Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
Ryan Burch
609 Followers
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
frostwrathOct 19, 2011
That's not even what annoys me. They can make all the money they damn well please, but I'm sick of them bitching about taxes. If you make 475x as much as me and insist you should only pay my rate (or lower), then you're a jerk.
Every percentage point in taxes changes poor lives a helluva lot more than they change the lives of somebody making millions a year.
markusfarkusOct 19, 2011
Amen.
metanoia29Oct 19, 2011
Double amen.
inajeepOct 19, 2011
Can I get a ramen with a side of veggies?
rhawk187Oct 19, 2011
I, for one, think people have a right to be a jerk.
CBBOct 19, 2011
Ha ha, everyone knows u r a troll.
icecycle66Oct 19, 2011
Why is he a troll just for presenting an uncommon and disrespected point of view?
mikelistOct 19, 2011
they do, and other people have a right to respond in kind.
floepieOct 19, 2011
...and how does that counter the comment?
malicexcxOct 19, 2011
If you are going to troll, make it believable.
icecycle66Oct 19, 2011
As do I.
agmlauncherOct 19, 2011
The problem with CEO pay that gets that high is that it's basically tied to unsustainable, short-term bonuses and profits. It's not that the money itself is bleeding the company dry and preventing it from paying its workers a decent salary. It's that the decision making tied to that kind of pay makes the company unstable in the long run.
n0diggityOct 19, 2011
If an average worker makes $30,000 a year, and the CEO makes $14 Million, do you think there might be quite a few high level positions in that company? It's not like there's just one CEO and the rest of the employees are entry level. A corporation is basically a large number of companies under one banner. Each of those smaller divisions has management and executives of their own, and the CEO oversees all the companies in the corporation.
Is the CEO worth considerably more than the average worker? Yes.
475 times more? No.
Still though, once the pyramid of pay scales gets taller and taller by adding management tiers and corporate jobs, VPs, presidents, CFO, and finally the CEO, it's got to be a big salary.
I would argue that a company with thousands of workers should be paying the CEO millions because he has the most impact on their future. A CEO can make or break a company, so you wouldn't want the best talent to leave over compensation.
(Wow, I can't believe I just defended CEO pay!)
Well, it has gotten out of hand though. No way it should be so high when other nations are so much closer. All that tells me is that corporations are bigger in America, not that they are greedier.
mjm6783Oct 19, 2011
DERP!! If a company pays middle management 50k-60k, that means someone is working for 15k-20k in order to average it out at 30k. Average - Not median.
eraptorOct 20, 2011
While a CEO can make or break a company, the same can be said of the rest of the workforce employed. Business is exactly like sports in the sense that teams who rely too heavily on a coach or star player routinely lose to teams with deeper benches.
Michael Jordan and Lebron James are prime examples. Here we have two of the best players to ever play the game, but neither of them could win a championship by themselves. Jordan was ONLY able to achieve his 6 championships AFTER agreeing to limit his compensation and the Bulls deepened their bench and coaching staff. It's a shame most companies ignored Jordan's example. Jordan's decision was owed in no small part to Dean Smith (former coach of the Tar Heels) who understood the value of teamwork in competition and instilled it in Jordan.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
Look at the ratio for Germany (one of the more prosperous countries). Some of our companies are larger. But not nearly 'that much' larger. It is definitely greed. As for very 'tall structures' of an organization. I thought a best practice was for organizations to become 'flatter' without all those 'levels'. IMO, our country's CEOs have set them selves so far apart from their workforce that they are out of touch and less effective. A correction is needed.
dquistOct 20, 2011
So, say you have seven tiers of workers in your pyramid (which is pretty typical). Would your break down would look something like the below?
Entry level workers – $20K - $40K
Early Career – $40K - $60K
Mid Level Career – $60K - 80$
Senior Level / Professional – $80K - $120K
Management / Directors – $120K - $300K
Executives (SVPs, EVPs, VPs, etc.) – $500K - $1,000K
Senior Executives (Presidents / CEOs) – $20,000K – $30,000K
I just pulled those numbers out of my pooper, but that is the sort of pyramid you are referring to when you say, "once the pyramid of pay scales gets taller and taller..."
I personally think that sort of thing is absolutely ridiculous. Further, I believe that if it looks reasonable to you, then you are either a fool or a greedy fool.
jbarker6Oct 20, 2011
I don't think the pyramid looks bad until you get to the executives part to the Sr Executives.
ALl of those jumps are similar in structure except the Executives to Sr. Executives. And truth be told the Executives are probably making more tough decisions on average than the Presidents or CEO's
eraptorOct 20, 2011
Here's the rub to the responsibility issue you're bring up:
Can anyone credibly argue that the responsibilities and tough decisions faced by today's executives and senior executives are any different or greater than those faced by their predecessors?
The answer is no, but we have seen a radical departure in recent years from the longstanding executive compensation practices/opportunities that prevailed for decades among this same group. That's the core issue/criticism involved.
dquistOct 21, 2011
If anything looks "bad" about the Sr. Executives part of that breakdown, it's that $20,000K – $30,000K is really, really low. Here are some actual numbers from CNNmoney that include Cash Compensation and Stock and Options:
Philippe P. Dauman – $14 million / $70.5 million
Ray R. Irani – $35.9 million / $40.3 million
Lawrence J. Ellison – $8.2 million / $61.9 million
Michael D. White: – $5.7 million / $27.2 million
John F. Lundgren – $6 million / $26.6 million
Brian L. Roberts – $16.9 million / $11.2 million
Robert A. Iger – $16.3 million / $11.8 million
Alan Mulally – $11.5 million / $15 million
Samuel J. Palmisano – $11.9 million / $13.3 million
David N. Farr – $3.9 million / $19.1 million
Source: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/news/1104/gallery.top_ceo_pay/index.html
Further, many people in the pyramid make tough decisions, and to say that the Sr. Execs' make the toughest, or the most toughest, is absolute nonsense. AND, to say they are more valuable to the company than many people in the Senior Level / Professional, Management / Directors, and the lower Exec categories, is completely ridiculous as well. Without these people, most Execs are nothing at all – and they are not as expendable as the pyramid base categories. The fact that they are getting paid 10 or 100 times more is the disgraceful result of greed gone a muck.
Lastly, this whole argument is not even factoring in the company's workers in second and third world nations... The sort of extreme disparity gap we are seeing in the world today is not moral justifiable, and it is certainly a major impediment to human prosperity.
eraptorOct 19, 2011
@agmlauncher,
As someone who has seen the redistribution of company wealth from the inside for over 25 years, I firmly disagree with your assessments that "it's not that the money itself is bleeding the company dry and preventing it from paying its workers a decent salary".
More often than not, company executives and their rubber-stamping Boards of Directors set soft performance targets that can either be easily met or manipulated. Furthermore, since these same executives oversee the distribution of incentive awards, they also skew the incentive distribution to favor themselves over the people who earned the company profits with their work. It's "fox in the hen house" 101.
This should be of particular concern to most investors since the soft performance targets and undeserved incentives come out of THEIR returns and portfolio performance. Unfortunately, executives have learned to garner enough institutional investor support to override common sense concerns. They know, full well, how to game investors against each other.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
Paying an equal rate is not jerky. Its called equality. Why is this any different than any other issue of equality?
asayfieOct 19, 2011
Only in the Digg community can a comment like this get thumbed down.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
I usually just take it as a point of pride. God forbid we actually treat all citizens equally. "all men are created equal" just not taxed that way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatthebrainOct 19, 2011
Oh yea, all men are created equal and should be taxed equally, but all men should not be paid equally? The only reason we want taxation to be unequal is because income is unequal.
mraatmteyOct 19, 2011
But theoretically a percentage base tax will make up for income inequalities.
I.E. someone making $10,000 a year paying 10% will pay $1,000 in taxes
Someone making 100,000 per year paying 10% will pay $10,000 or 1,000% more than the person making $10,000 a year.
The question in my mind is how much spending is necessary for the gov't to undertake. Tax code will have to be reformed, but we have to look at 2 sides of the argument, not just one.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
A free market requires different work to be valued differently. Want a beter income? Get a different job.
ethanleducOct 19, 2011
$10,000 is 900% more than $1,000.
Just sayin'.
antialiasOct 19, 2011
Because not everyone can do the same work or has the same skills? That said I don't think CEOs are worth hundreds of times more than the average employee.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
That is true, not everyone has the same skills, so whats your point? Should we equalize everyones pay? I believe in equal opprotunity not guarenteed equal outcomes. Why isn't a CEOs time worth more? He or she is running a company. How is it your place to judge what a company should or shouldn't pay their CEO. If they want to pay someone 1000 times more than thier lowest paid employee it takes nothing away from that employee. An equatible tax system where everyone is treated the same should be a priority in this country.
cyberprunesOct 19, 2011
worth 475 times more? Not likely. The disparity is much much greater than it used to be in the U.S. I think it's worth looking at how it got that way.
sxt173Oct 19, 2011
I agree with what you are saying, but the issue here is the huge disparity of executive pay in the US vs. other developed nations. Yes, a CEO can/should make 11x more, but 475x, that's a bit absurd.
bersercOct 20, 2011
If all the other countries were at 2% and we were at 11% you'd be just as upset.
mmysamaOct 19, 2011
What about all the people who work for them? Shouldn't they be entitled to all the wealth they create? CEO's do far less for society than the average worker anyway, they should;d be paid less.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blueimac540cOct 20, 2011
Here's a thought experiment:
A Fast-Food Restaurant pays the majority (about 80 percent. fair assumption, right?) $9/hour, or $18,720 a year before taxes. Assuming that, after accounting all the district managers and trainers (2 percent at $28.85/hour, $60k/year), store managers (3 percent at $14.42/hour, 30k), assistant managers (5 percent at $12.01/hour, $25k/year), and shift leaders (10 percent at $9.62/hour, $20k/year). we're left with an average hourly wage of just over $9.75 per worker per hour. Using this (I assume, rather high, yet reasonable metric as an example as I live in an area with an $8.50 minimum wage) figure as the :1 in the ratio, the CEO would make $4,631.25/an hour. Assuming, like I did, a 40-hour work week, that means the CEO of this hypothetical fast food chain would make $185,250 a week, for a grand total of $9,633,000. Honestly, this seems reasonable and fair.
HOWEVER. We all know this metric is bulls**t. They make a whole hell of a lot more money than that. Furthermore, this statistic probably takes in to account every company that reports federally, including LLC's with 4 employees. I stand to reason if you include only large corporations, the ratio is more in line with >1,000:1. Just my two cents.
h0nk3yOct 21, 2011
I've been reading through these replies and I've got to say I think you guys are off the mark. Is 475 times the lowest paid employee a lot more than some of these guys deserve? Probably. But I think it got that way over competition among companies for valuable CEOs. Valuable? you might ask ... hell yeah valuable. Some of them started the companies they run (Google anyone?). Some of them are the outward face of the company and do more than any other one person to determine the direction of entire industries (RIP Steve J.) Now, you tell me, (because I've been to your theoretical fast food restaurant) how many of the counter service people, shift leaders or regional managers that manage those slugs can do that? Sure, there may be diamond in the ruff here and there, but by and large the majority of our population doesn't have the know how or balls to do even a small portion of what some of these guys do. Did Steve Jobs deserve a 90 million dollar bonus in the late 90s? Absolutely.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
Saying that people should not concern themselves with 'how' CEO pay disparity got so high is 'short-sighted'. This, IMO, is systematic of our nation's greed and a 'rigged system'. On average, when CEO pay gets so out of proportion, it does affect everyone. It certainly funnels money in a way that is likely ineffective and economically dangerous for our country.
