-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
From CEO Pay Has Grown 90 Times Faster than Typical Worker Pay Since 1978 | Economic Policy Institute
Over the last several decades, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased from $1.5 million in 1978 to $16.3 million in 2014, or 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth. Over the same time period, a typical worker’s wages grew very little: the annual compensation, adjusted for inflation, of the average private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker (comprising 82 percent of total payroll employment) rose from $48,000 in 1978 to just $53,200 in 2014, an increase of only 10.9 percent. Due to this unequal growth, average top CEOs now make over 300 times what typical workers earn. Although corporations are posting record-high profits and the stock market is booming, the wages of most workers remain stagnant, indicating they are not participating equally in prosperity. Meanwhile, CEO compensation continues to rise even faster than the stock market.
And from Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent | Economic Policy Institute
The chief executive officers of America’s largest firms earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago, big gains even relative to other very-high-wage earners. These extraordinary pay increases have had spillover effects in pulling up the pay of other executives and managers, who constitute a larger group of workers than is commonly recognized.1 Consequently, the growth of CEO and executive compensation overall was a major factor driving the doubling of the income shares of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of U.S. households from 1979 to 2007 (Bivens and Mishel 2013; Bakija, Cole, and Heim 2012). Since then, income growth has remained unbalanced: as profits have reached record highs and the stock market has boomed, the wages of most workers, stagnant over the last dozen years, including during the prior recovery, have declined during this one (Bivens et al. 2014; Gould 2015) .
In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:
I could go on but I'm trying to keep this down to 2 screens
Over the last several decades, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased from $1.5 million in 1978 to $16.3 million in 2014, or 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth. Over the same time period, a typical worker’s wages grew very little: the annual compensation, adjusted for inflation, of the average private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker (comprising 82 percent of total payroll employment) rose from $48,000 in 1978 to just $53,200 in 2014, an increase of only 10.9 percent. Due to this unequal growth, average top CEOs now make over 300 times what typical workers earn. Although corporations are posting record-high profits and the stock market is booming, the wages of most workers remain stagnant, indicating they are not participating equally in prosperity. Meanwhile, CEO compensation continues to rise even faster than the stock market.
And from Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent | Economic Policy Institute
The chief executive officers of America’s largest firms earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago, big gains even relative to other very-high-wage earners. These extraordinary pay increases have had spillover effects in pulling up the pay of other executives and managers, who constitute a larger group of workers than is commonly recognized.1 Consequently, the growth of CEO and executive compensation overall was a major factor driving the doubling of the income shares of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of U.S. households from 1979 to 2007 (Bivens and Mishel 2013; Bakija, Cole, and Heim 2012). Since then, income growth has remained unbalanced: as profits have reached record highs and the stock market has boomed, the wages of most workers, stagnant over the last dozen years, including during the prior recovery, have declined during this one (Bivens et al. 2014; Gould 2015) .
In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:
- Average CEO compensation for the largest firms was $16.3 million in 2014. This estimate uses a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers chief executives of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year. Compensation is up 3.9 percent since 2013 and 54.3 percent since the recovery began in 2009.
- From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.
- The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.
- Over the last three decades, compensation for CEOs grew far faster than that of other highly paid workers, i.e., those earning more than 99.9 percent of wage earners. CEO compensation in 2013 (the latest year for data on top wage earners) was 5.84 times greater than wages of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners, a ratio 2.66 points higher than the 3.18 ratio that prevailed over the 1947–1979 period. This wage gain alone is equivalent to the wages of 2.66 very-high-wage earners.
- Also over the last three decades, CEO compensation increased more relative to the pay of other very-high-wage earners than the wages of college graduates rose relative to the wages of high school graduates.
- That CEO pay grew far faster than pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect the increased value of highly paid professionals in a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”), but rather reflects the presence of substantial “rents” embedded in executive pay (meaning CEO pay does not reflect greater productivity of executives but rather the power of CEOs to extract concessions). Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on output or employment.
- Critics of examining these trends suggest looking at the pay of the average CEO, not CEOs of the largest firms. However, the average firm is very small, employing just 20 workers, and does not represent a useful comparison to the pay of a typical worker who works in a firm with roughly 1,000 workers. Half (52 percent) of employment and 58 percent of total payroll are in firms with more than 500 or more employees. Firms with at least 10,000 workers provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll.
I could go on but I'm trying to keep this down to 2 screens
And just to clarify, when I talk about wealthy CEOs I'm talking the GE's and McDonalds and other large corporations. The independent and mom-and-pop operations are just as much a victim of wealth hording as the average worker - since they rely more heavily on the average worker having spending money.
