CEO-to-worker pay gap is now 351-to-1. In 1965, the ratio was 21-to-1

[multivita-man]

All I'm saying is that wealth disparity is already in the hands of employees should they chose to do something about it.

Absolutely not true.

All they have to do is walk out. It's supply and demand. Even for the CEO.

Until the bill collectors and lawyers call.

 

[Andyh2299]

Just how does a brain dead cokehead pull his way out by the bootstraps? Or are Trumpers on too much coke themselves?

 

[Schism]

Absolutely not true.

It's true! If the CEO has no employees to produce their goods and services there's nothing for a customer to purchase from them.

Until the bill collectors and lawyers call.

If you're unhappy with your employment, find another job. It would be stupid for someone to choose unemployment over dissatisfaction with current pay rates, since one gives you a paycheck and the other does not.

 

[multivita-man]

It's true! If the CEO has no employees to produce their goods and services there's nothing for a customer to purchase from them.

The CEO has an inexhaustible supply of employees -- he has automation if that doesn't work.

If you're unhappy with your employment, find another job.

That works sometimes, but not all the time. It doesn't work in a recession. It doesn't work when productivity per capita employee is maximized. Consider the last 1-2 years: unemployment is the lowest it has been in decades...and so is productivity.

Productivity is good for the employer, not necessarily good for the employee. Of course it's bad for both when productivity is so low that it no longer makes sense to hire.

 

[Schism]

The CEO has an inexhaustible supply of employees -- he has automation if that doesn't work.

Neither of those assertions are true.

That works sometimes, but not all the time. It doesn't work in a recession. It doesn't work when productivity per capita employee is maximized. Consider the last 1-2 years: unemployment is the lowest it has been in decades...and so is productivity.

Productivity is good for the employer, not necessarily good for the employee. Of course it's bad for both when productivity is so low that it no longer makes sense to hire.

Workers are free agents to shop the market for the best fit, wage, value, and conditions. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at XYZ company.

 

[Peter]

Companies are on average much larger now so if you scale CEO pay by number of employees he is paid about the same per employee as before.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the CEO of a multinational with maybe 50,000 employees works 100 times harder than a CEO of a company of 500?
That's not how that works.

 

[vanceen]

What happens when greedy bastards set their own levels of compensation.

CEO's do not set their own levels of compensation.

 

[Peter]

It's true! If the CEO has no employees to produce their goods and services there's nothing for a customer to purchase from them.



If you're unhappy with your employment, find another job. It would be stupid for someone to choose unemployment over dissatisfaction with current pay rates, since one gives you a paycheck and the other does not.

This may stun you but a CEO of a company has way, way more power to set his or her own pay and renumeration package than any other employee.
Hell, the CEO has the power to help lower the pay of most employees whereas the employees sure as hell lack the power to lower the pay of the CEO.

 

[Peter]

CEO's do not set their own levels of compensation.

They certainly have way, way more impact on setting their pay than any middle manager or lower position.

 

[Peter]

Neither of those assertions are true.


Workers are free agents to shop the market for the best fit, wage, value, and conditions. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at XYZ company.

How about people working in a town where one company is the main employer?
Not everyone has the luxury of just walking away and moving to a new town or city because they have kids or perents to look after.

The right always moans when an ordinary employee wants to be part of a union to help get better pay and conditions for all but have no problem with CEO's earning as much money as possible, why is this?

 

[Hypothetical]

I admit, the older I get, the more I question American-style capitalism. I think it works (for wealthy countries) when the global population is under 3 billion. But it doesn't work for the people that rich countries exploit, whether it's some African country we're stealing gold and diamonds from or poor immigrants doing backbreaking work in the industrialized world.

And once we go north of 3 billion or so people, we destroy the environment to make the planet uninhabitable. We need a new system, or we'll just collapse trying to sustain this one.

I can agree with this, the system is moving ever closer to collapse.

 

[multivita-man]

Neither of those assertions are true.

They kinda are. Employees have income and spending power, but the employers have the capital. It's the ones who have the capital who decide how to spend the money in an economy: they can decide whom or what to spend it on, how much gets spent, and where it gets spent. You're speaking about your personal experience. I can speak about mine. We can all speak about ours. We're individuals kicking around anecdotes -- that's not macroeconomics, though.

Workers are free agents to shop the market for the best fit, wage, value, and conditions. Nobody is forcing anyone to work at XYZ company.

Workers are people who have needs. They have apartment leases, mortgages, car notes, major medical expenses. Not everyone can just pick up stakes and move.

 

[craig]

Why on earth would this make a differance? Does a CEO work more hours if he has more employees?

Scope of responsibility. After a certain level that is all you are paid for. Hours worked is only for the lowest laborers.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[jcgriff2]

SUCKERS!!!!!!!

DJIA
- 1965 = 910
- 2022 = 33,000

The approximate value of NYSE corps has risen from $900 billion to over $33 trillion.

CEOs are entitled to massive pay assuming their company is making money and most important - the stock price is increasing.

 

[CaughtInThe]

DJIA
- 1965 = 910
- 2022 = 33,000

you're not very good with comparisons i see.

 

[vanceen]

They certainly have way, way more impact on setting their pay than any middle manager or lower position.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "more impact". CEO compensation is decided by the board with input from human resources experts and compensation survey data.

They don't set their own compensation. If we want to figure out why the CEO to lowest employee salary ratio has increased so much, "they set their own compensation" just isn't the answer.

 

[StillBallin75]

And to this day blue collar whites still worship billionaires but think trans people and immigrants are the problem.

 

[noonereal]

Scope of responsibility. After a certain level that is all you are paid for. Hours worked is only for the lowest laborers.

Rotflmao

That is all I have to say.

 

[holbritter]

Just how does a brain dead cokehead pull his way out by the bootstraps? Or are Trumpers on too much coke themselves?

Why should we care if a brain dead cokehead pull his way out by the bootstraps?

 

[element94]

SUCKERS!!!!!!!

It proves the notion of a country of, by and for the wealthiest. I often wonder what the tipping point will be for the people to finally go medieval on their asses.

 

[vanceen]

The increasing imbalance of incomes is a problem, and the growing differences between executive pay and the pay for lower jobs is a problem.

But "greedy bastards" is not a solution, nor even a sensible diagnosis. Economic humankind is rational, which means "greedy". Businesses will pay no more than they have to for a CEO or for an assembly line worker. This is not a moral fault, it's just what companies and individuals both do in the economic space, i.e. maximize their outcomes. When you're analyzing economic phenomena, "greed" should just be an assumption.

The real question is how market forces have changed. Why have low skilled jobs become less valued? There's some obvious answers: globalization of labor and technology replacing low skilled jobs. Keeping that in mind, it's more likely that we can come up with measures that will actually help.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Well, what does everyone want to do to reverse this trend?

 

[vanceen]

Well, what does everyone want to do to reverse this trend?

The soundest things that can be done are major investments in infrastructure and education. Those will take a long time to improve the value of labor, though.

 

[iguanaman]

It's one of the harmful effects of having lowered tax rates on high incomes.

For some reason, it's hard for people to understand that it's estimated the average salary has been cut in half by the Republican changes. That if we under the Republican changes they could be making twice the income. That our country's wealth has been taken by the few most wealthy people.

Yes as soon as Reagan slashed the rates on the top bracket the rest of America stopped getting raises and most of the increased profits since have gone to the 1%. I wonder why that is?