A correction is needed. How we get to this correction is where the point really lies. We need better paid scientists, engineers, and other valuable skills. Who gets rewarded and why they got rewarded is fair to assess.
As for taxation, yes, I support a 'fair tax'. Taxation is not the way to address our 'off kilter' system.
4bitOct 19, 2011
I don't care that they make more... but over the last 30 years the pay rate of CEO's has gone up almost 300%, while their workers have gone up 4% (adjusted for inflation).
That's a whole class of worker getting more money, while demanding that they kick back less to the people who helped get them there.
perpetualstupidityOct 19, 2011
The rate should be equal to your earnings and how it affects your life - IE if you are earning 475x more than me and on same tax %, its not gonna affect your life in the same way it does mine, because i don't have millions to spend. £1200 a month taxed £250 leaves me with f**k ALL to pay for rent, food, maintenance etc, where rich people get taxed and they can still live very comfortably. For them if their tax went up the least they have to do is maybe reschedule their around the world trip to maybe the Seychelles. Use your brains and think.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
Then change your income situation. No one is forcing you to stay at your current income. Ive done it myself and it works wonders. You and I are no different than the rich or the poor and we should all be taxed equally period.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
perpetualstupidityOct 19, 2011
Income situation has nothing to do with it. I don't care for money, I just want to live comfortably and simple, and even if i did, some poor sod will still be left to take that job and live in the same way. See that's the difference between people like me and you, you think of yourself, where I consider humanity as a whole.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
I suppose you are correct. You are so altruistic. A true Messiah really. Your situation is your problem. Mine is my own, I ask nothing of you other than to keep your hands off the fruits of my labor. I make no qualms about it, I am an egoist. I like to make money and I am driven toward success as I define it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyberprunesOct 19, 2011
Be realistic.
blueimac540cOct 20, 2011
Are you hiring?
h0nk3yOct 21, 2011
If their tax went up, they may decide not hire you ... 950 is better than nothing my friend. If you start taxing the crap out of the people that write your check, to make up the difference, they may decide not to write that check at all.
agentkimcheeOct 19, 2011
It's not equality when some people are being taxed money that they would spend on food or health insurance, and others taxed on money they spend on luxuries or investments. Once you're above a certain level, you no longer worry about basic life necessities, and paying a couple percentage points more doesn't harm your health or livelihood.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
So property rights only are good up until a certain level? Well thats just fantastic.
agentkimcheeOct 19, 2011
Yup. The government puts some limitations on your right to property for the greater good. You don't have the right to own an atomic bomb, and you can't buy land in a National Park. It also takes some of the money earn in exchange for your right to use minted currency and drive on public roads. It also takes a percentage to make sure that the poorest citizens aren't dying in the streets due to starvation or lack of health care -- which makes for a healthier, less depressing society as a whole.
You're right -- it isn't fair if all you're looking at is an individual's tax percentage number. But there are more things to consider, like equality of health amongst citizens.
Another system in the US that recognizes different perspectives when it comes to equality is the US House and Senate. The House recognizes that each individual counts for something, so each state gets a certain number of members based on population (it's the people who count). The Senate recognizes that each geographical region (state) counts for something, so it gives equality to the states by giving them each 2 members.
From one perspective, it seems unfair (tax percentage). From another, it seems fair (health of citizens).
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
The problem is that most of these government regulations that we are forced to abide under are stupid and ineffective. Deep down, we all know how useless government really is. The Bush Administration alone implemented 50,000 new regulations, and they are supposed to be in favour of small government. Not one of those regulations could have stopped the 2008 crash, nor could have repealing some of those. The crash happened because the state has monopoly control over the currency, plain and simple. We have tried centrally controlled markets and currencies for hundreds of years and they have been proven to not work. If the people had the right to issue their own currency and simply boycott the top 1% and not do any business with them, all their riches would be useless, and the market would correct the situation in days as they all starve and die. This will never happen though, the people who have the government in their back pockets have too much at stake to allow the people to do such a thing, which is why they unconstitutionally took market control over the currency by force.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
wilke2000Oct 19, 2011
These people claim to love America, but they'd just as well forget about the "general welfare" bit in the preamble to the Constitution.
agentkimcheeOct 19, 2011
Red: I like e TJ quote, but I think that most people are interested in a solution that doesn't involve anyone starving and dying. Can't there be a happy medium? It would be nice if those who made a shazillion dollars each year helped their societies by using some of their excess to help others, but since most don't do that beyond what's good for a tax deduction, how about a slightly higher tax rate on corportations and the wealthy? I promise, they can still be rich, just a tiny bit less rich so that food-pickers can go to the doctor...
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
It would be nice, but it doesn't happen. If your competitor is successfully lobbying the government to be able to dip into your pension fund and offshore their profits, you too would have the same choice of go out of business or pull the same s**t they did. The idea of putting more regulations on corporations has been in effect for over a hundred years and has been proven to not work. More regulations leads to more loopholes, and proof of that is that the finance industry is the most regulated, yet also seen as the 'most evil' industry. You are going to have greedy evil sociopaths regardless, regulations will not make them disappear or reduce the damage they can do. Without dealing with that fact first, you are not going to have a workable long term solution. The easiest and least murderous way to deal with that is to disband government entirely, return to a commodity backed sound currency, and consumers taking full advantage of the internet to ensure that they have all the power. A corporation is an excellent thing when the consumers are calling the shots. When there is no regulation except for consumers boycotting what they see as wrong, that is what you have. I know it is hard to see this, because it is the opposite of all apparent logic for the last few thousand years, but that does not make it any less true.
gaijinlawOct 19, 2011
Three suggestions for you FFJ:
Put down the Ayn Rand, read some Adam Smith and quit acting like an assh**e.
freeformjazzOct 19, 2011
I have read both thank you. Call me what you will.
publiclurkerOct 19, 2011
Maybe you should try reading it again, it obviously went over your head the last time.
bersercOct 20, 2011
For the kingdom of heaven of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 And after agreeing with the workers for the standard wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When it was about nine o’clock in the morning, he went out again and saw others standing around in the market place without work. 4 And he said to them, “You go into the vineyard too and I will give you whatever is right.” 5 So they went. When he went out again about noon and three o’clock that afternoon, he did the same thing. 6 And about five o’clock that afternoon he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, “Why are you standing here all day without work?” 7 They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You go and work in the vineyard too.”
8 When it was evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the workers and give the pay starting with the last hired until the first.” 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each received a full day’s pay. 10 And when those hired first came, they though they would receive more. But each one also received the standard wage. 11 When they received it, they began to complain against the landowner, 12 saying, “These last fellows worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the hardship and burning heat of the day.
13 And the landowner replied to one of them, “Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me to work for the standard wage? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave to you. 15 Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
I think people think you meant all salaries should be equal but you probably mean all taxes should be equal, which is less bats**t insane an idea.
Fact: If you wanted to recover the amount of revenue equal to ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the top few percent of the country, either you can do it that way and the rich can lose a few percent more of their money, or you can make up that same amount by simply TAKING HALF OF ALL ASSETS OF THE BOTTOM 50% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. If taking half the s**t that the bottom half the country's population owns just to save the rich a few percent isn't class warfare, I don't know what is.
miklkitOct 19, 2011
It would take more than half of our assets to make up the difference. We only have 2.5% of the wealth in America now.
hibby76Oct 19, 2011
Most people get paid what they're worth. If you're worth so much more than your employer is paying you, go get a new job....or make one. Equality of pay is not equality because the output is not the same. LeBraun James gets paid so much because so many people want to watch him and buy his merchandise. It's not so different with CEO's.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
Worth is a subjective term meaning worth is not calculated based on objective measures. The system is skewed to favor a few individuals at the great cost to most individuals. How did this happen? Well, a few people garnered most of the power, defined the rules (benefiting mostly them), and began the drive for ever decreasing salaries and benefits (for even more money and power).
We can't simply say Work harder' or 'change careers. In a system rewarding only a few, these ingredients don't work so effectively. What we need is a valuation of worth on more objective grounds with true worth to society being the primary goal.
jdenzerOct 19, 2011
"If you make 475x as much as me and insist you should only pay my rate (or lower), then you're a jerk."
That's how they manage to make all the money they damn well please.
And the saddest part it's all legal.
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
That's an interesting theory. . . .
So, if I could avoid or evade more of my taxes that I pay, such that I am paying the effective rate of these super wealthy, and because it is not illegal to make loads of cash. . . . does that mean that I can be super wealthy too? Is it that simple? Are there hordes of good people out there like you, who are not super wealthy, simply because of their altruism, and making the conscious choice not to avoid taxes? Are you saying that if these hordes of altruistic people simply decided to be greedy, then they too would become super rich and make "all the money they damn well please"? That is sad that it's legal. . . I'm sure we could have prevented a lot of bad greedy people from making money. . . that would have made me feel better.
Or, maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe what you are saying is that the super-wealthy are super wealthy, because of various causes and circumstances (mostly old money, I'm sure) but that there is a finite, and set amount of wealth in the world, and these people only gained wealth, by taking it from others, or at least removing it from the pool of available wealth, for others to have access to? Therefore, if they would but pay more taxes, it would return some of that finite wealth to be accessible to the masses? I'm sure you're right, but I'm curious as to where all this wealth was hiding before this time in history. . . . you know, back when the typical human existence was short, muddy, and always marked by hunger and disease.
Help me understand, which best fits what you are saying and make any amendments you feel would better convey your message. . . .because I want to make sure I understand you correctly.
jdenzerOct 19, 2011
That is just a short answer. But you and both know that is not the only reason. And we know it's not through the tired old work hard and you will be wealthy BS we are always fed.
So I don't have to make you understand, b/c you know already and so do I.
And yes this was never always the case. 60+ years ago the CEO vs Worker was not so great.
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
"And yes this was never always the case. 60+ years ago the CEO vs Worker was not so great."
I agree; why do you think that is?
Obviously there has been at times in the past a more progressive tax rate. . .but the math doesn't add up to the current wealth disparity, by simply taking that much more from the wealthy and distributing (via government programs or infrastructure spending), to account for it.
Is there a 'redistributed income wealth-multiplier' there, that I'm not aware of?
Trust me, that I'm with you in the outrage as to what is happening now. . . but forgive me if I express sarcasm and skepticism at the non-existent economic theories from many. . .as they try to essentially explain it away as greed. And fail to recognize and acknowledge that rampant expressions of greed are a symptom, but the causation stems from centralized power and monopoly control over the currency. And yet, more concentration of power, and more currency manipulations are always the prescriptions to 'solve' this problem. . . these things were the cause of the problem to start with.
redscourgeOct 28, 2011
As much as I don't enjoy jerks, I would never support the passing of a law that makes being a jerk illegal. That would just mean higher taxes, further breaches of privacy by the (police) state, and less money to pay the bills with.
bijaOct 19, 2011
Triple amen!
asayfieOct 19, 2011
People act like the rich don't pay their fair share. Whether they should be taxed EVEN MORE or not is open for debate, but lets not pretend they aren't already pulling more than their weight. The top 1% of the population pays 40% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 90 percent of all taxes. The bottom 50% pay NOTHING!
treecarfrogOct 19, 2011
I pay negative taxes and love it.
darmicharOct 20, 2011
Assuming you are American, you are the problem. The lifers on the social programs that continually take and contribute nothing back to the system are the leeches that are bleeding this country dry.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
While there are 'some' scamming the system, it seems misguided to pretend that our real problem is with the 'poor' and 'not so powerful'. How do you look away from the true power brokers and say it's the lifers causing all the problems.
