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%.
The real issues is not in the number.
It's in the fact that these guys basically decide their own salaries. Mr. Boss is the CEO of company A, and sits on the board of company B and C. Mr. Big, meanwhile, is CEO of company B, but sits on the board of A and C, and Mr. Greedy is CEO of C and on the board of A and B.
Guess what they will decide when it comes to yearly reviews and salary adjustments.
The system is broken because a relatively small in group decides amongst themselves, instead of the independent outside review that the system is intended to have. It doesn't even need to have all companies working like that - company D which has a clean board and CEO, will not be able to resist the upwards pull of the others, because the CEO of D one day will get an offer from A, or just look at it, and see that the CEO there gets 200% more, and he will ask his board why he doesn't and what they will do to stop him from going there.
This kind of built-in dilemma is exactly where government oversight and regulation comes into play, when the system is broken and needs outside interference to right itself. Because no publicly traded company will start with the change, because doing so just isn't a rational decision.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The thing you call "cronyism" is the inevitable last stage of capitalism in a society that started out as more or less democratic. Also known as oligarchy, it happens because any random distribution of resources and means of production, if left unchecked, will have some firms that will produce more than the economic profit, and they will quickly realize that investing those in subverting the political process to their benefit is the best investment strategy.
The "invisible hand", left to itself, simply fails to maintain "free markets" as a straightforward consequence of the basic economic laws.
To my mind this is pretty simply - a person should be paid a sliding scale based on how many people their work directly impacts, combined with how close they are to affecting customers.
You will not be able to define that clearly.
The work of the cleaning crew, for example, impacts everyone in the company. The work of your genius inventor, on the other hand, impacts nobody directly.
And, quite honestly, the work of the CEO most of the time affects very few people.
What you mean is potential impact. The CEO could make a decision that affects everyone greatly, while the cleaning crew cannot - they do their job but don't make decisions.
But between the extremes, you won't be able to define the scale cleanly. Who is more meaningful, the developer or the sysadmin?
A mail guy or someone working a front desk? Come on, they are not offering much real value
Really? Do without them for a month and see how well that goes.
Every job in a company is important, otherwise the company would not pay someone to do it.
The problem of fair payment is not a simple one, and a blanket solution will not work. What we have right now is actually not that bad (a market system), except that it is skewed on both ends - on the low end, people are forced to accept bad conditions because unemployment is high and very undesireable, and on the high end, people get ridiculous salaries and aren't reviewed properly because they are all part of the same circle-jerk group.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
We're all precious, irreplaceable snowflakes. It doesn't help that there's a small group at the top (math majors, surgeons, top athletes) who are.
You touched upon the real problem there, but didn't grab it.
This, exactly, is the problem. Every CEO of every major company these days is paid like a precious, one-of-a-kind, irreplaceable snowflake. Very few actually are. Thanks to my career choices I've worked directly with a good number of top-level executives in several companies from small to 5000+ employees.
Many of these people are very competent and very hard-working. Some of them are brilliant. Most of them could not be replaced without a considerable change in the company direction and culture as their personality influences everyone down the chain.
Most of them deserves to be paid several times what I earn, and I earn not bad.
But not one of them is irreplaceable. Not one of them needs to have his salary take up its own position in the company budget. Not in one case would the entire company crumble if he left. There would be a shock wave, sure. There would be changes, sure. But after some adjustments, business would go on.
There are some iconic leaders who are or would be missed. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk - you can barely imagine their companies without them.
But the number of CEOs is far larger than the number of iconic CEOs. Too many of them believe that they are irreplaceable, and too many boards think the same (because guess who sits on those boards?).
The 20x figure is a number you can justify on a rational basis. The 300+ times is a system spiralling out of control, because too many snowflakes think they are individually important, and refuse to admit that to the person throwing the snowball, they really don't matter one bit.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"The biggest problem in the US right now is access to healthcare, but no one has a reasonable plan."
Bullshit! Medicare For All is a very, very reasonable plan...unless you suck on the Fox News tit, in which case "you should have worked harder, loser!" is a reasonable plan.
Aye! The mark of today's moron: "Venezuela! Nuffsaid!!" Fucking idiots....
I don't know if he's worth it, but I want to point out you are measuring the wrong thing there.
People don't get paid based on how hard they work (otherwise cherry pickers would get paid much, much more than computer programmers). People get paid based on the value they produce.
