Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DC At The Ridge--I agree with all you are saying. I think one part is getting mired by details though.
The BLS did a study on "Top Executives". That is the highest paid person at ANY corporation. As I stated earlier, this includes Manual the Lawn Man at Manuel's Landscaping. Manuel makes about $40,000 per year as Manuel's Landscaping's "top executive. The BLS study includes every top executive in the country. Some of them might make $50 a year.
The bizarre part of this thread is the equation made by somebody, and I'm not sure who, that liberals are after all "top executives." Where the heck did THAT come from? The contention is against folks, top executives or not, that make so much money yet their effective tax rate is very low.
I don't think one issue has to do with another but it has been some incredible spin here to link them and try to make it look like the current administration is going after every top executive in the country. But, hey, if that's what helps them sleep at night...more power to them.
I believe you've misunderstood what you've read. This thread has not asserted that liberals are after all top executives. In fact, the thread has asserted the exact opposite.
In the public square, all we ever hear about is how top executives are getting richer and richer while the average worker is being kicked in the groin. But when we look at median and mean compensation averages, it points to an unexpectedly low number. This seems to indicate that only a select few are actually getting mega-rich.
Why does this matter? Because the vast majority of American's are employed by small businesses, not Fortune 500 companies. Small business owners do not occupy the upper echelon of society. They do not reside in the "rich are getting richer" category. They pay their employees what the market will allow.
So how can liberals come forth and make a logical argument that the most egregiously paid executives are getting richer while the working man is getting poorer and poorer? By extension, this theory suggests that it is the well-compensated executives who are in fact the reason the poor are getting poorer. That's the point that those who revel in class warfare and class envy would have you believe.
The data does not back this up in the slightest, and that's the point.
Capital gains are a tax issue, and have nothing to do with the average wage of the American worker either. So who are these elite people making the poor working man poorer? I've seen no evidence that they exist. But to hear liberals tell it, the "Top 1%" are the reason America's working men and women are suffering low wages. It's nonsense.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but the Buffett Rule, which President Obama has proposed, has nothing to do with whether the taxpayer is a "top executive", whatever that means.
A "top executive" who makes $101,250 a year: no tax increase
An ordinary employee or trader who makes $1,000,000 a year: tax increase.
See how simple that is?
As simple as it is, I still don't think he gets it. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...
Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but the Buffett Rule, which President Obama has proposed, has nothing to do with whether the taxpayer is a "top executive", whatever that means.
A "top executive" who makes $101,250 a year: no tax increase
An ordinary employee or trader who makes $1,000,000 a year: tax increase.
See how simple that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
As simple as it is, I still don't think he gets it. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...
I fail to see the corellation of the Buffet Rule on the mega rich to the wages of the average American worker. Are liberals more upset with tax law, or more upset with wages and compensation? To me, the two are not directly related. Since you're leading me to the water, perhaps you can explain it to me?
I fail to see the corellation of the Buffet Rule on the mega rich to the wages of the average American worker. Are liberals more upset with tax law, or more upset with wages and compensation? To me, the two are not directly related. Since you're leading me to the water, perhaps you can explain it to me?
Explain what to you?
You realize that no one here can speak for all liberals. Liberals, like conservatives, are individuals, each with their own mindset and own perspective.
I think I've amply explained why individuals would want to participate in what is the appropriate compensation for managers of major US companies. Those companies, and what they charge for goods and services, do have an impact on the average American, whether that average American works or not. Whether those companies are negatively impacting their own competitivity in order to pay these "top executives" is of concern to all Americans. Who decides the compensation levels and what input shareholders and other employees in the decision-making is an interest. These are all components of the conversation, and there are many other issues involved, that make this a legitimate conversation. I've noticed that you really haven't addressed them. Instead, you've drone on and on about class envy and class warfare. But you're rhetoric ignores the fact that one of the things about American society is supposed to be the fluidity of movement between the classes. When the divisions between classes becomes too wide, that fluidity is compromised. That's worth discussing, too, don't you think?