No, it's the ones defining the rules of the system. That would be Politicians and Special Interest groups with large lobbying power (including Unions).
Beyond that, please note that many states have rules about how long someone can stay on welfare programs. So the idea that their is a huge sum of lifers simply draining the pond is silly.
A Bernie Madoff or screwed up Wall Street scheme can do all of us Way more damage.
darmicharOct 20, 2011
To your 'some' scamming of the system, I say 'bulls**t'. The system is scammed on a daily basis by more than either you or I probably know.
The ones defining the rules are working their asses off to establish themselves as 'rule makers'. I say this as someone that has yet to graduate college, but has spent little time not working MY ass off. You won't hear me bitching about paying my fair share of taxes to support my local schools. I don't anticipate my EIC at the end of the year either.
I won't speak to Unions, I don't have the time to vent that here.
From: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html
"States have broad flexibility in designing time-limit policies, in large part because the federal time limit does not apply to state-funded benefits. Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. However, nearly half the national welfare caseload is in states that either have no time limit (2 states) or a time limit that reduces or modifies benefits when the limit is reached (8 states and the District of Columbia). "
So yeah, pay for their college, reduce their student debt, whatever. Anything is better than rewarding them for squeezing out illegitimate child after illegitimate child to increase their revenue stream. The answer isn't in bitching about the 1%'ers making more than you, it's getting them to be philanthropic and support Community Colleges and Vocational Schools. The fact that anyone has to pay for the first two to four years of College in this country is ludicrous. Instead, we give that money to people who, for the most part, have no intention of bettering themselves because they don't have to.
'There's a sucker born every minute' and 'A fool and his money are soon parted' come to mind when I think about Bernie Madoff. Consider it an 'idiot tax' if you will. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. ANYONE that 'donated' to Bernie Madoff's pyramid scheme deserved to lose their ass. Those were people that got suckered into a fat ROI and paid the price.
I'll assume your referring to the 'toxic' mortgages when you say 'screwed up Wall Street scheme'. Those were bad loans written to people that knew, KNEW they couldn't afford them. I say shame on them for living beyond their means. Now the rest of us that are fiscally responsible in the country get to carry the burden for them doing so. I lose no sleep at night thinking about someone that took a mortgage they knew they shouldn't have, losing everything they've 'worked' for.
Digg me down, I don't care. It's nice playing the Devil's advocate when I need to.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
darm, I wouldn't digg you down. I agree with you to an extent. I especially appreciate your Stats regarding states and limiting welfare. My main issue is that you seem to overplay the number of people milking the system. And, you underplay the impact of that 1%. I personally believe the derivatives, lobbying leading to unfair advantages for special interests, corrupt organizations (health south, Enron, Tyco, etc), Madoff, and others controlling most of the wealth are the ones most responsible for harming our economy, massively exacerbating the numbers of haves and have nots, and more.
But, I also appreciate your civility. I'm always open to alternative viewpoints. And, I'm especially offended as well by those looking for 'handouts' and shirking responsibility.
treecarfrogOct 20, 2011
I don't use any social programs. I make less than 30k a year and get a full refund plus tax credits.
perpetualstupidityOct 19, 2011
What f**king world are you on, where did you pull these retarded statistics that the bottom 50% pay nothing? I'm near minimum wage earner yet i am still taxed nearly 1/5 or more of my earnings. The rich should be paying more tax because they are enjoying the good things of society, not living in the bad areas, getting robbed etc etc. They are paying for the police and the army who sustain their good way of life. F em
celarnorOct 19, 2011
They feel better if they think there's an entire underclass of around 47% that pay no taxes and leach off their hard-earned dollars. In actuality, it's just federal income tax--obviously they still pay into unemployment, social security, state and local taxes whether directly or rent, etc--but they don't let little things like that bother them.
simonjester666Oct 19, 2011
I'm sorry but don't you get all that back in your return? If you only earned a certain amount not only do they give it all back they also give you extra (if you qualify) The rich do pay more. we dont need more from the rich nor do we need less from the poor, we need a fair, easily understandable tax system based on consumption with a poverty level safety net available to everyone.
ect5150Oct 19, 2011
I swear, we go through this in every "tax article" discussion on the comments. The bottom 40-50% don't pay any income tax. This is true. It is also true that they pay payroll taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes though (all of this is on the federal level since different states do different things).
Here is a link to a summary:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/currentdistribution.cfm
By the way, the same research shows the 9-9-9 Godfather plan from Hermain Cain really is highly regressive for those that have not seen. It sounds nice, but isn't.
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3222&DocTypeID=2
perpetualstupidityOct 19, 2011
Well here in England we all pay income tax, council tax and social security, and VAT, that's the bottom 50% too.
ethanleducOct 19, 2011
I hear what you're saying, but if we're arguing over the fairness of the tax code we should probably try to ensure we're all arguing over the same one.
eatthebrainOct 19, 2011
It's seriously like you think they won't be wealthy beyond any concern with more taxes.
It's time to realize there's a problem with our system and people living in god damned poverty is a bit more of a priority than someone making less and still having more than they could ever spend.
gaijinlawOct 19, 2011
So very, very, very tired of this specious arguement. The top 1% are paying 40% of taxes. True enough as far as it goes. What is left out of that statement is that the same 1% are in control of about 50% of all the wealth in the country. (As an interesting aside, the top 20%? They've got around 85% of the pie.) That same 1% has far less debt as a percentage of income. That is the economic inequality that so many are rightfully bitching about. It's the money that's being taxed. The more you've got, the more you should pay.
wilke2000Oct 19, 2011
The bottom 50% pay sales tax, payroll tax, social security tax, and if they get their federal income tax returned to them, they are giving the government an interest-free loan.
But why do you think that paying taxes is the only way a person can contribute to society?
If you want to "starve the beast" why don't you consider them heroes who don't pay federal income tax?
hibby76Oct 19, 2011
Agreed. Where's the talk about the poor people "paying their fair share". They pay $0 now. Is that "fair"???
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
Define poor. If someone makes minimum wage, I'm ok with them having No Federal Income tax liability. Beyond that, how did this become a post about taxation?
sapana543Oct 19, 2011
I guess I should point out that the top 1% pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined and yes they have a higher tax rate and are not allowed the same deductions.
Top 1% pay 40% of the taxes collected. Top 5% pay 60% of all taxes collected.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
Alternative Minimum Tax means that people making over a million per year cannot even deduct their mortgages.
puzzudOct 19, 2011
Exactly. I'm tired of their defense being that they are "job creators" and that if their taxes are raised, it will hurt peoples' jobs. The contrapositive of what they say is as true as their defense: if their taxes are raised, they will be job eliminators, because in order to maintain their CEO salary/pensions, they will liquidate jobs.
The "job creators" defense is a euphemism for a threat.
wilke2000Oct 19, 2011
They create jobs in Indonesia.
linuxpersonOct 19, 2011
According to Tax Policy Center, on average millionaires pay 29.1% of their income to the Federal government. That's nearly double what the average earner pays.
I will, however, agree that CEOs working for the mega corporations are compensated obscene amounts.
publiclurkerOct 19, 2011
what's especially galling is when they claim that they are entitled to that much money for destroying the company. I'm sorry, but is an actual worker ever cost a company millions of dollars he would be fired, not given 75% of his bonus and a new car allowance.
mercedrocksOct 19, 2011
Pay lower? That Buffet Rule is nonsense. Dividends are taxed twice: one as income by the business (35%) and then again as income by the person who receives them (15%) for a grand total of 45%.
Tired of loopholes? Then ditch the tax code and charge a flat tax across the board. Get rid of ALL DEDUCTIONS.
blackjackjesterOct 19, 2011
This also annoys me because not a single country on there comes to even close to the population of the US. Germany is 25% as populated as the US, and it is the second largest county on there.
Assume logarithmic hierarchy happens when you grow business to compensate - you get 96:1 (12 x 2^4)- still a lot less than America - but America is far less socialist.
We do the same for Britain - which the US is 5 times larger. (22 x 2^5), you get 640:1 - much higher than what it is in the US.
Corporations operate as hierarchy's. As the population and market size grows, you don't get even distribution of CEO's. You get a couple more CEO's in charge of substantially larger companies.
so REALLY, these numbers don't mean anything. They mean that US companies tend to be way larger than foreign counterparts. What needs to be addressed is how these people wield exponentially more political power due to lobbying ability. Especially since the downturn, 20 banks turned into about 4, putting 4x more power in the hands of 1/4 the people. THIS is the problem, not the salaries they are paid.
eraptorOct 19, 2011
As I learned years ago, greed among many CEO's and executives is a bottomless pit that can never be filled.
Unfortunately, many of these people equate love and money. As a result, they mistakenly attempt to fill the holes in their hearts/souls with money at the expense of millions of other people.
mikelistOct 20, 2011
i have an idea. limit ceo compensation, and cut their taxes slightly. a little something for everybody to hate.
ikilledkrustyOct 21, 2011
True dat
novenatorOct 19, 2011
This is f**king insane. CEO's rake in 1/3rd of ALL the pay in America, and we are the 5th worst nation in terms of wealth inequality according to Politifact.
Imagine what our nation would be like if we let the rich and powerful double down on their failed policies during the Great Depression. America would be a cesspool. We need to stand up and reclaim the wealth we create through our work, boot out the corporations who have corrupted our system and refuse to change their ways, and end the dominance of the big banks and Wall Street over everything.
cosmicsurferOct 19, 2011
But the "can't comprehend" #Occupywallstreet
anomaly100Oct 19, 2011Submitter
Which is why we rage.
[Ruh roh! the Digg police are around; LinuxPerson might get mad. I said 'rage'.]
0ldb0yOct 19, 2011
that linuxperson is starting look more like a micro$oftperson, imho.
anomaly100Oct 19, 2011Submitter
You noticed the new Digg Policeman doing his rounds today, eh? Careful now, I think he might be a White Shirt:-)
linuxpersonOct 19, 2011
How cute, my favorite stalker has a man crush.
publiclurkerOct 19, 2011
If only he was a redshirt, then we wouldn't have to deal with him much longer.
linuxpersonOct 19, 2011
Saying rage is quite a bit different than laughing at the idea of beating somebody to death, don't you think?
Glad to see I'm now your new obsession though!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
And thus, 'the other side' then attacks you with meaningless put downs. I digg your points on this thread. CEO Pay? Obscene. Trying to solve this through the 'tax code'? Wrong headed.
Now, can we please stick to objective conversations and ditch the character assassination?
twinklyjesusOct 20, 2011
That is what Novenazi and nommie the commie do here on digg. They troll people's comments and make personal attacks.
Of course, you become a mythical DPer or "Mollydog" when you do that to them,
Odd-ball and the nominator don't like getting served what they dish out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelOct 20, 2011
@twinkletoes - That is exactly what you do. You troll people's comments and then make personal attacks on them. In fact, the very first post you made to me you attacked me as someone who isn't capable of understanding the other side with your smug, I'm better than thou demeanor.