If you want to know if it is worth it, you can't measure how hard they work, you have to measure the value they have. Which may be rather low.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A mail guy or someone working a front desk? Come on, they are not offering much real value and pay should be commensurate with that basic fact.
People do crappy jobs because they lack the option to not do crappy jobs. However, if we had UBI that let people survive without a job then I have a feeling that all the those "unimportant" people would suddenly become far more scarce. Naturally clowns like you would scream that you need to import more labor because of a "labor shortage" when the reality is that you just aren't offering enough money for positions.
The severe depression of wages has resulted in a wage slave economy where you either work for the peanuts they offer or you die.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is actually restoration of the status quo. In nature, regardless of species, differential between successful and unsuccessful is a very deep chasm.
Over last couple of centuries, humans in Western world faced a massive transformation of the very basics of the society. The kind that saw selection pressure reduce the difference between successful and unsuccessful significantly. It culminated in the age of post-WW2 generations, when rapid growth of everything from knowledge to economy was mainly limited by availability of capable workforce to do the work.
But now, the low hanging fruit has been picked, and the process is heading back toward natural equilibrium. It's a shame that naive people who have been brainwashed by folks with massive anti-capitalist axe to grind attribute the natural state of things to "capitalism" and divergence from it to "not having capitalism", "communism" and "socialism", depending how far they have bought into the cult of Marxism.
Because as we have observed in most of the world, capitalism has been by far the most successful force to eliminate poverty ever conceived and attempted in human history. It just needs to be managed to moderate the peaks of the same natural cycle that all life on this planet follows, the cycle of boom and bust.
But when all you have is extremist marxists on the other side, who are willing to use everything from authoritarianism to violence to shut down anyone who so much as dares to suggest that their cult is the answer to world's problems, both real and imaginary, everyone else gets polarized just to be able to resist their advances, and everyone is worse off as a result.
I don't care that some people have much more than me, I am more worried that I don't have more.
Um... since we live in a world where resources are finite, isn't that just two ways of expressing the exact same thing. I mean I don't care about a yacht or a mansion either, but we are all still pulling from the same limited resource pool.
?
So when was it at it's "greatest"?
In all honestly it's pretty great still. MAGA is just about re-tuning the bits that have gone flat, like job creation or the flow of money through the system. Trump has very much re-tuned a lot of that to good effect which is why the economy, jobs, and stock market have all greatly improved under Trump.
Anyone who is not willing to admit those basic facts will lose to Trump until they do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think you're also measuring the wrong thing.
The value you produce factors into it, but an arguably more important factor is your bargaining power. Even if a cherry picker could in fact produce more value than a programmer, a programmer has a much rarer skillset than a cherry picker, so the programmer is able to bargain for a much bigger fraction of that value.
I think this is where the big gap comes from, if either the cherry picker or the programmer want a raise they need to a) justify the raise to their manager, b) have their manager justify their higher costs, and c) demonstrate why they should get more given the prevailing wage for comparable positions in the area.
But the CEO talks directly to the board, comparables are much harder to come by, and since the CEO is the major lever the board has they're bound to overvalue it. Plus boards are typically made of other executives, people who will be sympathetic to the idea of big CEO compensation.
Is the CEO making 312x as much contributing 113 employee units of value over the CEO making 200x as much? I don't think the calculation is that precise.
I stole this Sig
The only extremists here are the Capitalsts. Even Whisper that perhaps healthcare should be handlef differently and they screech about Communism. Just look how they continue to hiss and snarl over Obamacare even though the plan was modeled after one of their own.
For the most part, the Marxists here are just in the fevered minds of the Capitalists.
I don't think you would be satisfied with Medicare. You'd constantly be complaining.
Everyone 65 or older has Medicare. Do they complain, of course. Can there be improvements, certainly. But it's a system that is working for millions of americans and there is no reason that it can't be expanded.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Bill Gate's won his fortune through very aggressive business tactics, destroying any competition through means that were borderline illegal - and in a few cases crossed over that line. Deliberate incompetibilities to break rival products, the use of bundling to destroy entire markets, OEM exclusivity agreements to prevent new competitors gaining even a sliver of market share. His tactics were so underhanded that Microsoft under his rule became the epitome of the corrupt mega-corp, earning the nickname Micro$oft. It hasn't changed too much since he left.