You realize that no one here can speak for all liberals. Liberals, like conservatives, are individuals, each with their own mindset and own perspective.
I think I've amply explained why individuals would want to participate in what is the appropriate compensation for managers of major US companies. Those companies, and what they charge for goods and services, do have an impact on the average American, whether that average American works or not. Whether those companies are negatively impacting their own competitivity in order to pay these "top executives" is of concern to all Americans. Who decides the compensation levels and what input shareholders and other employees in the decision-making is an interest. These are all components of the conversation, and there are many other issues involved, that make this a legitimate conversation. I've noticed that you really haven't addressed them. Instead, you've drone on and on about class envy and class warfare. But you're rhetoric ignores the fact that one of the things about American society is supposed to be the fluidity of movement between the classes. When the divisions between classes becomes too wide, that fluidity is compromised. That's worth discussing, too, don't you think?
I haven't discussed these issues because you nor any of your colleagues on this thread have put forth any solid data suggesting that executive compensation has affected competitiveness, worker wages, or corporate decision-making. You can assert all day long that it does affect comepeititiveness and wage mobility, but until you provide some evidence that it actuallly does, there's zero reason for me to comment on these issues.
You're basically saying i'm not arguing against something that hasn't even been put forth. Well, that's because it hasn't been put forth and backed by data to support it.
What is there to discuss? You say its valid to discuss, and then you leave it at that. Show me the data.
WHAT IS THE ARITHMETIC AVERAGE? Using the MEDIAN hides the effect of the extremes and thus discounts the economic effect of the thousands of "executives" being paid millions in cash and stock. There is also the effect of companies calling hourly and/or salaried employees "executives" in order to eliminate paying benefits.
This is just another piece of propaganda from our obviously well paid source.
Then we should also measure workers' wages/salaries based on the mean.
All of those high-paid professional athletes and entertainers, plus high-paid professionals like doctors, dentists and lawyers would skew the numbers to make it appear as though the average working man was making $150,000 to $200,000 a year.
Fairly....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Don't be silly. Top executives of at least all of America's large corporations don't earn most of their pay through their salary wages, which is all that table shows; they earn the vast majority of their millions in pay through equity and incentive bonuses. That's not even in there.
And we don't count your compensation either.
We can add in your employer's contribution to Social Security; to Medicare; unemployment insurance; life insurance; worker's compensation insurance; holiday pay; vacation pay; health care plan; pension/401(k) plan etc etc etc.
Ever more fairly...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
Then they should have no problem signing off on a rule that limits their income to only three times that of the lowest paid worker in the company right? I mean if things are so fair?
You sign first. Hopefully no one is making minimum wage where you work or your salary would be limited to only 3x that.
Signing off....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I think I've amply explained why individuals would want to participate in what is the appropriate compensation for managers of major US companies.
Uh, excuse me, but individuals do participate in what is the "appropriate compensation."
Those individuals are called "share-holders." If you want to participate in this communist idea of people owning Capital (which is exactly what a publicly traded corporation is), please do. Nothing is stopping you. You can buy stocks in thousands of different companies and have a say in each of them and then you can determine the "appropriate compensation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Those companies, and what they charge for goods and services, do have an impact on the average American, whether that average American works or not. Whether those companies are negatively impacting their own competitivity in order to pay these "top executives" is of concern to all Americans.
What about the rest of the world?
You still just don't get it, do you? Nope.
I don't give a damn what you believe, or what you think or what you want, you are in a Global Economy and there is no turning back. Not ever, unless of course an asteroid about 2 km in diameter hits Earth or a Solar Flare greater than X10 Class and accompanied by a massive proton storm hits (in which case it will be total chaos and won't really matter).
You no longer have the luxury of thinking in terms of "America" or "American."
That is "Old-think" and if you cannot get out from under the nonsense of thinking only in terms of how something affects you or affects America, then I sure hope you do well sharing a 3-bedroom apartment with 2 other families (because that's about the best you'll be able to do in the future).
You are not the only people on Planet Earth, and in spite of what you may have been led to believe, the rest of the people on Planet Earth are not here to exclusively serve you.