So, then I decided to show all the times that you act like a hypocrite (which is most of the time) and you start crying like a little bitch. Then your attacks devolve more and more into homo erotic rants and gripes. When you're proving wrong, you move on to the next thread and do the same BS.
You then attack others for doing exactly what you do. How many people, myself included do you claim is just another account for novenator? Why is this? Is it because there are many of us that can plainly see your BS?
Feel free to think whatever the hell you want. Your behavior is quite sad and pathetic.
twinklyjesusOct 20, 2011
You characterize your menopausal, bipolar episodes as "raging", ah, nothing like an over-the-hill wannbe hipster with a cause.
arpadOct 19, 2011
Say, what is the *best* nation in terms of wealth inequality? I always hear about how bad the U.S. is in that regard but never the nations we ought to model ourselves after.
Ooops, I peeked. It's a tie between Chad and Burkina Faso. Hey novenator, if you want to live in a slice 'o heaven Chad and Burkina Faso are the two places that meet your criteria.
Send a post card when you get there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crom99Oct 19, 2011
Are you suggesting there's a link between quality of life for the middle class and CEO pay? If not, then I don't see the point of your comment.
fizixmanOct 19, 2011
The point of the ratio is moderation. A ratio at either extreme (1:1 or 475:1) is not something to aspire to.
When comparing CEO pay ratios of the United States to other developed nations of comparable status (say by per capita GDP) one might question the validity of allowing such extremes to persist given the current financial issues facing the nation.
barackalypseOct 19, 2011
You don't judge a society based on how the wealthiest live, you look at how most people live, or maybe the poorest people, and in that regard, we've doing pretty damn good. You show me any Country in Africa where the poor have electricity, cable television, and cell phones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydOct 19, 2011
Not as good as were or could be. And your horse s**t about tech is just that. They wash too. Go to bathroom indoors too!
barackalypseOct 19, 2011
Go visit Tanzania and tell me how prevalent electricity and indoor plumbing are. There's a reason you're always reading articles about vast numbers not having access to safe drinking water. Know why that is? Its because a lot of people get it directly from a river, not run through multi-million dollar from municipal water treatment facilities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Oct 19, 2011
That's because the country is poor. Can you name a rich country that operates like the Republicans want the US to operate like?
I bet you can't...
barackalypseOct 19, 2011
Sure can, the United States prior to the 1930's. Go look at the history of our economic rise. Sometime between 1870 and 1915 we became the richest nation on Earth, without Social Security, without Medicare, with Government spending under 10% of GDP, and with no income tax or Central Bank (until 1913). Now that Government represents 41% of our economy you'll notice we aren't number 1 anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabberwockgeeOct 19, 2011
@barackalypse Does anyone even know why the Federal Reserve was created? You might want to check it out before insinuating that the Federal Reserve causes all the problems...
icwydOct 19, 2011
Seriously? You want our country to go back to 1930's? Just so you can be rich? You are seriously a parasite.
audiomodderOct 19, 2011
@barackalypse
you mean the US right before/during the Great Depression?
we're already there....
barackalypseOct 19, 2011
@jabberwockgee, sure, ostensibly the Fed was created to help ensure stability in the financial system by using monetary policy to help smooth out the booms and busts of the business cycle. I hope you'll agree they've failed miserably, and in fact their easy money policies have actually helped create the conditions of our current pain.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Oct 19, 2011
You can't attribute the fall of the economy as being the Federal Reserve's fault and only their fault. They didn't create this toxic asset swapping program...the private banks did. As I recall banks crashed before as well...without the Federal Reserve being around.
Banks don't need help f**king up...they manage to do it all by themselves.
spatula7Oct 19, 2011
You forgot to say in today's world...barackalypse is mentally living in the past where...
Life expectancy at birth.
2006: 77.8 years
1967: 70.5 years
1915: 54.5 years
Percentage of women in the labor force, age 16 and older (10 and older for 1915).
2006: 59%
1967: 41%
1915: 23%
Education
Percentage of the population, age 25 and older, who had at least a high school diploma.
2006: 85.2%
1967: 51.1%
1915: 13.5%
so there was child labor, uneducated people working 7 days week, gender/race discrimination, disease epidemics, extreme poverty (the population in poverty was approximately 45% in 1870), ..., sounds wonderful doesn't it...
but some people were rich back then....oh yay.
roguegeniusOct 20, 2011
"Sometime between 1870 and 1915 we became the richest nation on Earth"
Incorrect. Well, we were starting to become something by 1915. 18th Century America was a backwater. It was thought of much the way we think of India or China. Up and coming by miles to go. America didn't come to be the 'superpower' until after the New Deal and WWII. It was a two fold thing that made us that: New Deal industrialization, and the fact the the rest of the world was destroyed. We benefited from the 'last man standing' situation. We then took that and rode with it for 20 years until we became an unparalleled juggernaut. Then we got 'conservative' about the New Deal. We refused to adapt when we needed to change (both parties fault). Eventually it tanked. Then we had Reaganomics which also tanked and we are conservative about that now. We need to go back to the New Deal era, get money in the hands of the people and get some demand for product rolling again.
roguegeniusOct 20, 2011
spatula,
That is a very wise way of looking at it. You can even more personalize it. In the 1500's the richest man on Earth was probably Ferdinand of Spain. He lived in drafty castles, sweltered in Spanish summers, suffered headaches and backaches without so much as aspirin. Mentally ill people were 'possessed' there were flies and bugs in all the food.... It goes on and on.
I'm just a middle class joe, but I live FAR better than the king did 500 years ago. We are ALL richer than the richest of even the Robber Baron era.
Just think, it wasn't till near the end of Rockefeller's life that there were SCREENS for windows!!!! I wouldn't trade places with him. Not even for one day.
whiteravenOct 21, 2011
Republicans what the country to operate like the Constitution says it should. Nothing more, nothing less.
mlw4428Oct 21, 2011
@whiteraven
No Republicans want the country to operate based on their interpretation of what the Constitution says. It doesn't mean that they are right, it's just their interpertation.
mlw4428Oct 19, 2011
I can show you where the poor in the UK, Australia, Canada, and many other countries have universal healthcare coverage. I can show you where they have a lock down on corporations. I can show you in many of those same countries where the poor get heavily subsidized college educations because it quit being about the rich and started being about the common man.
You judge a society based on their poor? I judge a society by the disparity on how they treat their citizens. Africa as whole is poor and doesn't stand up your scrutiny. America as a whole is rich, but that richness is held by the few while the many continue to get battered.
Show me an industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthcare coverage or heavily subsidized (grants, not loans) college education. Hell show me any country, because I want to see a country that you Repukes want to make America like.
murxOct 19, 2011
Yep, aim high, compare yourself with the third world - how fitting!
Wasn't there this serial sequence in MAD TV - Lowered Expectations? Strongly reminds me of the USA...
Doing pretty damn good? Back in 1900 USA was slightly behind Europe (esp. Britain, Germany and France in regard to industrialisation) - China was still more in feudal age then anything else - two world wars that ravaged the old continent massively - and Japan wasting China wholesale while USA had PEACE at least within their borders (not counting tiny islands in the Pacific) and rushed to industrialise...
Compare the achievements of China - in regard to a population of over a billion - with the USA - the table has turned 180 degrees.
And Africa? The last 50 years CAPITALISM had FULL ACCESS to Africa - but you ain't see wealth there - that's in opposition to the claim capitalism is the best way to organise the economy.... shouldn't Africa flourish already because China only used a bit capitalism lately and Africa so much longer?
You should get a greater picture of the world - both in timescale as in in WORLD (and not just your tiny US) and check if your idiological beliefs are in anyway reflecting reality....
metanoia29Oct 19, 2011
Amen! Americans are extremely spoiled, thinking that they're entitled to whatever they want. These CEOs make a s**t-ton of money, but they've also worked extremely hard to get where they are today; more than likely they were previously in the same position as those whiners Occupying right now, but instead they chose hard-work over laziness.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stabsteerOct 19, 2011
Do you really believe this s**t? Wow are you living on another planet, in your own mind...
metanoia29Oct 19, 2011
Of course, it's called common sense. The negative diggs from the mindless buffoons regarding common sense only helps reinforce how much s**t our country is in for.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stabsteerOct 19, 2011
Actually dude we've been living under 'your' method of give all the money to the rich for the last 15-20 years and look where it's gotten us...
If anything we've tried it that way it's PROVEN NOT TO WORK. The reason we are in this mess is exactly because of people like you who think the rich deserve every penny while the rest of us get screwed.
Your last comment just shows how clueless many Americans are and is completely true, except YOU are the incorrect one.
audiomodderOct 19, 2011
"but they've also worked extremely hard to get where they are today;"
no, they haven't, and that's the problem.
"they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"
--George Carlin
hibby76Oct 19, 2011
Do you realize that 1st generation immigrants are more likely to become millionaires than those of us who are born here? Want to know why? They KNOW that the American dream still exists.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PickledsoulOct 19, 2011
so your saying that nobody that is wealthy today inherited their wealth/business from their family? head. out. of. ass.
nekokittayOct 19, 2011
So does that mean you are a CEO paid hundreds of millions of dollars? If not, that means you are lazy.
hiropendragonOct 19, 2011
"America: Doing great because it's a lot better than Africa. (Please ignore China's booming economy, and a large percentage of European countries with higher literacy rates, longer life spans, access to healthcare, etc, etc)"
jrod65Oct 19, 2011
Oh barack, always making those apples to apples comparisons...
treehugger87Oct 19, 2011
Economic security has nothing to do with the things that you own. It has to do with having a reliable, steady paycheck that covers your necessary costs (food, electricity, shelter). It has to do with being able to suffer a crisis and worry about the crisis first, not where the money is going to come from to pay for it.
Every American doing an honest day's work should get an honest day's pay, have no worries about how they're going to pay for it if they get sick, have a vacation, have transportation, etc. If you're employees are worried about how they're going to stretch their paycheck into next week, then you are not getting the most out of your employees.
hibby76Oct 19, 2011
And what if they suck at their job???
BluntzworthOct 20, 2011
If you suck at your job, then you are not doing an honest day's work.
hibby76Oct 28, 2011
Or they're lazy. Or they're under qualified. Or they're under trained. Or they're under motivated. Or they're doing it the wrong way...........
BluntzworthOct 28, 2011
What ever the reason why they suck, they still suck and are not giving what the employers want/need.
dsterbdOct 19, 2011
Very valid point. Standard of living is not taken into consideration in all of this. Some of the folks in section 8 housing in the neighborhood next to mine drive Escalades, wear designer cloths, have Coach bags and s**t like that. That is another issue all together. Poverty is relative and a number defined by individual countries. Poverty in the US is very different than poverty elsewhere. Go to pretty much anywhere in South America, Jamaica, or other countries like that and you will see "poverty".
It is sad that many hate our own country so bad right now that you get dugg down when you say positive things about our standard of living and that we are doing good in that regard. If people can't even admit that, they have other problems. You can't reason with someone at that point. That said, we need some tax and financial system reform badly and the folks that gamed the system should pay.
hibby76Oct 19, 2011
If I'm hiring someone to mow my lawn, I want it to get mowed at a reasonable rate. I don't calculate how much I'm going to pay them based on their mortgage, car payment, etc. Why should it be any different for anyone who is hiring people???
dsterbdOct 22, 2011
Huuuhhhhh? I was going to try and reply but honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about so I can't. I am not being sarcastic either.
hibby76Oct 28, 2011
It's simple. A job should pay what a job is worth regardless of the workers economic liabilities.
phillysteveOct 19, 2011
Well said..
