Slashdot Mirror


US Bosses Now Earn 312 Times the Average Worker's Wage, Figures Show (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The chief executives of America's top 350 companies earned 312 times more than their workers on average last year, according to a new report published Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute. The rise came after the bosses of America's largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home an average of $18.9m in compensation while their employees' wages stalled, rising just 0.3% over the year. The pay gap has risen dramatically, with some fluctuations, since the 1990s. In 1965 the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 20 to one; that figure had risen to 58 to one by in 1989 and peaked in 2000 when CEOs earned 344 times the wage of their average worker. CEO pay dipped in the early 2000s and during the last recession, but has been rising rapidly since 2009. Chief executives are even leaving the 0.1% in the dust. The bosses of large firms now earn 5.5 times as much as the average earner in the top 0.1%.

4 of 718 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A buddy of mine always questions by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the prices don't need to really go up that much to compensate for increased wages because the lowest paid workers don't actually control a significant percentage of the economy in the first place. With increased minimum wage, people are able to spend more money, creating a healthier economy that actually *helps* business.

    Obviously, there's a limit to how far this can be taken, but as I said, in practice it works for minimum wage and low wage earners because such a small percentage of the overall economy is actually controlled by those earners, even though they represent a majority of the population (I think it's called the Pareto Principle). As long as low wage earners control such a tiny percentage of the economy, this characteristic will endure.

    The increase in prices that objectors often allege needs to occur to compensate for increased wages is not anywhere close to the amount by which the low wages are actually increased... it's more than an order of magnitude in difference.

  2. Re:gotta love statistics by batkiwi · · Score: 5, Informative

    $7,017 is less than half the federal minimum wage. Clearly this "study" includes part time workers.

    The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I don't have my calculator handy, but I'm pretty sure $7.017 is not "less than half" of $7.25.

    $7017.00 annually, not $7.017 per hour.

    $7.25 * 40 hours per week * 52 weeks per year = $15080.00

    $15080.00 / 2 = $7540.00

    $7017.00 < $7540.00

    So no, you are not that great at math.

  3. Re: Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This should be modded up but I think a lot of people will miss the reference and joke here.

    It was a world famous speech from a US beauty pageant contestant and made headlines around the world showcasing how stupid Americans can be.

  4. Re:Alternatives by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    They're only looking at the CEOs of the largest companies. Actual Average CEO salary is $162K, not $18.9M, and that doesn't count failed CEOs.

    Their comparison is like saying "Average basketball player salaries are $10M/year" by just looking at the salaries of the top players in the NBA. Like sports stars, Hollywood celebrities, famous artists, etc.... there are some occupations which are lottery-like in structure, where only a few of the people who attempt them get paid the big bucks at the top of the professions. If you average in the risks of ending up being just a guy who ran a bankrupt company, or a basketball player who plays for free in the local league, or a "waiter" instead of actor, the occupations don't seem nearly as lucrative.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.