Why Should I Worship the Rich?

No, it's not. It's a distinction with merit you can see just by looking up which executive boards are comprised of current or former CEO's (CFOs, COOs also) and then compare the boards of the companies those board members come from. It's the business version of an incestual relationship and they continue to make sure their counterparts are well compensated at continuously growing rates, and even failure is rewarded with an exit golden parachute no other working person could ever see.

Seriously? You just made that up and cannot defend it with real data, but my claim is easy to defend. Actually you were partially right. They aren't really flat. They've declined. Perhaps that is what you meant? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/

I have...Verizon, AT&T, Proctor & Gamble, Exxon Mobile. Not seeing it. How many does it take before I strike data that supports your claim?

 

why should the rich pay more? We should do away with 90+% of govt and all personal taxes. A lottery can pay for the parts of gov't that can't be privatized. People can and should pay for contract enforcement, fire protection, most other things (or do without) Taking other people's money at the point of gov't guns (which is EXACTLY what taxes do) is theft.

 

Why do you think people who are not familiar with a business should be executives of the business?

Does that make sense to you?

I see your confusion. You don't seem to understand the difference between median income and wages...

The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median income and one-half above the median. The fact that it is falling is attributed to more people entering upper income brackets, but that is another matter entirely.

That is completely different from wages, which are not falling. Real Wages and Salary accruals increased 1% YoY last quarter. Wages have not declined since 2010.

So because you don't see it, it means that it is not occurring? Interesting logic. And I doubt that you are looking at real income statements, because those are usually the kind that you have to pay for via SEC Edgar search database.

Are you sure you're not doing faulty research? I tend to get that a lot.

 

You have no understanding of what wealth is and that it's not divided but earned pursuant to voluntary market transactions. Sorry bout that.

 

Check my past posts on any economics topics and you'll find your statement is false. If you'd prefer I replace "wealth" in my first sentence with "wage increases", fine, but it changes nothing regarding what I meant, and which you avoided in your response to attempt to appear intelligent regarding business operations, economics, historical wages, the differential of wage increases among the different wage earning groups, etc. Sorry bout that.

 

Our economy? How about Canada's economy? Or Mexico?

 

I absolutely do not think they should be. My point has been that the executives are unfairly overcompensated in US corporations, a system that self replicates due to the relationship of CEO's serving on the boards of other CEO's, inherently assuring executive compensation remains high throughout the culture. Had they not been overcompensated all these years, those funds could have contributed to employee wage increases that existed for around 150 years until the late 70s, then flattened and have never increased relative to inflation, and have actually declined.

I'm talking wages in the aggregate relative to inflation. Tons of online evidence available for you to Google for yourself since you fail to believe me.

Since you stated it is in fact happening, please provide the data to support it in sufficient quantity to not be an anomaly.

Hopefully you'll enlighten me with supporting data of corporations around the US cutting executive compensation levels sufficient to disprove the claim of exorbitant executive compensation over time that has led to a major shift in the wealth of the US from the lower and middle classes to the upper class earners within the 1%.

 

How would you explain the nearly identical increase in income over the last 50 years, of entertainment stars and top athletes?

 

There is no such thing as fairly overcompensated when you are an executive officer. Executive compensation is 20% base salary plus stock options and bonuses.

In other words, executive compensation is based on a merit performance system. Always has been.

That is exactly what I have shown you. Compensation of Employees: Wages and Salary Accurals are wages in the aggregate form. I also used the Personal Consumption Expenditure Chained Index to gauge the inflation. These statistics are conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Wages in 4th quarter of 2013 grew 1% from the 4th quarter of 2012. For the most part, wages have risen since the downturn.

And I don't Google anything. All of my evidence comes from primary sources.

How about I just keep showing you examples one by one until you just take my word for it. I generally do very good research. I also don't see why I have to put up so much effort so street outsiders can understand that the financial world is different from how political hacks portray it.

Page 45: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com...id=688447&ppu=%2fdefault.aspx%3fcik%3d1341439

 

I believe that there is no real difference between the parties except for the propaganda each puts out.

Democrats put out propaganda which appeals to enlightened minds.

GOP propaganda appeals to those who prefer more structure.