JustSayNoPartyOct 20, 2011
We're still living off the 'fruits' of past labor. Our standard is slipping. If we keep going down this path, you'll see many more 'not' enjoying that American dream. You cant compare our standard today (a country at the top of the economic ladder for decades) with another country still largely undeveloped.
Thus, it's fair to express concern about a 'slipping' standard of living.
Unregistered_CowardOct 19, 2011
Yep, greed. That of others who want.
Question is, who's doing the wanting here.
eatthebrainOct 19, 2011
Greed is more of wanting something you don't need, not just wanting something.
agmlauncherOct 19, 2011
You have to cite that figure, because some basic thought experiments essentially disprove it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE: WalMart
WalMart has 2,100,000 employees:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/performers/companies/biggest/
WalMart's CEO is paid $18.7 million
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576271111819735644.html
Let's be conservative and say that ALL 2.1 million employees earn minimum wage and only work 20 hours/week (which is so unbelievably conservative, I don't know why I'm even doing that).
That means 2.1 million x $7.25 x 20 x 52 = $15,834,000,000
$18.7 million is not 1/3rd of $15,834,000,000. It's actually more like 1/846th.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE: Viacom
Viacom has 10,900 employees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom
Viacom's CEO was the highest paid CEO in the country (world??) in 2010 @ $85 million:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/news/1104/gallery.top_ceo_pay/index.html
We'll use the same ultra-conservative math as above: no executives or managers, no full time employees, and minimum wage in an industry that actually pays very well.
10,900 x $7.25 x 20 x 52 = $82,186,000
So even using that insanely conservative estimate, the CEO salary is 50% of the salary of all other workers. Considering the average salary of someone working in the media/marketing field is probably closer to $50,000/year, then in reality those 10,900 are being paid $545,000,000, well above the 1/3rd threshold you're claiming.
So please cite your source. Perhaps you mean total EXECUTIVE level pay (e.g. Director, CEO, CTO, CFO, COO etc etc etc), but the CEO alone does not earn 1/3rd of American's income....
That's utterly ridiculous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicOct 19, 2011
Just curious if the numbers you are using are salary and all other bonuses and stock options etc, ie total compensation.
agmlauncherOct 19, 2011
Did you read the links I posted or did you bury me without even reading my sources:
The Viacom CEO link explicitly states:
Cash compensation: $14 million
Stock and options: $70.5 million
Walmart CEO link:
"Mr. Duke's base salary rose 2.4% to $1.2 million, according to a document filed Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, while his stock awards were valued at $12.7 million"
Base salary: $1.2 million
Stock options: $12.7 million
So yes, that is total compensation.
I love the digg community sometimes. Just accept someones' randomly unsupported facts as long as they suit their already formed opinions, and bury anyone who uses facts to challenge unsupported claims :/
ncmusicOct 19, 2011
I didn't bury you, because I was asking a question.
sapana543Oct 19, 2011
It doesn't matter, the top CEOs are outliers.
The workers in the US make more than in any other country.
The top 5% of earners pay more 60% of all taxes collected.
Ignore the divide and focus on the fact that the standard of living of the poor in the us is higher than anytime in history or in an other country.
son0fhobsOct 19, 2011
Corporations depend on consumers for income and profits, right? And we're the consumers, right?
Why aren't we doing something about it? When you see a stat that pisses you off (not just you, but everyone), make sure you don't invest or purchase anything from them.
They may be cheaper, but if people were to unify as they are on wallstreet, into something like this, we'd actually make a difference. Not to mention that most CEO's get fired if they don't make a profit regularly, and I want to say that the standard is 3 quarters of losses and they're gone. Why don't we create those losses? And make demands known, so that the next guy might try to save his job.
I personally don't trust Exxon Mobile, so I pulled out my stocks (I put them in when I was too young to understand the loaded issues behind them.) I don't have anything in Bank of America (this is just one of many BS policies they implement: http://digg.com/news/politics/bank_of_america_reports_6_2_billion_profit_for_third_quarter_but_must_have_your_5), I'd never touch Goldman Sachs, even if they were handing out gold.
Anyone? Is there any lesser corrupt bank? Do you provide investment/income for any company abusing our economy?
nihilOct 19, 2011
so who, exactly, should be telling everyone how much they deserve to earn?
gudwinOct 19, 2011
"Booting out" the corporations would resemble something like national socialism, which was big in Germany in the 30s and 40s. This isn't the problem, the problem is education of the masses, to both improve quality of life and to educate about the truth surrounding these economic circumstances.
hibby76Oct 20, 2011
So if the richest person in America doubles his net worth, the discrepancy is twice as big...........how does that hurt you???
karmashockOct 20, 2011
Nov, everyone agrees that wealth inequality is an issue.
You'll get lots of interest on the issue from all sides.
The problem is that ALL issues have the same solution for your faction.
Environmental problems? Solution: State socialism.
Poverty issues? Solution: State socialism.
Peace issues? Solution: State socialism.
Education issues? Solution: State socialism.
For you, all problems have the same solution. Give the government more power and then make them responsible for fixing the issue. Then at the same time because it always seems to cost at least a trillion dollars we have to then jack taxes up by 30 percent.
I mean, we can't pay for what we're already doing and the economy is already choking to death because it isn't internationally competitive. So increasing taxes is only going to make that worse. And then even if you did that you'd probably not be able to pay for everything we're currently doing RIGHT NOW. Which means all your other ideas either will be radically underfunded or unfunded.
Your ideas are impractical, illogical, and self destructive. You can't play golf if you take a mulligan on every bad shot. You can't play video games with the cheat codes always on. You can't play chess and say "let me take that move back" every time you lose a piece. Your ideas have to be competent or they'll destroy us all.
They are not competent. Their solution in all cases is to throw infinite money at them. Money we don't have.
If we had infinite money, then in most cases I'd say "have fun"... and give you as much of it as you want to do whatever. But we don't. We don't have infinite money. This isn't star trek with teleporters and replicators. We live in an advanced and wealthy society but it is still one that exists in the REAL world.
Cost of healthcare for everyone? One trillion dollars annually at a minimum.
Cost of Kyoto and carbon trading? At least one perhaps two trillion dollars annually.
Cost of educating everyone in the US with free university educations? No idea... but it's probably a trillion dollars.
Total US budget prior to all this crap was about 2 trillion dollars. We spent about 30 percent of that or about 600 billion on the military. The remaining 1400 billion went almost entirely to welfare programs you guys had passed in the last century.
Perhaps only 35 percent of the current budget actually goes to what the government was created to do in the first place where as 65 percent likely goes to things it was not created to do and are likely unconstitutional.
I get what you want. We all understand. But it isn't f'ing possible. Look at the Europeans... your posterboys for how the US should be run. They're more broke then we are and they don't even have our military. Their whole social system is melting down as we speak.
Wake up.
elimgarakOct 19, 2011
But wait, the CEOs work 475 times harder than the regular workers! </s>
metanoia29Oct 19, 2011
I'd love to see the inexperienced "regular workers" given the task of running a successful business.
murxOct 19, 2011
I'd love to see the 'experienced' regular CEOs given the task of doing the real work properly....
tanethOct 19, 2011
"I got my tie caught in the production belt!"
"Why aren't you even wearing a hard hat?"
"It clashed with my suit. Look at it, it's getting grease all over it, someone should clean this place. Where's my coffee? Carol! What do I pay these people for?"
miklkitOct 19, 2011
I know a guy who showed up for work at a heavy construction job wearing a tie. He did get it caught in a pipe threading machine, but managed to turn it off before it decapitated him. He got that job by way of marriage.
This income disparity is not just about the CEO's. When Mercedes-Benz bought out Chrysler they thought they were getting a good progressive company.
They discovered that they had to go down through 7 layers of management before they found some poor slob who was making less than the CEO of Mercedes-Benz.
cosmicsurferOct 19, 2011
The more popular boys and girls know nothing about the business they are in. Moving computer CEOs to banking and banking to Retail or property or hotel management. It is only their experience and years as upper management that gets them their jobs and not knowledge of the business - and their ignorance shows every time a company goes sour but they maintain their golden parachute at the expense of the worker and customer.
nairebisOct 19, 2011
You'll disagree with me, but in my experience high level CEOs are far smarter and harder working than the average idiot doing "real work". Sure, you can find anecdotes on idiot bosses (I've met some of them, too), but some of the smartest, most capable people I've met have run their own businesses. They can do their job and do your job better than you.
This myth that all people at the top are incompetent morons installed by the Secret Illuminati is just idiotic.
murxOct 19, 2011
I agree with you that manager/CEO are 'hard working' - or at least (usually) hard trying - in the sense that they do work 'over hours' on a daily routine. They don't have regulated worktime but 60-100 workhours a week.
BUT hard trying/hard working is NOT smart working.
Most of the time you can solve a job the hard way... or the smart way
And yes - you will have less of the 'full stupid' guys/gals you got in average population/workforce at the 'top'.
Maybe you might want to check the Peters Principle and the Dilbert Principle - at least for lower and middle management they are appliable and thus to some extent to upper management too.
And lastly:
"They can do their job and do your job better than you."
If you do something everyday for a longer period you will do better then anyone who never done it or just started. You can just say 'I can do 'my' job and do 'my' job better then them!' - so I should get more money then them - since they can't do my job!?
And lastly, no, it is not a Secret Illuminati thing - it is just a systematic problem of the current rules of society. It is a failure to organise our society in a better way - no conspiracy.
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
Yes, obviously - although that mainly has to do with education and life experiences, rather some innate ability. The point is that the CEOs are not 475 times smarter. They don't work 475 times harder. So them earning 475 times more than a person who accidentally ended up at the bottom?
nairebisOct 20, 2011
Because pay is based on supply and demand, and what someone is willing to pay. And in many cases, they started and own the company, hence they should get as much of spoils as they want. If the guy at the bottom wants a bigger piece of pie, let him/her take the risk and start their own company.
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
"Because pay is based on supply and demand, and what someone is willing to pay. And in many cases, they started and own the company, hence they should get as much of spoils as they want. If the guy at the bottom wants a bigger piece of pie, let him/her take the risk and start their own company."
First of all most of the CEOs working right now did not start and own the company.
Second, while this makes sense in theory, this just tells me that our system is not competitive and tightly focused enough. Those hundreds of millions could have gone to the consumers or the workers if there was proper competition. Or if the lower level workers had the rights and the ability to demanded more pay.
nairebisOct 20, 2011
Here's the thing. I'll listen to arguments about *why* CEO pay is so high, and an analysis of exactly how it happens that someone determines how much they're paid. If we're talking public companies, maybe we need reform of how boards of directors are chosen, and maybe their needs to be a more competitive process. I'll listen to whether there is structural corruption that is causing two CEOs on each other's boards to vote the other one high salaries. I'll listen to ways in introduce more competition into the process.
That all makes sense. But what you typically hear is knee-jerk crying about how much someone makes compared to someone else. Envious B.S. doesn't get anywhere with me. I will never resent how much someone else is paid, because it has nothing to do with how much I am paid, and I am much more interested in that. Sitting around whining is a loser's game.
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
"That all makes sense. But what you typically hear is knee-jerk crying about how much someone makes compared to someone else. Envious B.S. doesn't get anywhere with me. I will never resent how much someone else is paid, because it has nothing to do with how much I am paid, and I am much more interested in that. Sitting around whining is a loser's game."