He's done a lot of charitable work with his ill-gotten gains, but they were still ill-gotten.
Stupid fucking idiots, like you, fuck everything up.
https://www.snopes.com/news/20...
The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.
Or you could have paid attention in your high school world history class, and not been so fucking clueless for your life. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
That's $21M that goes back into the economy instead of an offshore hedge fund.
But I bet you can find someone who can run that company for $500,000. Now, you've got $20.5million to redistribute to employees, and $20.5million that goes back into the economy to create other jobs instead of an offshore hedge fund.
That's the problem with CEO salaries: While there are formulas and charts explaining exactly how much you should pay a line worker at McDonalds (and it happens to be "just enough so that desperate people will apply"), there is no formula for figuring out how much you should pay a CEO. For all we know, you could get a competent CEO for a couple of hundred thousand a year and a company car. It'll look good on the resume and people like titles. No one really knows the true market value of a CEO. What you have is this unspoken "minimum wage for CEOs" that boards of directors are convinced they need to pay based on absolutely nothing. And the reason boards of directors have this unspoken rule is because many of them are CEOs of other companies or former CEOs or golfing buddies of everyone who will ever be considered for the job. It's all "scratch my back and I'll give you a big sloppy blowjob".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Assume the CEO goes from $21M to $0 and redistribute among the 235,000 employees. Everyone gets less than $100 a year.
That's not the point.
What the inequality of wealth brings is inequality of power. Those at the top of the food chain can make and enforce decisions that benefit them financially. They can get laws passed, tax breaks, government restrictions lifted and politicians elected to suit their needs, and the resultant damage to everybody else is worth far more than $100.
The only thing that will result in wage increases for the rank and file is greater demand for their labor.
Or unionism. But successive governments have done their damndest to eviscerate unions over the past couple of decades.
Fortunately we're also seeing a weakening of the major political parties (at least in Australia) and the rise of minor parties and independents. I look forward to this trend continuing.
showcasing how stupid Americans can be
...when faced with inappropriate trick questions in highly stressful situations. Setting aside the comedic value of this answer, I don't think many people would be able to yield a usably better one in that girl's place.
Ezekiel 23:20
What the inequality of wealth brings is inequality of power. Those at the top of the food chain can make and enforce decisions that benefit them financially.
The reason some people have influence over government is not that they are wealthy, its because some people in government are for sale. The solution to that is not to create more government, you fucking retards.
Yes, clearly the solution is to get rid of all governmental checks and balances, however inadequate, as once they are free from constraints, the wealthy only ever act for the public good.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Perhaps that's a good argument for reducing the tax rates in those brackets in order to make it more profitable to reinvest the money in the American economy as opposed to overseas
No, it isn't. Tax rates have been reduced "in those brackets" since the 70s, and that has only lead to enormous increases of offshore holdings. Time to face the facts and accept that your cliches are not supported by empirical evidence.
If CEO pay is going up, I suspect it is because the largest companies are themselves becoming larger as well as international players.
Wrong again, CEO pay is mostly a result of a principal-agent problem in corporate governance. The CEOs are agents of the stockholders, but they usually hold more power, and can extort higher pay. Activist investors Employees are not in that position, hence the employees are getting paid hundreds of times less.
There's also a mistaken belief that if a CEO were not paid as much that other workers would receive more. This is unlikely to be the case as the difference would likely be paid out to shareholders as dividends or reinvested by the company.
Yeah? It was the case 30-40 years ago, before the resurrection of the race-to-the-bottom culture on Wall street.
Weâ(TM)re reaching the point where we all stand together or we all fall. Great Wealth is more the sign of a predator class than of wisdom and accomplishment. None of us live without the farmer, the truck driver, the mechanic, the road crew. Their places in society must be respected and not exploited by those in simple management power who all to often have no real skills of their own except cannabslism, ruthlessness, and lack of empathy. Humanity is at a very low point in critical ways right now.
'Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it' (Goebbels).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Who will be along promptly to excuse this with some spurious claims. It never ceases to amaze me how some people are prepared cooperate in their own oppression. They are no different to the victims of domestic violence that continuously return to their abuser.
Me neither, but I don't think those "many people" would appear live on TV on a high level competition.
If you get there and you're not prepared, you deserve the flak.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Is it working, or are they complaining?
