Current Events > In 1965 CEOs in US earned 20x more than the average worker. In 2015 it was 300x

(+) Yeah! (+)

Damn_Underscore posted...

Income inequality literally doesn't matter as long as workers are treated fairly and being paid well.

as an economic system, capitalism necessitates the existence of an exploited underclass. workers fundamentally cannot be treated fairly under capitalism.

---

averagejoel posted...

as an economic system, capitalism necessitates the existence of an exploited underclass. workers fundamentally cannot be treated fairly under capitalism.

This is an explanation for socialism and communism.

Under capitalism, you can leave one company for another.

---

FoldingProjects posted...

This is an explanation for socialism and communism.

Under capitalism, you can leave one company for another.

who's your main

---

Frolex posted...

Seems like it makes a great argument not to compromise with conservative economic policy and pass tax code regulation thats as stringent as possible.

There was no compromise, it was a campaign promise from Bill Clinton to limit CEO pay. Company performance based compensation was meant to be a fairer system where they would have to earn their money, but when CEO pay increased under that system they kept whining anyway.

Frolex posted...

We're talking about the level of growth in CEO wages contrasted with those of workers. If the real wages for the working class has massively increased in turn, that wouldnt be a problem. The issue isn't in just comparing the pay of a CEO to one worker.

There's no particular reason why a worker, who could be anyone in any type of position, would have wage increases at the same rate as someone who runs a massive company with hundreds of thousands of employees. A more reasonable expectation is that worker compensation should keep pace with productivity growth, and it is.

Frolex posted...

No one's saying average standard of living is lower than it was 60 years ago. But they have gone up in spite of growing economic inequality.

The US has higher wages, lower unemployment and higher GDP growth than nations that have "solved" inequality in Europe. CEO pay is very insignificant compared to both the revenue their companies bring in and the money they spend on worker compensation. It has zero negative impact on any of our lives. Making someone else poorer does not make you richer which is why inequality is a useless statistic out of context.

E32005 posted...

your only examples are massive global corps. most people are employed by medium sized business.

even there the difference is criminal

As I've said multiple times, the people running those medium sized companies don't get as much compensation as the people running massive global corps, meaning my point remains true. It wouldn't matter if you divided billions of dollars among hundreds of thousands of workers or millions among thousands, lower CEO pay would not positively impact workers because the amount spent on them is actually very small.

Companies pay a market rate to get as good a CEO as they can to make sure they are successful, which is what actually impacts workers wages.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

There was no compromise, it was a campaign promise from Bill Clinton to limit CEO pay. Company performance based compensation was meant to be a fairer system where they would have to earn their money, but when CEO pay increased under that system they kept whining anyway.

I'm far from the first person to call it a compromise.
https://wapo.st/3cg04WJ
https://robertreich.org/post/150082237740
https://www.taxwarriors.com/blog/excessive-ceo-pay-performance-based-compensation-et.-al
http://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=9011ec92-9d2a-41d3-8b67-c08ec555c408

Call it a compromise, call it a "nudge" like the NPR piece does, call it whatever you want to. You're taking issue with the tax exemptions the reform gave to corporations.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

There's no particular reason why a worker, who could be anyone in any type of position, would have wage increases at the same rate as someone who runs a massive company with hundreds of thousands of employees. A more reasonable expectation is that worker compensation should keep pace with productivity growth, and it is.

Not for the working class it isn't






I mean I won't deny that wages for the wealthiest percentage of Americans have grown so disgustingly disproportionately that we average wage figures increased despite the stagnation or decline of wages for the working class, but that helps my point, not yours
Broseph_Stalin posted...

The US has higher wages, lower unemployment and higher GDP growth than nations that have "solved" inequality in Europe. CEO pay is very insignificant compared to both the revenue their companies bring in and the money they spend on worker compensation. It has zero negative impact on any of our lives. Making someone else poorer does not make you richer which is why inequality is a useless statistic out of context.

Those nations that have "solved inequality" absolutely beat the US in quality of life
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/European-Union/United-States/Crime
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2016-annual-report/comparison-with-other-nations

And no, cry as you might, inequality doesn't have "zero negative impact" on society, it has a measurable and demonstrably negative impact on it, especially at the levels of inequality that currently exist in the US.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en
https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVRES/Resources/477227-1142020443961/Module5_Economic_Inequality_thornbecke.pdf

---

The power of globalization

---

A more reasonable metric would be worker productivity correlated to wage growth. Thats not so great either

---