However, it does have implications on how much you get payed. It's an indication of the general system inequality and skewed power/weight. Certain people get way more for less work because the system is not working as well as it should, and because it is not very rational. This has two impacts on you:
1. Chances are pretty good that you are in the same boat as those workers - IE that you are in a company that's not well balanced and structured. That money could either go to you, or it could go to making the company more competitive and more profitable.
2. This also indicates a more generic problem where some people are more equal than others. Wealth equals power - and that skews the political system, the justice system, various taxes and laws, etc. Which impacts you in all sorts of ways including taxes, benefits, public works, road quality, the power grid, gas prices, and all sorts of other things.
So just because you are not directly impacted by this problem does not mean it doesn't have very significant secondary impacts on you.
stealthspcOct 19, 2011
They have a show for that called Undercover Boss.
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
The point is not that the two sets of people have different experiences. The point is that given the same education and experience each of them can do the other's job. That one is a CEO and the other is a regular worker is largely an accident of birth and life circumstances. It has very little to do with inherent ability, skills, intellect, or hard work.
metanoia29Oct 20, 2011
Look at the thousands and thousands of successful start-ups today that had to rely on outside investors and many years in the red just to create a viable company. You conveniently want to label all top-tiered executives as lucky bastards by birth, but the truth is there are still plenty hard working Americans who caught their dreams!
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
Nobody said that they aren't hard working or smart people. I am sure they work very hard. The point is that they are not 475 times more hard working and not 475 times smarter than the other people in the company.
Furthermore, that's why added qualifiers to my statements. Many - if not most - owe their tremendous success to nurture and luck. But nature does play a role. It pushes them in the right direction.
metanoia29Oct 20, 2011
Do financial contrasts have to maintain a linear increase, or can it be exponential?
hibby76Oct 20, 2011
Since it's so easy, why don't you run out there and get yourself a nice CEO job???
elimgarakOct 20, 2011
1. I don't WANT a CEO job. I love my job and don't want to manage people. Development is much more fun, I get fun problems and cool toys.
2. I don't have the right skills or education. I spent many years getting the education and skills necessary for my current position. I don't want to spend another decade studying and working up the management ladder to get into a job I don't like.
3. Nobody said it was easy. But it is not 400 times tougher than other jobs in the company. If the CEO worked even 100 times more than all the other workers, then that would be one thing. But I can pretty much guarantee that there are people working just as hard if not harder doing other things in the company and earning a tiny fraction that the CEO earns.
gladush2010Oct 19, 2011
I feel sory for u guys in USA, totaly support you and hope You will make difference in next few months. Not that just you depend on it, big part of the world depend on your's economy, so don't give up!!
bluto36Oct 19, 2011
dependence...
its what we are currently discussing
FounderOf420Oct 19, 2011
My time in large chains and/or corporations has shown me that the ones who kiss ass/brown-nose and or lie/exaggerate are the ones who get promotions while the experienced, rational, capable workers, who aren't always up the boss' ass, get overlooked. Even though they would be a much better candidate for such positions and promotions.
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
That's because corporations function the same way that government does; just like the government a corporation (internally) does not pay attention to price signals and incentives. . . therefore, a boss can get away with promoting the liars and ass-kissers (at least for a good long while) because in today's corporate structure the boss doesn't keep their job based on their productivity, and making profit. . . they keep their job by just maintaining order with the lemmings who are under their management, and not rocking the boat. Therefore, they can afford to get away with promoting those who are not as productive as the overlooked, competent workers, and reward the ass-kissers. Not that corporations don't look at profits, and sometimes use lack of performance as grounds for firing, but nevertheless, they don't prioritize that and internally they stifle competition and profit/loss price signals, which means that waste and incompetence reign supreme.
Same is true with government. . .they may have all the good intentions in the world to produce value for the populace they govern, but it is nearly impossible, since they operate as an extra-market entity, which does not produce according to where the profit is, which is the market signal that more supply is needed in a certain area. . .no they must simply rely on some bureaucracy's best guess as to where more is needed or less is needed, and they can only cater to a majority, at the expense of a minority (or vice versa).
vatosplaceOct 19, 2011
Why not? They're clearly 475 times better people and are more deserving than the rest. We should be proud of what they've earned, we're all better for it.
/s
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
To the rich: Enough already, everyone sane knows that the tax rate you pay on the huge salaries you make results in the top 10% paying most of the taxes into the system. If you want to complain, there are three things you can do about it, you can take a salary cut and give some of that tax burden to your lowest employees, you can move to reduce the size of government, or you can shut the hell up and continue on with the status quo.
To the poor: Enough with trying to reason with the rich, they simply are incapable of understanding that it is possible to be trapped by the system, because they have never had the troubles you have had, such as poor parents, a school system that has failed you and allowed the useful information you need to succeed to be monopolized by the rich, and being too busy just trying to keep where you are with your three jobs to even have the time to look for a better way.
To all people: The real problem is the government. Corporations will always lobby the government, because the government always seeks to make laws to give themselves more money and power, and the corporations are the ones with all the information, so they will always be bending the truth a little to give themselves an edge over the competition. Corporations are essential to life, governments are not. They've convinced us all that they too are essential, by controlling the flow of information (education system), and know that the only way they can continue to grant themselves more and more power and control (or as they call it, "responsibility"), is to keep you in the dark about the fact that you don't need them, and believing that a totally free market economy would be chaos. Fact: most government services such as road and rail expansion have historically simply been regulated into existence by governments, but it is always the corporations that do the work, so that should show you how essential governments really are. The true reason that times are tough now is that the central banks print money nonstop, which destroys the value of your savings and allows them to temporarily pay their bills by typing a value into a computer and creating money from thin air with which to pay their ever increasing expenses. If the 99% were really pissed at the top 1% and the market itself controlled the currency, then the 99% could simply start issuing their own currency and not do business with the top 1%, and they would starve off and die. THAT is the free market doing its work, the same free market that the government seeks to prevent at all costs with their ever-increasing regulations and unconstitutional monopoly over the currency, because they know if we had the power, we would immediately leave them to eat cake, as they have done for us.
To government: f**k off and die.
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
Note about the above: for the sake of argument and in the interests of brevity I addressed only the working poor, or the poor looking for work, not the legitimately disabled and unable to work, or the few able-bodied but lazy unemployed. To those people all I would say is that the government has shown that they cannot continue to pay for your survival, they are going real broke real fast, so get ready to fend for yourselves. Anarchy is coming whether we like it or not; all we can hope for is that it is the more the preferable definition of the word, not the total violent chaos kind that the sensationalist media always equates with the word.
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
For those who are ignorant of the good type of anarchy he's talking about, please see: Agorism, or market anarchy.
It's not scary. . . I promise, but if you take time to understand it. . . it will rock your world. Take the red pill and see outside of the statist matrix.
redscourgeOct 19, 2011
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
socaldeltaOct 19, 2011
Amen - End the Fed
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
^this^
luke1h7Oct 19, 2011
How class warfare started, by Luke1h7:
Animals started living together a long, long time ago. The end.
I saw on one of those Planet Earth shows there are other species who engage in class warfare also. These little apes in Japan won't let the lesser apes in to the natural springs. So they have to sit outside of the springs freezing their asses off while the higher ups (and even their babies) get to sit in the hot springs and keep warm.
Sound familiar?
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
dugg, for the mean japanese hot-tub monkeys.
irrationalistOct 19, 2011
I somehow think 475 workers could do one CEO's job better.
sc00terOct 19, 2011
I'm no expert on the topic, but I'll leave my 2cents about it because it's the internet and everyone has a say.
The idea behind a capitalistic society is to encourage competition in order for the best option for consumers to win. If you think you can do something better than someone else is doing it, you should be encouraged to try. In essence everyone should want to be a CEO.
Imagine living in a small village, where one guy is selling tomatoes for 99cents, and another is selling them for 89cents. Both are making good money, and consumers must make a choice of which one they value more given the taste and the price point. So next year 100 farmers grow tomatoes, then the business model becomes unsustainable for most of the people selling tomatoes. There are too many tomatoes, and not enough customers. Some of the companies fail, and some succeed. Simple supply and demand. But people were able to take a chance by planting tomatoes and fail.
Fast forward to today. The same competition encouraging capitalistic society is in place today, but there is one major difference. Barrier for entry. In the example above farmers turn around, walk out to their fields and plant tomatoes. In other words an equal, or at least roughly equal barrier for entry. Today if you think comcast sucks and want to start your own cable company you will need a minimum investment to create infrastructure, get approvals from the FCC, local organizations etc. Unfortunately this barrier for entry makes the playing field uneven for individuals looking to create their own businesses. In today's global markets the size that some companies and organizations can amass is almost unfathomable. This size enables these corporations to essentially remove competition from the marketplaces in which they play. Unfortunately competition is the concept that capitalism is built on. It's almost as if we are a victim of our own success.
I don't want to even out the playing field for everyone who is successful, I think if we can find a way to even out the barrier for entry you will see TRUE competition. If a companies CEO wants to take a 475:1 pay for himself that's fine, that company probably won't last to long in a system of true competition.
socaldeltaOct 19, 2011
The disparity between your 2 cents and my zero cents is obviously an injustice. gimme
cme884Oct 20, 2011
If a company has an effective monopoly on a service, the only entity capable of making them do the right thing is the government, assuming watchdog agencies are fully funded and not kneecapped by a tea party congress.
laurahoustonOct 21, 2011
good reply but much local zoning restricts homeowners from planting crops on their own property.(and fines them heavy if they do)
There are high barriers to self-employment- most restrictive at the local levels.
You're right that all the barriers to self-employment should be dropped. Keep the state health laws, it's those local laws that sprug-up in the past 20 years that hurt peoples freedom to create their own work.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
For those who have come to the conclusion that since governments are the fundamental problem, that despite their existence for thousands of years, not a single one of them has been able to produce a remotely fair and honourable system full of honest politicians, that clearly some sort of drastic change needs to happen, but hopefully not a violent one, or one that leads to the apocalypse. I would like to propose a simplified model of an anarchistic society which proves their potential feasibility and even superiority over what we have today.
New Finance:
Today, it is virtually impossible for any one citizen to loan money to any other and have any legal recourse if the loan goes bad, since only banks are allowed to do that. The banks more or less have a monopoly over the market. It got that way due to government regulations, and after they got as rich as they did, they eventually got to trick the government into putting in all sorts of other legislation that would ensure their place at the top, at our expense.
If there were no government regulations, and people were seeking to start a new company with an amazing business model to uproot the status quo, there would be no limit to how many people they would be able to accept investment from, so long as they were able to prove to those investors that it was workable. People do not like losing their savings, so in the absense of regulation, the burden is on the entrepreneur to convince the people that his idea is workable, and that he will not rip them off. So you see, things such as accounting audits and other forms of disclosure would be the standard, whether or not there were a government to mandate it, because people would not want to invest without it. What if one big competitor is doing something evil and does not want to change? Well, in the best case, competitors would appear, and they would have to adapt or die. In the worst case, they would buy them out and dismantle them. If the situation were severe enough, as there would be no regulations on lending, and even today the people have more money than any one or two corporations do, so the people could back potentially thousands of competing firms to try and take them down. Eventually the big corporation will either run out of money from buying out the competitors and lose to one of the remaining competitors, or they will have to stop doing whatever is making everyone so mad. In an anarchistic society, there is no government taking in half of the people's earnings, so this would be even easier, especially considering that this would not benefit a company that likely under today's system pays no tax as it is.
