brilliance of that meaningless and empty rhetoric whilts popping open another 24 and partying like it's 9am on Monday.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, .

Wealth inequality has 6 liberal causes:

1) liberals destroyed the family thus creating millions of poor single mothers

2) liberal unions and other anti-busines policies have shippped 20 million middle class jobs offshore

3) dual income college grad professional couples have formed families in the upper classes.

4) welfare entitlements have grown tremendously thus destroying the incentive to work into the middle class

5) liberal hip-hop culture promotes the idea that white middle class culture is not cool while the thug life is.

6) the inequality figures are wrong anyway since they do not include income from welfare entitlements

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you need to understand, my poor ignorant con, is that what you provided was ceo SALARIES. Now, if you believe that those salaries represent what they make in COMPENSATION, you are really, really ignorant.

As is the case with most leftists, you lack even rudimentary intellect. What was posted is total compensation.

What you fail to grasp is that not every company is General Electric or Apple Computer - in fact they are the rare exception.

Here, from the source you provided, is a quote:

"CEOs make most of their money through incentives
As a general rule, base salary accounts for just 20 percent of a CEO's pay. The other 80 percent comes from performance-based pay."

You are talking about the ceo's salary. So, multiply by five. But that is not all. Look at the following to get an idea of the scope of the difference:

What you still fail to grasp is that the chart is of total compensation.

"t's good to be the king, or CEO, as the case may be. At least when it comes to pay. With a staggering total compensation package of $378 million for 2011, Apple's Tim Cook takes the cake for the highest Fortune 50 CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio. Indeed, it takes 6,258 typical Apple worker salaries to match Cook's total pay. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the ratio for Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett was 11-to-1. Overall, most CEOs took home an average 379 staffers' worth in base pay."
Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

Oh wow, so every CEO gets what Tim Cook does - because every company is as profitable (and evil) as Apple, right?

Well, not so much. In fact, Apple is alone in a category of 1.

See the difference. Before you start to say someone is spewing bullshit, check out your source. Dipshit.

The difference is that you're a dumbfuck without the mental ability to grasp even simple concepts.

Because you are stupid, you're easily led by demagogues and charlatans.

 

[Oddball]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, go scurrying for the tall grass when the subject of such disparities in pay and benefits between the bureaucratic moocher class and the people working out in the real world saddled with the tax bills to pay the far-above-average pay and benefits for the flunky who empties wastebaskets at city hall and the DoT paper shufflers....People who retire after 30 years of producing nothing anyone else wants to buy with full pensions with benefits, many of whom turn around and double dip.

Nope....Not a peep out of them about the AFSCME parasite.

Tell it to the losers in the single-wide next door to you. I'm sure they'll be in awe of the brilliance of that meaningless and empty rhetoric whilts popping open another 24 and partying like it's 9am on Monday.

Suck a dick, you bigoted commie fuckchop.

 

[edthecynic]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, go scurrying for the tall grass when the subject of such disparities in pay and benefits between the bureaucratic moocher class and the people working out in the real world saddled with the tax bills to pay the far-above-average pay and benefits for the flunky who empties wastebaskets at city hall and the DoT paper shufflers....People who retire after 30 years of producing nothing anyone else wants to buy with full pensions with benefits, many of whom turn around and double dip.

Nope....Not a peep out of them about the AFSCME parasite.

And of course, the Misinformation Voter knows this because GOP hate radio told him so, and the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood never lies.

 

[Rshermr]

What you need to understand, my poor ignorant con, is that what you provided was ceo SALARIES. Now, if you believe that those salaries represent what they make in COMPENSATION, you are really, really ignorant.

As is the case with most leftists, you lack even rudimentary intellect. What was posted is total compensation.

What you fail to grasp is that not every company is General Electric or Apple Computer - in fact they are the rare exception.

Here, from the source you provided, is a quote:

"CEOs make most of their money through incentives
As a general rule, base salary accounts for just 20 percent of a CEO's pay. The other 80 percent comes from performance-based pay."

You are talking about the ceo's salary. So, multiply by five. But that is not all. Look at the following to get an idea of the scope of the difference:

What you still fail to grasp is that the chart is of total compensation.

"t's good to be the king, or CEO, as the case may be. At least when it comes to pay. With a staggering total compensation package of $378 million for 2011, Apple's Tim Cook takes the cake for the highest Fortune 50 CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio. Indeed, it takes 6,258 typical Apple worker salaries to match Cook's total pay. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the ratio for Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett was 11-to-1. Overall, most CEOs took home an average 379 staffers' worth in base pay."
Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

Oh wow, so every CEO gets what Tim Cook does - because every company is as profitable (and evil) as Apple, right?

Well, not so much. In fact, Apple is alone in a category of 1.

See the difference. Before you start to say someone is spewing bullshit, check out your source. Dipshit.

The difference is that you're a dumbfuck without the mental ability to grasp even simple concepts.

Because you are stupid, you're easily led by demagogues and charlatans.

Right. Take a look at the actual link. Ah, don't bother. Just continue believing what you want. You are a con. that is what you do.

 

[Rshermr]

Amusing how the petty, dour and dripping with envy little socialist hand wringers, who go on and on and on about "income disparity" in the working world, go scurrying for the tall grass when the subject of such disparities in pay and benefits between the bureaucratic moocher class and the people working out in the real world saddled with the tax bills to pay the far-above-average pay and benefits for the flunky who empties wastebaskets at city hall and the DoT paper shufflers....People who retire after 30 years of producing nothing anyone else wants to buy with full pensions with benefits, many of whom turn around and double dip.

Nope....Not a peep out of them about the AFSCME parasite.

Tell it to the losers in the single-wide next door to you. I'm sure they'll be in awe of the brilliance of that meaningless and empty rhetoric whilts popping open another 24 and partying like it's 9am on Monday.

Suck a dick, you bigoted commie fuckchop.

And another profound attack post by Oddball. Best he can do is post bs and attack others for not buying his drivel. What a class act.

 

[Oddball]

Tell it to the losers in the single-wide next door to you. I'm sure they'll be in awe of the brilliance of that meaningless and empty rhetoric whilts popping open another 24 and partying like it's 9am on Monday.

Suck a dick, you bigoted commie fuckchop.

And another profound attack post by Oddball. Best he can do is post bs and attack others for not buying his drivel. What a class act.

That's how I respond to bigoted fuckchops, who so freely express their bigotry and arrogance.

You want some too, comrade?

 

[Koios]

Suck a dick, you bigoted commie fuckchop.

And another profound attack post by Oddball. Best he can do is post bs and attack others for not buying his drivel. What a class act.

That's how I respond to bigoted fuckchops, who so freely express their bigotry and arrogance.

You want some too, comrade?

Sorry; apparently I hit a bit too close to home for you, Oddie, mobile as it might have been 30 or so years ago before pulling the wheels off it.

 

[Oddball]

Blow it out your ass bigot.

And, no, you didn't distract from the fact that commie bastards like yourself don't give a flying fuck about the income disparity that exists between the bureaucratic parasite class and the hard working people out in The World, people who have their life's blood sucked form them in order to fund their rather lavish upper middle class lifestyles.