People complaining about shit doesn't mean that shit ain't workin'.
Hell, there are CEOs complaining they don't make enough.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Probably for the same reason I, over here in Europe, are happy with earning about 1/5 or even less of what I'd make in the US with what I can do: Comfort.
You know, I enjoy being able to go out on the street and know that I won't get mugged just because I went to the wrong part of the town. It's also comforting to know that if I get sick, I will be treated and I will be treated in any hospital I go to, not just whatever my insurance company has a contract with. I also enjoy a month or more of paid vacation time. I also enjoy working in an environment that isn't more like a prison than an office. I enjoy the occasional beer for lunch in the office with my boss.
I did work in the US for a while. A short while. The US is a bit like Disney World for the average European. A great place for a vacation and you can easily spend a fortune there on fun, but you don't want to work there if your life depended on it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't think many people would be able to yield a usably better one in that girl's place.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Probably not many beauty pageant participants, or high school drop-outs, or athletes that rode a railroad to fame based on their talent, and education was a distraction, but believe it or not, there are many of us who have to answer far more difficult questions on the spot on a daily basis. Fortunately, high school generally preps you for being able to do that. Or at least it did "back in my day"
I mean no disrespect toward, or intent to generalize the women in beauty pageants, but do you for some reason think that particular program selects for education or intelligence?
And hoarding really is the fucking problem in my eyes with those people.
Their money hidden under their $80,000 bed, so to speak, doesn't do the economy one bit of good, and they go through extensive troubles to make sure their assets are safe from the risks that other people have to endure. This is why the rich get richer, even when the market blows out through the floor.
I've never had a problem with rich dudes making fuck tons of money for being successful.
How, I think anyone who doesn't look at the current situation and see just what level of wealth they have acquired in comparison to everyone else, and immediately see a huge fucking problem should be shot while there's still fucking time.
The idea that the top executive is an employee of the corporation has long ago faded. Now the top executive is more like a mafia don getting "a cut of the take," like the corporation is a criminal organization.
E Proelio Veritas.
There are plenty of decent and enterprising people who will happily do the job of CEO for a decent 6-figure salary. Good riddance to the psychopathic greedmonsters who demand to be paid like gods.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
People complaining about shit doesn't mean that shit ain't workin'.
So people complaining about the current executive pay scale doesn't mean it's not working, right?
Capitalism has been the best system by far so far in reducing poverty. For example, we beat the most optimistic UN projections of beating world hunger by several years, and we're well on track to eliminate it right now.
Problem is, mass media in the West is utterly penetrated by marxists who have no interest in telling you this. Instead they tell you about "poverty of the rich". People who are poor and who's biggest problem is that they're eating too much, and as a result, have an "obesity crisis".
A fitting description for poor in a capitalist system. Their problem is that there's so much excess, that even the poor can afford to get fat.
Dear ignorant socialist. I would like to explain something very basic to you, that will shock you. Sit down for this.
Western countries are not planned economies. They're not socialist, nor are they communist. What you're attributing to government due to your planned economy biases is not attributable to government in capitalist systems.
There was no "capitalist revolution" dear ignorant socialist. I understand that you being an ignorant socialist, "revolution" is something you're utterly indoctrinated to view as a positive thing. In reality, as opposed to marxist dogma, revolutions are generally rather bad for economy, because they take a huge chunk of resources and disrupt many of the existing systems of the society. Result is usually that country loses decades of progress just to recover.
Capitalism simply did what it does best. It allowed people with capital to finance people with relevant skills to get to the top, motivated by profit. And as a result, made most industries more efficient than planned economy priests in socialist economies could ever dream of. Which is how we effectively ended world hunger for example. In spite of all the doom and glood, we beat the most optimistic UN targets for eliminating world hunger. We've also pulled, and keep pulling record numbers of people out of abject poverty, right now.
Poverty often associated with "curbing capitalism too much", as is the case in "revolutionary" countries like Venezuela.
a ruling class has always been able to obtain a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the value they add. Whether it's kings and queens or the heads of mega-Corporations.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why does it matter if the CEOs make more? How does that hurt you?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
I guess you've never had a strike price option, or performance-based compensation, then? If you don't perform, or the stock drops - you lose all that. If that's the bulk of your compensation - you've lost it all.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!