Having a salary that pays you millions of dollars, and getting a golden parachute that is worth millions of dollars is not the same thing as raising millions of dollars that will be spent on a campaign. People in Congress do not MAKE anywhere NEAR what most CEOs make. Money that people in Congress may make outside of their salary (like speaking gigs) has nothing to do with what they are paid while in Congress. Yes, they capitalize on their position, but they still don't make as much a CEOs do.

I think in some cases they make more. They have much better benefits and they get all those goodies on the side from people like redux, or what he used to do/does/did...

Good God do your realize how small a percentage of people you are talking about in a very limited range of situations?

People like me?

Damn...what did I do now?

You paid all the elected officials off.. we now have wiretaps to prove it too!

Which is why CEOs once earned a massive 17 times more than the average employee.

How did companies (ie Ford) get productive? 1981 Ford was taught by Deming that the executive's job is "attitude and knowledge". Not decision making. That means providing direction - the strategic objective - then spending time verifying that employees are properly managing the accounts and properly trained to do so.

How was pre-1981 Ford fixed? Ford went from 48 levels of management (all who worked very hard) to 5 levels. Suddenly employees were empowered to do their job - and therefore did work better. Suddenly bosses no longer made so many decisions. Suddenly bosses provided attitude and knowledge by working for the employees. Suddenly Ford went from record losses to record profits in nine years. Why? Executives were no longer so important. The "too many white collar" problem was diminished. What did change? Decisions were made at lower levels where decisions are best made by the little people.

Again - Apollo 13 - the hero was never the big executive. If top executives are making heroic decisions, then communism exists. The hero was the little guy who did not even have a name. Executives do not make success. Executives only make success possible. As a result, the CEO deserves a massive 17 times more money - and no more.

yes, I do. I say it over and over, the top 2 %. But people here still seem to think I am talking about them. :rolleyes:

Please. Where are they hiding it then?

You cannot be serious.

Show me a congressperson who takes home 20 or even 10 million dollars a year.

Sugar - after being proved wrong by LJ you are now starting with me and changing your claim to salary. Have fun with that on your own.
If you want to see what they at least claim they are worth, just look it up yourself. On average, they are filthy rich.
OH fuck it - here...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/wealth_summary_img.php

That better? That's what WE are talking about.

How exactly did LJ prove me wrong?

And does that chart show where the wealth came from? a lot of people in Congress (Dianne Feinstein for example, or John Kerry or John McCain) have spouses who earn obscene amounts of money.

Can you please provide a link?

Also, I am not "starting" anything with anyone. I am responding to things people said to me.

http://www.opensecrets.org

Oh and the number of execs making 10 or 20 million is not as large as you appear to think.

A lot of people in politics come from families with money. It's the same the world over. It costs a lot of money to get elected, and it's pretty tough the first time when no one knows you, so that precludes a lot of poor or average people from entering the arena.

OK. From the website you posted, the highest net worth of someone in Congress is Jane Harmon at:
Rank Name Min Net Worth Average Max Net Worth
1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $236,280,153 $397,412,077 $558,544,002

She is rich because she is married to Dr. Sidney Harmon, who founded Harmon Kardon Inc., the big electronics company. They have all kinds of stocks.

Most of the people in Congress have all kinds of stocks, and many of them have spouses who have very lucrative jobs. But, it would seem you are right, and a lot more people in Congress have a lot more money than I thought they did. The point I was making though, is that they don't make a lot of money because they are in Congress.

However, I concede. You and LJ were right, and I was wrong. So yea, let's get them as well.

:faints:

:D See? I can admit when I'm wrong. I hope you didn't hit your head on the way down. ;)

Really? What number of execs make 10 or 20 million, and how many does she think?:cool:

It's a great site.

You can delve further and see where the money comes from, for each one. A large portion of Obama's cash comes from book sales.

That's IT. No more book writing for you fuckers.

People in the top 2% earn above 200k. That is not uber rich. It is not people who make millions. It is barely upper middle class in many parts of the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

According to this link the top 5% make $153,542 and above, the top !% make $388,806.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality.