1. You are starting with a presumption.
This is provable by the way you state the question above... you say Trump is working AGAINST THEM... while never even considering it could be THEM working AGAINST TRUMP.
You are starting with the presumption that intelligence agencies COULD NOT be working against the President Elect.
Why would you START with that presumption?
Before considering facts, you are actually STARTING with this presumption.
Why would you just ASSUME if there is a conflict it must come from Trump, and not from intelligence services... who... btw... STILL HAVE A BOSS NAMED OBAMA till January 20.
2. For a few more days the intelligence agencies all have a boss, someone they answer to, someone who gives them orders.... a guy named Obama... who HATES Trump. Did this never occur to you?
3. Democrats can disparage the intelligence agencies, but republicans cannot... how odd.
Hillary has accused James Comey, head of the FBI, of working AGAINST HER!
Hillary accused James Comey of costing her the election?
So... only Democrats are allowed to have an issue with intelligence agencies?
Why aren't the Democrats attacking Hillary for talking bad about intelligence agencies?
Hillary has disparaged intelligence, but the Democrats only attack Trump when HE says something negative about intelligence.
So which is it?
Is there corruption in intelligence, or is there not?
Was Hillary right or wrong?
And even if Hillary was wrong, why do the Dems attack Trump for disparaging intelligence, but the Dems don't mind when Hillary disparages intelligance?
4. Question for you:
If the intelligence agencies ARE working against the President Elect,
who is about to be their new boss,
then SHOULDN'T HE CALL THEM OUT ON IT, AND FIX THE CORRUPTION?
If it does turn out that intelligence agencies are, once again, doing whatever Obama tells them...
then isn't Trump doing the right thing by calling them out on their corruption?
Should the next President just allow these agencies to continue in corruption,
or should he do something about it?
J
As you know I'm not a Democrat. So I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Are you a closet Democrat? Have you been paying attention to what Trump has been saying about the agencies of late? How much evidence do you need? Read his lips, he has said he doesn't believe in their conclusions. And please, bringing in the lame duck Esq., clearly proves that you do not understand what you are talking about. Think that over again, then come back to me.
As for his relationship with intelligence, he can't win this one, if he's not cooperating he'll end up on the losing end.
As for his relationship with intelligence, he can't win this one, if he's not cooperating he'll end up on the losing end.
Jennymae,
It's ok.
Every couple days, as I have time, I'll just list more and more of the proven corruption the intelligence agencies have been involved in.
Not a big deal.
The corruption is endless.
Did you know another big scandal about the FBI just broke today out in California?
Yeah, all kinds of nasty things they were caught doing, then trying to cover it all up.
The corruption by intelligence agencies is endless, and there's something new almost every day.
I'm sure you'll enjoy all my posts, documents, and article links.
It's ok.
Every couple days, as I have time, I'll just list more and more of the proven corruption the intelligence agencies have been involved in.
Not a big deal.
The corruption is endless.
Did you know another big scandal about the FBI just broke today out in California?
Yeah, all kinds of nasty things they were caught doing, then trying to cover it all up.
The corruption by intelligence agencies is endless, and there's something new almost every day.
I'm sure you'll enjoy all my posts, documents, and article links.
J
Jennymae,
It's ok.
Every couple days, as I have time, I'll just list more and more of the proven corruption the intelligence agencies have been involved in.
Not a big deal.
The corruption is endless.
Did you know another big scandal about the FBI just broke today out in California?
Yeah, all kinds of nasty things they were caught doing, then trying to cover it all up.
The corruption by intelligence agencies is endless, and there's something new almost every day.
I'm sure you'll enjoy all my posts, documents, and article links.
It's ok.
Every couple days, as I have time, I'll just list more and more of the proven corruption the intelligence agencies have been involved in.
Not a big deal.
The corruption is endless.
Did you know another big scandal about the FBI just broke today out in California?
Yeah, all kinds of nasty things they were caught doing, then trying to cover it all up.
The corruption by intelligence agencies is endless, and there's something new almost every day.
I'm sure you'll enjoy all my posts, documents, and article links.
You are at the wrong end of the problem.
From CEO Pay Has Grown 90 Times Faster than Typical Worker Pay Since 1978 | Economic Policy Institute
Over the last several decades, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased from $1.5 million in 1978 to $16.3 million in 2014, or 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth. Over the same time period, a typical worker’s wages grew very little: the annual compensation, adjusted for inflation, of the average private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker (comprising 82 percent of total payroll employment) rose from $48,000 in 1978 to just $53,200 in 2014, an increase of only 10.9 percent. Due to this unequal growth, average top CEOs now make over 300 times what typical workers earn. Although corporations are posting record-high profits and the stock market is booming, the wages of most workers remain stagnant, indicating they are not participating equally in prosperity. Meanwhile, CEO compensation continues to rise even faster than the stock market.