And with that, I have just more or less proved that in a society without a single government regulation, it is feasible to completely replace the finance industry, and still have a workable stock market and banking industry. Providing capital to individuals and entrepreneurs is pretty much their entire purpose, and this has just been proven possible. Therefore, in a free market society, people and corporations with extra cash would replace the existing finance industry.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
New legal system:
In a free market society, you would also need a legal system. Today, we have a series of 3rd party arbitrators and small claims courts systems that already suit most people's purposes. Other than dealing with violent crime, insurance companies would take on the remaining role, and here is why. It would be in people's interests to have some sort of insurance on any sort of loan they make in an unregulated marketplace, and this is where even today's insurance companies would be well suited. With the power of the Internet and other technologies, it would not be a stretch for insurance groups to be able to create a way to exchange information about any particular person in the world in a sufficiently anonymous, but reliable way, such as PGP keys. If you decide to screw someone who loaned you money, the insurance covers that person's losses, and then damages your credit score. You could basically be completely outcast from society if you went too far. Currently, credit scores are maintained by private corporations, so that proves this could work.
This level of accountability is actually beyond what exists in today's system, because most of the time someone can just leave the state or country and they essentially get away with it. In a government-free world, you cannot simply stiff people and run from your responsibilities, you would have to live in the forest if you really wanted to get away. Despite the existence of government, the countless regulations in place, and our entire legal system, current society is unable to match the efficiency of this sort of a system as an inexpensive way to stop non-violent crimes.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
What about violent crimes you may ask? Well, if there are no laws, anyone might have a gun and a knife on them, and nobody will feel sorry or miss the aggressor of a violent crime if they die, so a murderer would disappear quite quickly. If that were not enough, the private military contractors and bounty hunters which already exist today could be contracted, (perhaps even by the insurance companies if you get them too angry, but if they do it often, they won't have customers anymore). The assassins and secret agents currently employed by our governments would love nothing more than to work as a bounty hunter or private military contractor, and many of them already probably do.
What about roads? Well, we already have private toll roads, and the technology in place to be able to sell toll passes and have to even slow down in order to scan them, especially the NFC technology in today's smartphones. Sure, it would be annoying to pay per use for a road, but would it be any more annoying than paying half of your wages, (most of which goes towards pointless militarism) whether you want to or not?
What about education? Look up the Lancaster Schools on Wikipedia, and you will see how for roughly $40 per year per student in today's dollars, a school system was able to exist in the 1800s that was able to, long before the internet, provide something better than what today costs over $30,000 per year. This is long enough so I won't go into further detail on education.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
What about national security and counter-terrorism? Well, this one is the easiest. Bin Laden himself declared that the 9/11 attack was a result of the US foreign policy of illegally occupying Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern nations for the purpose of securing their perceived oil interests in the region. If you do not have a nation, others cannot be pissed off at a nation, that have to be pissed off at YOU, so just be a responsible person and you are fine. If some foreign aggressor tries to take your anarchistic society over, they can be quickly stopped by simply having a few of your companies be nuclear missile trusts, who buy and maintain nuclear missiles and launch them if some foreign group decides to invade. There are plenty of people today who live in fear who would gladly donate to them, and if not, the insurance companies definitely will. This would cost a few million for a whole nation, as opposed to hundreds of billions. No nuclear armed nation has ever been conquered, and infact most of the reason the UN exists now is that our politicians realize that they simply can't invade many countries anymore, since most have nukes. Add to that the fact that with no central military, a foreign aggressor has no knowledge of who has what sort of armaments, and there is no central government who will simply tell the citizens to stand down, and so that makes planning such a military invasion VERY scary. Just look to the constitution and American history to see how well citizen militias were able to drive back the British, who were the world power at the time.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
What about domestic threats? Well, anyone is allowed to own any weapons they want when there are no regulations against vigilante justice. The insurance company may raise your rates if you have a Gatling gun mounted to your roof, but other than that, I think fear of immediate severe retaliation ought to take care of it. If not, there are private military contractors, or security firms such as Brinks and the other groups that have been trusted by banks to guard and move around their money for hundreds of years. What about corporations taking over and forming a government? Well, that would either take force, which costs alot of money, which is impossible in a truly competitive market, especially against a nation filled essentially with militia/guerrilla fighters, so Vietnam would look like a picnic in comparison. We also have the internet, sites like groupon, foster competition, and social media like facebook and twitter help to ensure fair actions by companies. Just imagine what other innovations would pop up in the future.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
please disregard, this segment was not properly prepared. please bury the above post as i am going to replace it shortly.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
What about domestic threats? Well, anyone is allowed to own any weapons they want when there are no regulations against vigilante justice. The insurance company may raise your rates if you have a Gatling gun mounted to your roof, but other than that, I think fear of immediate severe retaliation ought to take care of it. If not, there are private military contractors, or security firms such as Brinks and the other groups that have been trusted by banks to guard and move around their money for hundreds of years. What about corporations taking over and forming a government? Well, that would either take force, or for us to let them willingly, which may be possible in the long run, when robots do all the work and we sit around and have them bring us stuff. In a few hundred years this will be reality anyhow, and so we won't need free market anarcho-capitalism, as communism will finally be practical. Taking the people by force costs alot of money, which is impossible in a truly competitive market, especially against a nation filled essentially with militia/guerrilla fighters, so Vietnam would look like a picnic in comparison. We also have the internet, sites like groupon, foster competition, and social media like facebook and twitter help to ensure fair actions by companies. Just imagine what other innovations would pop up in the future.
redscourgeOct 22, 2011
So, how's that sound?
I am by no means an expert on theoretical libertarian or anarchistic societies, and I have already managed to make a good case for a simple model of how one could work. You could probably surprise yourself with how easy it is to do such a thing yourself, all you need is a little intelligence, and some time to think about how you would solve any given problem if it were your job to deal with it. And that's all you really need to live in an anarchistic society, the ability to think for yourself. Sadly, not everybody today has that, but I think enough do. All it takes is a generation or two to accomplish such a drastic change.
fou2diggOct 19, 2011
Do the math before you post:
Let's assume you make $50,000.00 per year and the CEO makes $10,000,000 per year and pays the same 15% tax rate as you. 15% x $50,000 = $7,500. 15% x 10,000,000 = $1,500,000.
So let me get this straight. You're whining because you pay $7,500 versus his $1,500,000? Are you kidding me? He's contributed way more to the tax base than you have and he's running a freaking company. Face it, someone has to be the boss but the boss has way more responsibility than you...that's why he's the boss and that's why he gets paid more. If you don't like that then fine...but don't expect him to give up his salary just to make you happy. Go out and become your own boss and quit your complaining.
Don't whine about salaries of CEO's like Steve Jobs while using your iPhone. Oh, and keep the iPhone in your pocket when asking for a handout. That way you can fill both hands.
BluntzworthOct 20, 2011
"You're whining because you pay $7,500 versus his $1,500,000? Are you kidding me?"
What is your point? That the person making $10,000,000 pays a higher dollar amount in taxes then the person making $50,000. Oh well, that is how percentages work.
Did you ever think about the fact that the $7,500 out of $50,000 has a bigger effect on the quality of life then $1,500,000 out of $10,000,000 does?
thereallyupsetgamerOct 19, 2011
I hate to say we should be more like venezuela, but that doesn't seem like a half bad idea
tanethOct 19, 2011
Looks more like a one-tenth bad idea.
blacklabelpaulOct 19, 2011
This is actually a false number -- nonetheless...the ratio bounces ranges from 185-325:1...which I believe is still unjustifiably high....source:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/10/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-has-obscu/
neotechniOct 19, 2011
In before the retards saying:
-It's a free country, you can be a CEO too
-It's none of our business how much they get paid
-They earned it
notachickenhawkOct 19, 2011
What did any CEO do to earn 475 times the pay of an average worker?
Do they work 475 times as hard? No.
Are they 475 times more talented? No.
Are they 475 times more deserving of financial security than an average worker? No.
Do they get results that are 475 times better than you'd get if you put an average worker into a CEO's job? No.
Do they get results that are 475 times better than you'd get if you took a typical chimp out of a zoo and let it use a Wiji board to make decisions? No.
Do many of them drive their companies to failures about 475 times more spectacularly than an average worker would if they tried their hardest to make the company fail? Uh, yes.
Is it my business, or yours, how much they get paid? Hell yes it is. First, companies paying outlandish salaries and bonuses to CEOs must necessarily charge more for their products or services than they otherwise would. That is, they're charging you and me more than they otherwise would. Second, outlandish bonuses and salaries encourage CEO's to look out for only the short term interest of their companies. Why plan for the company's long term when they can make the profits look good now, rake in the huge bonuses, strip the company's future bare and be long gone by the time the negative consequences of their decisions materialize? And when those negative consequences include workers being laid off, or the government (read: you and me) bailing out the company, you're damned right its my business, and yours. And if you own stock in the company, but not enough to influence decision making at the company, its also very much your business and you're getting screwed.
metanoia29Oct 19, 2011
Wow, I would LOVE to see you try and run a successful business as a CEO, especially in this kind of economic downturn. Send us a postcard when you've made it!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
notachickenhawkOct 19, 2011
I'd gladly accept. I respectfully suggest I would do no worse than, for instance, Chuck Prince at Citi, or Ken Lay at Enron, or Kerry Killenger at WaMu, or many others that made tons of money and lead their companies into bankruptcies, bailouts or government takeovers. And, based on how these guys are paid, it seems I'd get rich doing it no matter how horrible I was. But not that rich, I'd happily work for 20% of what these guys make.
Its truly interesting that all these employment agreement/contracts between CEO's and their companies seem to contain all sorts of provisions for bonuses and huge stock awards in years where profits are good - heck, even in years when profits aren't so good, but absolutely no provisions for the CEO's to ever give back past bonuses, or forgo their salaries, if the company performs poorly later on while they're still in charge, especially if the poor performance is attributable to decisions they made to inflate the short term profits at the expense of the long term.
bluto36Oct 19, 2011
you put in a resume yet?
go ahead and lets see how it works out for you.
notachickenhawkOct 19, 2011
Funny. On paper, no large company would think me qualified to be a C.E.O. But the reality is that I could get the same or better results than many of these "qualified" people have gotten, because by definition a C.E.O. can do no worse than sending their companies rocketing to bankruptcy or insolvency, and many of them have done exactly that. So in reality, no matter how seemingly "unqualified" I am, if they hired me, I couldn't do any worse than many have done, and hey, with a little luck and a little common sense, maybe, just maybe, I could do better. And I'd work for a lot less money. The whole idea that companies "need" these expensive, highly educated / highly talented executives and can't get by finding someone every bit as smart but who'd work much less is simply false.
bluto36Oct 19, 2011
"progressives" for the lowest common denominator
i could do just as bad as the last guy...
great point! and great argument for why the bidding on the real talent gets the real money
notachickenhawkOct 19, 2011
@bluto36 - so tell me, do you think companies like Enron, Citi, GM, WaMu, etc. got their money's worth with some of these guys?
There are plenty of very talented and experienced people out there who would be willing to work for a lot less money, and whose resumes wouldn't have any major differences from some of these very highly paid guys in terms of their qualifications, or in terms of predicting if a given company would succeed with a given candidate given their experience, education, talent, accomplishments, etc. So I don't blame the C.E.O.'s themselves for taking as much money as they're offered, or that they can negotiate for themselves, but what are the boards of these companies doing spending their stockholders money so irresponsibly?