Their research indicates that in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year before—a 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005—also the highest percentage since 1928, on the eve of the Depression—an increase of 2 percent from 2004, and up from 33 percent of the reported total in the late 1970s.

The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year,” according to David Cay Johnston’s article.

The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980.”

While total reported income rose almost 9 percent in the US during the course of 2005, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of the population actually dropped, by $172 compared with the year before, or 0.6 percent.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/ma...inco-m30.shtml

A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.

Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/


In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/20...laries--1.html

None of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%.

WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs?

You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.

Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow?

These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different.

And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.

One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying. :)

The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months?

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues. :right:

How can you even say that with a straight face?

Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.

Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?

like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?

That is correct.

:eek:

Was that really called for?

Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.

You know classic, I thought you understood my reasoning. At least you did. What happened?

Then you should know the bust has solved nothing.

suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.

from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.

Who decides how much of it you get to keep?

First of all, if I had a successful company, I wouldn't sell it off. Second of all, I would reward people by paying them fairly and allowing them to share in the profits that they helped create. The rest of the profits would go back into the company or to some form of charity, probably ones for animals or for creating sustainable ways of living.

Look, I understand that most people don't agree with my way of thining. I accept that. That doesn't mean that I am going to roll over and keep my mouth shut when I think something is unfair. hell no. I am going to bitch about it and write letters to Congress about it and do whatever I can to help change it. OK?

I see. thanks.

Probably not, but as a classist, I felt that it was my obligation. :rolleyes:

Oh, I get your reasoning, I just disagree with it.

ok, then you understand how some others feel, right?

WHYY, the PBS TV station in Philly, announces they would lay off 17 people to make up $1.2 million of their budget shortfall. The CEO, who gets $740 k this year, was asked if cutting executive salaries was considered to save some of the 17 jobs. He said no, it was not considered.

Not even considered? Fuck you very much, you'll never see another dime of my money. :mad:

You don't understand B, it takes someone paid $740k to decide to continue syndicating Nova, Frontline and Antiques Roadshow. That's a very difficult decision and only top people can make it.

Also, it takes pristine offices on the most expensive block of Center City to record that daily hour of Fresh Air. You need to make sure that your best employees can walk to the office from Society Hill without going through any bad neighborhoods. And they must have the very best $1000 mics and room-in-a-room isolated sound studios, so that you can hear the elegant silence between sentences.

fuuuuuuuuuhhhhh -----

I ran the radio station when I was in college. We had maybe $4k of equipment in the studio and a $4k transmitter. I installed most of it myself. It's still running 25 years later.

Yes, but just like you will express your opinion, I will also express mine.

UT tried that when he owned his own business. The business failed.

Expensive people are expensive.

You pay good people enough so that they'll stay with you. You don't pay them more than that just so they'll love you. Their choice to stay or go for a specific dollar amount is entirely on them.

Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.

1,200,000/17 = $70,588yr - Thats a pretty damn good wage!

Rule of thumb: actual employee costs (including ssi, benefits, etc) are salary plus a third.

Well why the hell can't we have that same kind of attitude about CEOs and execs then?

I honestly don't know classic. I wouldn't have a problem with there being a cap on my salary to make sure my employees were failry paid.

If that is true then I'm sorry to hear it failed UT. But can you blame it all on how much your were paying your employees, or was it something else? Probably a combination of things?

You might think differently if you worked hard all your life to make the company what it is from the ground up.

Yes, but that's pretty rare in the stratospheric salaries we've been talking about. Mostly hired into a cushy job, with perks up the ying yang, by an established corporation.

But you also have to agree there are very few jobs with stratospheric salaries.

Does that mean it's right to live an exhorbitantly lavish lifestyle while your employees struggle to feed their families? You certainly are *entitled* to do it, but is it right?

And it was the right thing to do.

Yes, only a few thousand, but they affect so many people they are the target of much deserved derision.