But in the end the only difference is the propaganda, as both parties are influenced by money that comes from the same sources.

So if there is no real difference between the parties, then the only comfort a person can take from their party being elected, is that their illusions have satiated their desires.

Nothing really has changed except perception.


p.s. However I would point out, that nationalist propaganda always leads to problems. No matter who promotes it.

- - - Updated - - -

You forgot to add, minus 10% for being a women.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/350098-why-should-i-worship-rich-6.html See post #54 charts. That's what I'm talking about. Your explanation does nothing to dismiss the facts illustrated from the CBO. Regardless of the merit system, the levels of compensation are exorbitant and have only grown more so over the decades.

And your example doesn't disprove anything when I'm talking decades and you're talking a 2-3 year period. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12051/02-16-wagedispersion.pdf

Median income is worthless when you're looking at top earners vs. everyone else. Front page of the link from CBO demonstrates my point perfectly.

 

I don't call wanting everyone to be taxed at the SAME percent to be worshiping the rich. Seems to me to be about as close to fairness as it is possible to get.

 

CEO compensations are exorbitant because very few people can do what they do. When companies perform, CEOs receive compensation based on that performance. When the company does well (or outperforms their benchmark), they deserve to receive compensation.

According to you, you were talking about wages in an aggregate relative to inflation. Your new source doesn't show that, but instead shows the distribution of income by quintiles. Are you planning on sticking with a position?

And incase you have missed it, my information shows the pattern of income growth since 1940.

You're not supposed to look at median income when it comes to top earners/bottom earners. All median income means is that half of the country makes above a certain amount, while half of the country makes below a certain amount.

And no, the CBO doesn't demonstrate your point perfectly. You said that wages were flat, but that is not what is reflected by the data of your source. It shows that wages have risen.

You might have seen this if you weren't stuck on the first place...

- - - Updated - - -

And where does that figure come from?

 

Absolutely. Just not exorbitant levels while workers receive next to nothing during the same "high performance" period. That throws it out of balance as I've illustrated but you want to quantify as justified just because of performance. Nothing justifies the levels our executives receive when compared to average employee wages (on the order of thousand x or more the average wage in many cases).

Yep, still talking about wages of workers versus wages of top executives over decades of time. Still hasn't been refuted sufficient to justify the levels of compensation for execs versus workers.

Yes it was you who mentioned median income?

Come on, surely you can look at the lines and make the assumption that flat doesn't have to be exactly flat in terms of wages. The growth disparity is clearly evident and arguing semantics over a couple % increase over decades is really reaching.

I guess we can stop here. You haven't refuted anything other than disagreeing without a point to make. Execs are overpaid and employees remain underpaid over time. My stance has not changed a bit and your arguments have not changed my point, nor shown me incorrect.

http://tcftakingnote.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ffb969888330168eb707466970c-pi
- - - Updated - - -

 

Historical inequity.

 

Its beyond dumb to compare the role of a CEO to the role of an average employee.

Company performance justifies it.

I mentioned it because you cited a source with median incomes declining, without actually understanding the difference between median incomes and wages...

The graphs are what represents the data. Look at the data.

I make my own graphs too, and I understand fully how they are supposed to work.

It's not reaching at all and it's not semantics. The growth in incomes at the Top are due to financialisation, as the wealthy have the resources to invest and earn more income. Many of the lower income brackets do not have the resources to invest in the markets, so their incomes do not rise as quickly.

So far, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand the data. I don't know how you assume that you have 'proven' something.

As far as you, 'Execs are overpaid' stance, that is your opinion, and last time I checked, I cannot dispute an opinion. Perhaps if you demonstrate why CEOs are overpaid, I might be able to discuss that with you, but so far you haven't demonstrated why.

As far as your 'employees are underpaid,' that stance is vague, and it wasn't what we were debating. Your initial stance is that wages were flat, which is false.

As far as the rest of your stances, your positions are a complete mess and it doesn't seem like even you understand what you are trying to argue, and how you want to present it.

- - - Updated - - -

Where does that figure from come?