There are 1 Billion Indians, and they are still pissed off at Nixon for sending Task Force 74 to interfere in the Indo-Pakistani War and they are still even more pissed off at Kissinger's duplicity, and they are still extremely angry at the penalties and sanctions you levied against them for their nuclear programs (for both energy and weapons) and they are still riled up about your constant demands that India kneel down and kiss the ass of the United States.
What do you think is going to happen when just 100 Million of the 1 Billion Indians are living something akin to the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢?
Well, you had best figure it out. Soon, because that will be a reality in your life-time. And I won't even get into the 1.5 Billion Chinese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Who decides the compensation levels and what input shareholders and other employees in the decision-making is an interest. These are all components of the conversation, and there are many other issues involved, that make this a legitimate conversation.
No it doesn't and you're a poster child for the reason employees should not be consulted.
You have no understanding of the situation. You have no ability to exercise foresight. Your are concerned only with meeting your own self-aggrandizing infantile needs right now.
You don't know how to think in terms of "Planet Earth."
This is not some video game being played for your amusement.
The stakes are quite high, very obviously higher than you could ever imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I've noticed that you really haven't addressed them. Instead, you've drone on and on about class envy and class warfare.
Then stop making it an issue.
I don't care how much other people got, but you apparently do. If that isn't envy, then what is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
But you're rhetoric ignores the fact that one of the things about American society is supposed to be the fluidity of movement between the classes. When the divisions between classes becomes too wide, that fluidity is compromised. That's worth discussing, too, don't you think?
No. The only thing worth discussing is "attitude."
There is, has been and always will be class fluidity. The difference is attitude: You want it handed to you gift-wrapped on a silver platter instead of doing what millions of others did before you and working for it.
I guess it never donned on you that having a goal, and working toward that goal and reaching it on your own is incredibly satisfying and rewarding.
If you think you're worth $500,000 a year then prove it. Nothing is stopping you. You can start your own S-Corp, or general partnership, or limited partnership or limited liability partnership or limited liability company or corporation.
Oh, wait, never mind, you probably want someone to had that to you gift-wrapped on a silver platter too.
One of the main arguments of the Liberal Establishment is that all the money and control is flowing to the top executives while the little man gets crapped on with barely survivable wages.
It makes for good politics, and even better propaganda, but it does not square up with the data.
The median wage for America's Top Executives is $101,250 per year. (BLS, 2010)This is hardly wealthy. It wouldn't even qualify for a tax increase should Barack Obama be successful in his quest to "make the rich pay their fair share."
Further, if the median pay of top executives is $101,250, then the median pay of middle and upper management is even lower. Liberals have not spared any scorn for these folks either, and for no good reason.
It's time to put a stop to the idea that America's top executives are kicking the average man in the shins while steadily making themselves filthy rich. It's time to put a stop to the sky-high, false election-year rhetoric and come back down to earth.
America's top executives are NOT the root of America's problems. America's top executives are the driving force behind America's successful businesses. And the vast majority are not getting rich through their hard work.
Liberals need to find a new argument. This one is DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
I believe you've misunderstood what you've read. This thread has not asserted that liberals are after all top executives. In fact, the thread has asserted the exact opposite.
In the public square, all we ever hear about is how top executives are getting richer and richer while the average worker is being kicked in the groin. But when we look at median and mean compensation averages, it points to an unexpectedly low number. This seems to indicate that only a select few are actually getting mega-rich.
No, I don't think I misunderstood.
You assert in your post that liberals are after all of America's Top Executives. I'm not sure where that came from. I never, ever felt that way by what was aired in the public square. It was always clear to me that the only people being villified were some CEOs of very large corporations, mainly the FAILED banking industry, that were pulling down double digit millions, while the average working person (be they business owners, managers, or worker bees) were getting the shaft.
I just don't get what your posting of the study in the original post has to do with anything. I absolutey see how you are trying to spin it. Or maybe you aren't spinning it. Maybe you really do believe that the liberals are after every single top earner of every company in America just because they hold that job title.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
