Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The absolute gall of YOU, of all people, to whine about a different set of rules for different people, MISTER rules for others but not for you!!!!!!!Yet you have the gall to bust on me for lack of civility.Honest question, Koios: why would you expect anyone to give you a civil answer?
You are intellectually dishonest, you ignore and dismiss most evidence that reveals the idiocy of what you post. You are often stumbling drunk when you post, creating slop with your logic and your typing. So why would anyone respect you or treat you seriously?
No. Did I give you a sense I was here for the civility? Hahahahahahahaha.
Like anyone needed any more evidence that Marxist knuckle draggers like you have multiple sets of rules.
Guidelines for Giving out Negative Rep Revised 07/25/2012:
Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period. If a member negatively impacts another person's reputation more than 1 time in a 48 hour period (2/48 Violation) the following will happen:
All accumulated reputation will be zero'd out
Loss of all ability to give reputation (negative/positive)
Loss of all ability to receive reputation (negative/positive)
All your other privileges will remain intact. You will still be able to participate on the boards.
Be forewarned that once you have been zero'd out and lost your ability to give/receive rep, it will be PERMANENT. NO EXCEPTIONS.
That was not the point a$$hole!Sue USMB, asshole.
Right. Of course the numbers for the top 50 are higher than overall. But trying a 500K number just does not cut it. But believe what you will
So, I have been a bit busy, so did not go out to find actual numbers for ceo pay. Here is a piece that covers it well:You fell back to paint chips??? Shit, U'08, I was so proud of you when you evolved to huffing oven cleaner. You're digressing.
How very disappointing.
I'm just the commentator - the consumption is on you, sparky.
"So much for the new austerity.
The average U.S. chief executive earned more than $11 million last year in salary, stock options and other compensation, according to a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Thats about 231 times more, on average, than workers.
That ratio has shrunk a bit since the height of the dot.com bubble, when a ballooning stock market inflated CEO compensation to 411 times that of working stiffs.
And its smaller than the pay gap calculated recently by the AFL-CIO, the umbrella federation of unions representing about 12 million U.S. workers. Their analysis concluded that the typical CEO of an S&P 500 Index company made 380 times the average wages of U.S. workers in 2011.
Whatever. What's clear is that the pay gap between U.S. CEOs and rank-and-file workers is higher than anywhere else in the developed world. And it has been accelerating over the last few decades. In 1965, the U.S. CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was roughly 20 to 1.
Here are some additional stats to put the oh! in CEO:
-- 725%: That's how much average CEO compensation increased between 1978 and 2011, according to EPI.
-- 5.7%: Thats how much the average workers compensation increased over the same period.
Bottom line: It pays to be CEO."
U.S. CEOs paid 231 times more than average workers - Los Angeles Times
And here is the wsj report on compensation of 456 of the largest firms in the US:
CEO Compensation - The Wall Street Journal Online
l, you on the left are openly lying.
Ah, the irony! When you're not using tired platitudes, seems you default to outright BS:l, you on the left are openly lying.
And yet neither of the sources are remotely left wing, and one has clearly right wing owners.
What are you talking about?
l, you on the left are openly lying.
And yet neither of the sources are remotely left wing, and one has clearly right wing owners.
What are you talking about?
What I was saying was the above in response to you comment. I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult. Sorry about the confusion.Ah, the irony! When you're not using tired platitudes, seems you default to outright BS:l, you on the left are openly lying.
And yet neither of the sources are remotely left wing, and one has clearly right wing owners.
What are you talking about?
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Well, it looks like that $11 million figure isn't too far off....
The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.
That was up more than 6 percent from the previous year, and is the second year in a row of increases. The figure is also the highest since the AP began tracking executive compensation in 2006.
CEO average pay jumps to almost $10 million - Business - US business | NBC News
Income inequality doesn't fly real well in these boards. I find it troubling that people don't care that they are making less than they did 40 years ago and are going no-where income wise. Some don't care, some don't realize it and others have accepted it and gave up.
Equilar found that 84 percent of Fortune 100 companies
Same game; reporting Fortune 100 companies as the "average."
Meathead -
So you are saying that the stats posted are false?
You said, and I quote, "And yet neither of the sources are remotely left wing, and one has clearly right wing owners.Uncensored, Meathead -
I don't consider the LA Times or the WSJ to be left wing, though clearly some people do. Liberal, possibly, but left wing....hardly.
It does seem to be an American fundamentalist hobby to attack any media source people dislike as being somewhere out past Pravda, campaigining for Stalin. Realistically, I think most major media sources are a little more moderate.
Don't let this stop either of you from commenting on the material posted.
The LA Times flat out lied. Following the link revealed that what they reported as "average" was instead clearly labeled as the "top 1%" by their source.
.
The issue is the Times is an agenda driven propaganda rag, with the goal of fostering class warfare on behalf of the party.
The LA Times flat out lied. Following the link revealed that what they reported as "average" was instead clearly labeled as the "top 1%" by their source.
.
I may be missing something here, but I checked the links, and I don't mention of the Top 1% of CEO's.
This seems clear to me:
"CEO pay went up in 2011. Again.
The average CEO pay of companies in the S&P 500 Index rose to $12.94 million in 2011. Overall, the average level of CEO pay in the S&P 500 Index increased 13.9 percent in 2011, following a 22.8 percent increase in CEO pay in 2010."
There is an entirely related stat on the 1% vs 99% thing at the bottom of the page, but I'm wondering if you might have misread the stat?
Meathead -
As I commented earlier - I don't consider either to be at all left wing. If you do, that's fine. It's a subjective issue.
Of course it's a subjective issue. That you do not find either to be "remotely left wing" proves it. I linked a UCLA (not a bastion of right wing thinking) study which concluded that both the LA Times and the WSJ news reporting were among the furthest to the left. Once again:Meathead -
As I commented earlier - I don't consider either to be at all left wing. If you do, that's fine. It's a subjective issue.