 

I agree, which is why I didn't compare their roles. I compared their compensation. When companies perform their top executives (beyond just the CEO) receive elevated increases well beyond inflationary levels while employees who contributed to those earnings via their productive output have been shown repeatedly to have received little increase or no increase at all, depending which percentile they belong to. That's an unfair compensation method that enriches executives while neglecting the contributions of employees. I'm pretty sure I've shown that disparity in compensation multiple times.

Nothing justifies the disparity of worker wages remaining relatively flat over time while executive compensation (and profits) continue to climb. Workers received wage increases above inflationary levels for around 150 years and then it just leveled off and has never recovered, which is a big contributor to the stagnant economy we experience today. Companies are suffering from the very lack of demand in the economy they created by failing to continue to increase buying power of employees....that's irony for sure.

If that were true we'd at least agree on the disparity that even the CBO has shown to be evident. Somehow you don't see it or are ignoring it to suit your argument rather than the facts.

You really don't believe executive raises have been exorbitant? Come on. Example: Ivan Seidenberg ran Verizon for quite a few years. One year his salary was $13M (not including bonuses or options) and the next it was $20M. That's just one example. Not ONE employee outside the executive level saw any raises beyond a 5% increase. His pay increased more than 50% in one year. So....yeah, it happens and it's not explainable in terms of worker compensation versus executive compensation. If the company had performed at such a spectacular level to justify it, the workforce would be due a significant % increase as well. Had nothing to do with his investments and everything to do with a corporate board of fellow executives approving an exorbitant increase for meager performance. Happens all the time in the US and the charts show the end result of doing so year after year while ignoring the workforce that got the performance level to what it was through their combined contributions.

I haven't even changed my stance. Their pay rates increase at an unfair rate relative to the rest of the company (below director or VP level depending on the size and complexity of the organization), and those rates are set by a board of their peers who receive similar consideration from their companies. Have you studied economics to any degree? Surely you would have done research on compensation levels at some point in your eductation if you had and much of this is as easy as opening an ECON 101 textbook.

Seriously...wages were flat. I'll even concede that yes, the chart ticked SLIGHTLY upward, but over a 30+ year period that is meaningless and unimportant within the context of the data since the comparison to the top percentiles is the key to the topic. And yes, it was supposed to be what we were debating unless you missed the point early on? I clearly and repeatedly stated executive compensation (and included CEO, CFO, COO, directors/VP's) is exorbitant over time while wages for workers remained flat. My point remains the same and the evidence from the CBO posted by both me and ErikBEggs supports my claim. If you want to argue the semantics of "flat", fine, but I'm not addressing it further.

As far as the rest of your stances, your positions are a complete mess and it doesn't seem like even you understand what you are trying to argue, and how you want to present it.

- - - Updated - - -



Where does that figure from come?[/QUOTE]

 

Their compensation IS based on their roles.

I think your misunderstand of why you believe it is unfair stems from your apparent inability to understand what CEO's do. CEO's don't manage, or even supervise.

I'd explain it to you if I honestly thought you would understand it. There are too many individuals ignorant about Corporate Finance, so why not you.

Why do you think the Federal Reserve has a 2% inflation target?

What exactly is this statement in response to?

That is very standard as far as CEO compensation. Do you have anything to show that CEO compensation is exorbitant, besides your mere opinions?

You might as well compare the income growth of a cashier to me. It would make just as little sense, but there are economic illiterates like you who will probably make that comparison anyway.

What the CEO does to keep the company going is unrelated to the role of the workforce. Workers earn raises and promotions based on their performance, and CEO's earn bonuses based on theirs.

The two are not related in the slightest.

My masters is in Financial Economics. Ironically, you haven't demonstrated that you've looked so much at the cover of an economics text. You can't even understand the sources you're pedaling. I don't take any pleasure in talking about financial matters with someone who doesn't understand the first thing about Corporate Finance, as you can probably tell from my very short responses to you.

They're not flat. At all. Over a thirty year period real incomes have increased at least 4% year over year. That's a 4% increase each and every year. That's more than 90% over 30 years. This data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is referenced by the CBO

Googling will only get you so far with me, and you'll be up way past your bedtime.

 

Because Western capitalism is the living embodiment of Animal Farm.

Total myth that the book was written about Stalin.