BluntzworthOct 20, 2011
Keep the truth coming Nota.
kwanijmlOct 19, 2011
That does sound like a fair way to determine what pay should be. . . . . I'll tell you what, you first. I will introduce you to a landscaper I know, who I guarantee works about 10 times as hard as me, and probably that many times more than you. He also get's paid about 1/5th what I get paid. . .I'm guessing that your current pay is also probably in multiples of his. If you will trade your pay with him. . . because that's fair . . . then we will all be forced to admit that you are correct and then we will apply that same rule to CEOs.
Here's a mind bender for you; you'll have to think a little bit to understand. . . .I'm not a republican, and I do agree with you that 475 times the average wage is outlandish and that it does represent a real problem. . . .but I understand the problem on more than just a surface level, and I have a more peaceful solution to the problem, than just soaking the rich.
Ask yourself why CEOs are able to, many times, drive their companies to failure and yet profit themselves. . . . if you look beyond the surface, you will see that this is only possible because of the government created corporate charter and grant of limited liability. Make owners/shareholders of companies fully liable for damages, and losses. . .just like any private citizen, and I guarantee you that they will no longer pay their CEOs that much, unless they are wildly successful like a Steve Jobs.
Ask yourself why corporations are foolish enough, or greedy enough to pay their executives as much as they do, and to take the risks that they do. . . and you will find that much of it comes down to the cheap money/credit that those at the 'top' have access to, thanks to the Federal reserve. . . get rid of this system, and you'll find that more credit will be available to smaller competitors of these mega-corporations.
Ask yourself why the corporations seem to hold oligopolies on markets, and, if you are honest, you will see that massive regulations, have only served to benefit the largest corporations (who can afford to comply with regulations, not to mention buy off the regulators, and sponsor the legislation in the first place), such that it stifles all competition and start-ups in the market, which would otherwise challenge their hold on the market.
Ask yourself honestly why greed seems to have become rampant in our society (especially among the wall street and corporate elite), and you will find that it's not satan running rampant, but rather, it is an increasingly fascist government which has long been in bed with the corporations, which has steadily pushed for more and more control over industry and over our lives. . . which has allowed the greed to have the teeth of government backing it and destroying our society.
So yes, their greed and overpaid CEOs are our business since they socialized their losses, but good luck destroying this cartel, without first taking away their primary weapon; by first removing the entity which has been given moral sanction to be the monopoly on force in this country, and that is the federal government and the federal reserve. Otherwise, it's like getting rid of a dictator, only for a worse one to come in to power, because the same structure still exists.
We must free ourselves of the coercive institution of monopoly government, and know what freedom is, in order to earn that freedom and the prosperity that will accompany it.
hibby76Oct 20, 2011
If they're paying their CEO's too much and their products are too expensive, then buy them elsewhere. If they keep the CEO's pay as profit, it still isn't helping you.
If you're not a part-owner of the company, why do you care? I'd suggest buying stock in companies that DON'T do this.
Again, not really your problem because it isn't your company. Start a company and pay him whatever you'd like.
markglOct 19, 2011
But it's true right? Who are you to tell them how to run their company.
eatthebrainOct 19, 2011
They earned it? I already see your problem.
proclaimingOct 21, 2011
I would like to see the source of the above information. Why should someone who is smart enough to make a higher wage be penalized by paying more taxes? Think about it. Which makes you more upset, the fact that they are smarter than you and are paid a higher wage, or the fact that you are to lazy to go out and make some real money. You should protest your ignorance.
ticobirdOct 21, 2011
Can you not read a chart? Do you not see that the nearest country comparison is nearly 10 times less? Sure, people deserve to collect what they can negotiate in wages or compensation but that gate swings both ways due to something we call government. And the last time I looked I was living in a representative democracy which can (if inclined) address inequities like this through the income tax structure using something else we call laws.
proclaimingOct 21, 2011
I am very capable of reading a chart but I am questioning the source. This, as far as I can see is my right as a citizen of this country. I also appreciate your misguided patriotism. Business is not the problem my friend, it is our government. It is the same old people on both sides of the isle looking out for their own political interest. Our Government is responsible for over taxing business' and sending jobs overseas. It is also our government being in bed labor unions who forced our manufactures to pay a wage they did not deserve. Why should I be penalized for making money. Due the math, the same percentage tax should be on everyone. 30% tax on a million dollars or 30% on 50 thousand dollars is fair. It is equal sacrifice. Don't confuse the issue, this blog is upset because people have figured out ways to make a decent living, I applaud those guys. Peace!
garhentOct 19, 2011
Hmm looking at Venezuela and Mexico, it looks like the US will either go socialist like Venezuela or Fascist like Mexico. Going to be an interesting decade determining what path the US takes.
hipwrestleOct 19, 2011
Total BS chart. The median CEO in the US makes $1.13 million (this includes bonuses and stock)... if the average worker makes $30k then the CEO makes about 38 times as much ... still a lot... but profesisonal athletes make a lot of money too.
oz8441277Oct 19, 2011
Equality? What your talking about is inequality. My wife and I both come from poverty. We went to public schools, but we have 16 years of under grad and grad school. We had a lot of debt from loans, but we now have successful careers and do well. Our tax rate is 36 percent and contrary to popular belief we get little too no tax breaks. Most of the people I know make under 60,000 and pay no federal taxes. We even joke about how when my wife and I were busting our butts in school and working part time they didn't work near as hard. We can afford to pay that tax rate, but don't tell me it's equal. It's inequality that ur talking about. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but don't tell yourself it's "equality" ur looking for from our system. You want equal money, but not equal work.
cme884Oct 20, 2011
I'm assuming you make more than $250,000 a year, but less than $1,000,000. Current tax proposals wouldn't raise your rate at all. If it were, it would only go up by 3% to 39%, which is the rate it was under the Clinton era, when the wealthiest among us did just fine.
But aside from that, I'm also assuming that you eat the same food as those people making $60,000 a year (which isn't poor by any means). A loaf of bread, however, costs less for you than for them when you take the price as a percentage of income. This is why we have a progressive tax system and not a flat tax.
I applaud you and your wife for working hard and making it work, but I know plenty of folks who have worked hard their whole lives and are still in poverty, or at least soul-crushing debt. Our tax system, however flawed it is now, is intended to lessen the burden on those who would suffer the most.
gratOct 19, 2011
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/10/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-has-obscu/
Data came from some student's paper. No facts to back up this data.
babydollnikkiOct 19, 2011
It's never really about the money. They've got as much money as they need.Money is a POWERFUL trick.It assures Divide and Conquer. Pits us one against each other, off balance,unalbe to see or focus on what is really important...your own creativity. Ask yourself,...hmmm "why is it Warren Buffet and millionaires and billionaires a like always are still so caught up in the game, puppetering the game? Certainly not for the benefit of helping the economy, avoiding a recession, and for the people to have jobs.When they know that they now have accomplished all financial goals to the point where they can go sit down somewhere and live a happily ever after with there 2.4 kids. Instead of investing into turning the world into a Pharmaceutical nightmare from side effects that can leave americans with one foot in the grave or dead of a random disease, that was 100% curable...such as Diabetes .hmmmmmmm. :)
www.themanscholar.com
ponyponiponeOct 19, 2011
Ok this Chart doesn't really have a source or methodology to indicate how these numbers are created. I am not surprised, but for some numbers that hold up in conversation: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
JS76Oct 19, 2011
Anyone have a citation for this? I'd like to see what CEOs they looked at for this. Was it only big business? Small business? Fortune 500 companies?
This ratio is certainly outlandish and excessive. It would be helpful to understand who they were looking at when they did this analysis.
ponyponiponeOct 19, 2011
it's actually not outlandish, but there's no indication of time, sample or methodology, i put a link below to some very real numbers.
judypowellOct 19, 2011
Wow.
tannersdiggOct 19, 2011
United States ratio is false..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/10/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-has-obscu/
inajeepOct 19, 2011
It was accurate at one time but it is an internet chart without sources and without a date. It is as good and the supporting info. However, the link you posted indicated the most current ratio is 325 to 1. Still kinda high, the point is made but I would prefer to use accurate sourced information. Good link.
draconian9519Oct 19, 2011
When I took a sociology class 9 years ago, the ratio was 300:1, according to the professor.
starmanjonesOct 19, 2011
i've said this before. for those prone to jump to nutty conclusions... i'm not saying that OWS is a marxist thing or that i am a marxist. i'm not. but...
people who study political science will recognize what is going on as prediction that marx made about the course of capitalism. he said people that do the work will get tired of being abused and have a revolution.
the part that amuses me most is that its big business that has created the political environment that has made marx's prediction correct. they are the ones scared to death of marxism.
so that the republicans don't go jumping out of windows... marx didn't predict a revolution by workers would end up in communism. thats much much later. :D ah go ahead and jump.
tuxbabeOct 20, 2011
Repubs call them job creators when they have actually been job killers, laying off thousands of people, yet maintaining their own huge salaries.
chassupOct 19, 2011
All that graph tells me is the USA is where you want to be if you are industrious, hard working, smart, willing to take a chance, and want to actually make a profit. Japan, Germany, France...they suck for anyone looking to get rich.
angrycat70Oct 19, 2011
It started a lot earlier than that:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!
The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles.
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
Karl Marx
____________
Know what you are buying into.
marcglezOct 19, 2011
There is absolutely no justification for American CEOs to be compensated 400% more that CEOs from Japanese or German companies.
berkanaOct 19, 2011
For everyone but the banks, money is a conserved quantity. The more the ultra rich have, the less there is for everyone else. That's the most part of the reason why we seem to have a money shortage for everything and everyone right now except the ultra rich.
seotooOct 20, 2011
No! Class warfare is started by the press and sheep like you. First of all this make no sense at all. It means nothing. You need to normalize the numbers. If you don’t have a clue what I mean then I’ve proved my point.
pinksmartalicOct 19, 2011
greed indeed.
bbsinatraOct 19, 2011
http://www.goodletters.net >>>>>>>> I JUST WANT SOME TRAFFIC, PLEASE SUPPORT WORKING CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!
adnan0106Oct 19, 2011
nic
newsicanuseOct 19, 2011
Corporate filings are public and contain more information than any of you whiners would ever know what to do with it.
It's called Liberty folks. No one forces you to buy their products. If you don't like the way a company operates then stop buying their products and services.
Great image. The United States should certainly strive to be more like Venezuela, Mexico and South Africa.
If any of you whining leftists spend 1/4 of your time being productive and starting your own business that you spend whining and complaining that the United States isn't more like 3rd world crap-holes, you'd have more money and wouldn't be as bitter.
neveroddorevenOct 19, 2011
No source?
thetimchannelOct 19, 2011
Siri for President.
Enjoy.
zeedeoOct 19, 2011
Love this. I think there should be one for African presidents: 1000:1 or 10 times more. That's where all your donations goes.
skeptical_jayDec 27, 2011
Where is this data sourced from? This looks like a worse case scenario to try to drive a point home. Using the 475 times the average USA income of 39,336-43,317 the chart appears to try to anger us by suggesting CEOs are all making 18.684-20.576 .million a year. This is what drives anger misinformation largely, even the union website aflcio.org admits using the only the top 299 or the top 500 companies to come up with an 11.4 million ignoring the thousands of other corps that lead to a 708k average or 17 times more inline with the rest of the world. geez.