And from Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent | Economic Policy Institute
The chief executive officers of America’s largest firms earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago, big gains even relative to other very-high-wage earners. These extraordinary pay increases have had spillover effects in pulling up the pay of other executives and managers, who constitute a larger group of workers than is commonly recognized.1 Consequently, the growth of CEO and executive compensation overall was a major factor driving the doubling of the income shares of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of U.S. households from 1979 to 2007 (Bivens and Mishel 2013; Bakija, Cole, and Heim 2012). Since then, income growth has remained unbalanced: as profits have reached record highs and the stock market has boomed, the wages of most workers, stagnant over the last dozen years, including during the prior recovery, have declined during this one (Bivens et al. 2014; Gould 2015) .
In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:
I could go on but I'm trying to keep this down to 2 screens
Over the last several decades, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased from $1.5 million in 1978 to $16.3 million in 2014, or 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth. Over the same time period, a typical worker’s wages grew very little: the annual compensation, adjusted for inflation, of the average private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker (comprising 82 percent of total payroll employment) rose from $48,000 in 1978 to just $53,200 in 2014, an increase of only 10.9 percent. Due to this unequal growth, average top CEOs now make over 300 times what typical workers earn. Although corporations are posting record-high profits and the stock market is booming, the wages of most workers remain stagnant, indicating they are not participating equally in prosperity. Meanwhile, CEO compensation continues to rise even faster than the stock market.
And from Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent | Economic Policy Institute
The chief executive officers of America’s largest firms earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago, big gains even relative to other very-high-wage earners. These extraordinary pay increases have had spillover effects in pulling up the pay of other executives and managers, who constitute a larger group of workers than is commonly recognized.1 Consequently, the growth of CEO and executive compensation overall was a major factor driving the doubling of the income shares of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of U.S. households from 1979 to 2007 (Bivens and Mishel 2013; Bakija, Cole, and Heim 2012). Since then, income growth has remained unbalanced: as profits have reached record highs and the stock market has boomed, the wages of most workers, stagnant over the last dozen years, including during the prior recovery, have declined during this one (Bivens et al. 2014; Gould 2015) .
In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:
- Average CEO compensation for the largest firms was $16.3 million in 2014. This estimate uses a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers chief executives of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year. Compensation is up 3.9 percent since 2013 and 54.3 percent since the recovery began in 2009.
- From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.
- The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.
- Over the last three decades, compensation for CEOs grew far faster than that of other highly paid workers, i.e., those earning more than 99.9 percent of wage earners. CEO compensation in 2013 (the latest year for data on top wage earners) was 5.84 times greater than wages of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners, a ratio 2.66 points higher than the 3.18 ratio that prevailed over the 1947–1979 period. This wage gain alone is equivalent to the wages of 2.66 very-high-wage earners.
- Also over the last three decades, CEO compensation increased more relative to the pay of other very-high-wage earners than the wages of college graduates rose relative to the wages of high school graduates.
- That CEO pay grew far faster than pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect the increased value of highly paid professionals in a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”), but rather reflects the presence of substantial “rents” embedded in executive pay (meaning CEO pay does not reflect greater productivity of executives but rather the power of CEOs to extract concessions). Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on output or employment.
- Critics of examining these trends suggest looking at the pay of the average CEO, not CEOs of the largest firms. However, the average firm is very small, employing just 20 workers, and does not represent a useful comparison to the pay of a typical worker who works in a firm with roughly 1,000 workers. Half (52 percent) of employment and 58 percent of total payroll are in firms with more than 500 or more employees. Firms with at least 10,000 workers provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll.
I could go on but I'm trying to keep this down to 2 screens
I believe you were accusing them of cheating the average worker. How?
Is not the average worker making the wage he agreed to work for? Yes, he is.
And is not the average worker working the hours he agreed to work? Yes, he is.
And is not the average worker getting all the sick days he agreed to? Yes, he is.
And was not the average worker getting the insurance he agreed to before ObamaCare ruined that perk? Yes, he was.
And, is not the average worker getting the vacations he agreed to? Yes, he is.
And, is not the average worker getting the pay increases their contracts stipulate? Yes, they are.
Since all of us know that the people who have invested more in terms of education, time, responsibility and risk make more money..... I would say that if you want their money, apply for their jobs instead of satisfying yourself to work a 9 to 5.
Don't try to tell me a man is getting cheated when he is getting exactly what he agreed to work for.... and often (because of generous employers) some extra perks not contracted for.
Last edited:
