How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?

[FanthatSpark]

This to the OP. 80% want minimum wage increase for years now. Why not? Watch video.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, it does. If over the last 30 years your salary has effectively stagnated while the folks at the top earn on average 300X what you make and they get massive pay increases year over year....guess where that money's coming form?

At the top of what? The top of the company I work for? Or are you referring to people who make the most money in society in general? If you mean the people at the top of the company I work for, then realize that I wouldn't even have a job if those at the top hadn't taken a risk with their own money to start or invest in the company I work for. IOW, my job position is the direct result of decisions made at the top.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To answer the question in the title...a lot more.

There are other countries around the world with much more inequality than we have that haven't "snapped" yet.

Mumbai, India would be an example.

Not justifying it or saying that it's right or wrong...just simply saying it'd have to get a heck of a lot worse than it is now before someone had the idea of "That's it, enough!, grab your weapons, let's start taking out the rich people!"

 

[amanuensis63]

At the top of what?

In the present case as to what I was addressing, in the top of the company.

...I wouldn't even have a job if those at the top hadn't taken a risk with their own money to start or invest in the company I work for.

I work for a company that was started over 80 years ago and the people who started it were LONG gone before I came on board. In fact the people who followed them in charge of the company are gone.

So why do I have to be thankful for the work of the person who is currently in the leadership of my company? His parents weren't even born when the company was started and he isn't even from this country.

IOW, my job position is the direct result of decisions made at the top.

And that means your work is by definition of less value than the executives in the corporate suite?

My PhD is of less value than the bachelors degree, maybe MBA the CEO has? My decades of work learning my skill set which the CEO couldn't do if they tried is inherently less valuable than the skill set they have?

Why is that? (And remember, most of us don't work in corporations where the CEO is the person who founded the company with their own hard work and money).

 

[amanuensis63]

To answer the question in the title...a lot more.

There are other countries around the world with much more inequality than we have that haven't "snapped" yet.

Mumbai, India would be an example.

And it wouldn't be "snapworthy" here in the USA if we are told that we are aiming for Mumbai levels of income inequality?

I bet Americans would snap a LOT sooner than that.

Not justifying it or saying that it's right or wrong...just simply saying it'd have to get a heck of a lot worse than it is now before someone had the idea of "That's it, enough!, grab your weapons, let's start taking out the rich people!"

Maybe. But there are things less than outright revolution...the Gilded Age and Progressive Era showed what will happen to those in power. They will lose a lot of their power and standing by merit of the laws we demand passed. That's kind of the point. Massive income inequality never works out in the long term for those at the top. They will be the only ones to lose.

Will it be really bad? Probably not considering we do have a ways to go to get to Mumbai levels, but it won't be happy for the wealthy. Not by a long shot.

 

[Aldebaran]

In the present case as to what I was addressing, in the top of the company.

I work for a company that was started over 80 years ago and the people who started it were LONG gone before I came on board. In fact the people who followed them in charge of the company are gone.

So why do I have to be thankful for the work of the person who is currently in the leadership of my company? His parents weren't even born when the company was started and he isn't even from this country.

Maybe because his leadership is keeping the company going in the right direction. If he led it in the wrong direction, then it would reflect on him, not you.

My PhD is of less value than the bachelors degree, maybe MBA the CEO has? My decades of work learning my skill set which the CEO couldn't do if they tried is inherently less valuable than the skill set they have?

If your PhD is of more value, then I'm sure there are positions you could apply for that would be higher paying. Are you not satisfied with your current position and what you're getting from it? If you're not, and you have a PhD, you have more options for employment than most other people do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe. But there are things less than outright revolution...the Gilded Age and Progressive Era showed what will happen to those in power. They will lose a lot of their power and standing by merit of the laws we demand passed. That's kind of the point. Massive income inequality never works out in the long term for those at the top. They will be the only ones to lose.

Will it be really bad? Probably not considering we do have a ways to go to get to Mumbai levels, but it won't be happy for the wealthy. Not by a long shot.

Some things to keep in mind...the Gilded Age was prior to the birth of the military industrial complex...and the aspect of politicians being outright paid for (while that did happen, not to the degree that it happens today). What happens when the lawmakers only listen to the people who are already at the top?

If a 1%'er tells a lawmaker "these are the policies you're going to pass, no exceptions", the "laws we demand passed" won't amount to a hill of beans as our demands would fall on deaf ears.

 

[Smidlee]

This to the OP. 80% want minimum wage increase for years now. Why not? Watch video.

LOl. This guy is a nut case. He first claims the politicians represents the average person 0% of the time then thinks the solution is a Constitutional amendment which has to be passed 2/3 of same politicians that never represents us.

 

[amanuensis63]

Some things to keep in mind...the Gilded Age was prior to the birth of the military industrial complex...and the aspect of politicians being outright paid for (while that did happen, not to the degree that it happens today). What happens when the lawmakers only listen to the people who are already at the top?

That's when things get dodgy. If people are frustrated in their attempts to rebalance the books it won't be nice.

If a 1%'er tells a lawmaker "these are the policies you're going to pass, no exceptions", the "laws we demand passed" won't amount to a hill of beans as our demands would fall on deaf ears.

And that's why I think the folks at the top need to seriously re-evaluate their long range plans. Because in the long run having the power to rig the game for one's own advantage is not a sustainable strategy for them. It has never been in the past.

 

[amanuensis63]

Maybe because his leadership is keeping the company going in the right direction.

That's sweet. In my 9 1/2 years with my current employer we've had 3 CEO's. The first one when I started was pushed out (with a giant pay off) after it became apparent he might have had a little trouble with ethics. The second was forced out after he made some serious bonehead moves. The current one just oversaw some strangeness. We'll see if it pays off.

If your PhD is of more value, then I'm sure there are positions you could apply for that would be higher paying.

Not really. You see PhD level research jobs almost NEVER pay $10 million base salaries.

Are you not satisfied with your current position and what you're getting from it?

If you worked for 10 years and average 2% annual pay raises (that's half of cost of living) despite getting above average to top ratings would YOU be happy? I'm actually not unhappy, just curious why I and my fellow workers see sub-COLA raises while the top rakes in millions of dollars for driving the company around like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

If you're not, and you have a PhD, you have more options for employment than most other people do.

Not really. You see the thing I do is rather specific. It's not like I could leave my current job and get the same type of job wihtin a 3 hour drive of where I live. Now in reality because I have a PhD means I'm probably more disciplined and possibly smarter than many others but that doesn't always mean you can do whatever you want in life.

It certainly didn't mean I get pay raises of significant amounts.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's sweet. In my 9 1/2 years with my current employer we've had 3 CEO's. The first one when I started was pushed out (with a giant pay off) after it became apparent he might have had a little trouble with ethics. The second was forced out after he made some serious bonehead moves. The current one just oversaw some strangeness. We'll see if it pays off.

So the ones who didn't do a good job got booted out.

Not really. You see PhD level research jobs almost NEVER pay $10 million base salaries.

Now you're comparing what you have to what someone else has. Aren't you making enough to satisfy your needs right now without making 10 million dollars?

Not really. You see the thing I do is rather specific. It's not like I could leave my current job and get the same type of job wihtin a 3 hour drive of where I live. Now in reality because I have a PhD means I'm probably more disciplined and possibly smarter than many others but that doesn't always mean you can do whatever you want in life.

No, but it does give you more leverage than someone with less education. Someone without your education might very well be jealous of what you have, reasoning that money got you education, which got you more money. But there's more to it than that.

 

[amanuensis63]

So the ones who didn't do a good job got booted out.

At least one got a multi million pay off to go away.

Now you're comparing what you have to what someone else has. Aren't you making enough to satisfy your needs right now without making 10 million dollars?

I am perfectly happy with the amount I make! I was addressing your point as raised.

No, but it does give you more leverage than someone with less education.

Life isn't always that easy for the PhD. SOme people specifically will NOT hire a PhD because they think they are too specialized or a risk of leaving for a better job.

I once hid my PhD in order to get a job.

Someone without your education might very well be jealous of what you have, reasoning that money got you education, which got you more money. But there's more to it than that.

Indeed, I got a LOT of assistance from family and, of course, I was in a field that had lot of teaching positions that helped me afford school.

Because I realize I got a lot of help from people is why I want those at the top to be mindful of what help THEY got and why they should be more willing to share the wealth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Literally YES, that happens. That's when a CEO ships jobs overseas because the workers are cheaper there.

This conversation is about all rich people, not just CEO’s. Is your issue only with CEO’s or is it with all rich people?

But in response to your answer, when a company takes away that which they gave in the first place, (the job) the person is in the same position they would be in if the company never existed. So your argument, that the rich get richer by taking from the poor; fails.

You say "technician" as if you think it is a lower level job. Funny.

No, I say technician because it seems that is the only job you are talking about. This conversation is about ALL jobs; not just yours. If you are getting screwed at your job, I can understand your frustration; but let’s not act as if this is standard procedure for all jobs.

Yes. A company has only so much revenue and if as the company grows and prospers the upper management are the only ones to see gains and the lower level folks see NO GAINS then it is directly related.

http://business.salary.com/why-do-ceos-make-the-big-bucks/

As the link says, as a general rule, CEO base salary only makes up 20% of their total compensation, (usually less than a million per year because of IRS restrictions on excessive compensation) the other 80% is from performance based incentives.
In other words, if a CEO is making massive bucks, he is probably performing very well.

I base it off a couple decades of working in industry. I work for companies that also interact with foreign companies. It is a known fact that American corporations tend to be shorter term on their investments. They invest in a technology or a program in hopes of getting a quick turn. European companies are more willing to let an investment grow to see if the market picks it up.

I work in industry as well, and my company does plan for the long term. Don't assume all companies are like yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

(Honestly, Ken, no offense but you clearly know next to nothing about this topic. You should really learn this stuff. I'm not a business person, but even I know this stuff. I take it you don't work for a corporation and you don't have any investments).

If there were an ounce of merit to your claim, you would have backed it up by now. And by the way, the link you provided does not support your claim. The link is about people who serve on the board of directors for multiple companies. Your claim is that Board members are usually made up of CEO’s from competing companies; big difference between the two.

The fact that you cannot back up your claims is not a big deal because I didn’t want to side track the thread; but it would be nice if you only made claims you could back up.

Ken, I don't mean to be rude, primarily because I don't particularly like business topics, I'm a research scientist...it's not my thing. But I've spent a couple decades in the trenches. I've taken the time to learn about this stuff largely through watching it unfold around me and realizing it wasn't just the company I worked for at the time that was doing this stuff. I do think you should educated yourself at least on the basics of how corporate governance works and the excesses they treat themselves to.

So this is another example of something you seen happen so you use that “broad brush” of yours to paint the picture that it happens all the time? Got it.

Ken

 

[whatbogsends]

So the ones who didn't do a good job got booted out.

They did a poor job for 3 years, got booted out, and made more money than what an employee who gets his performance rated as superlative makes in a 30 year career. In fact, many of these CEOs who perform poorly make more in a year than a top-performing employee would make in 100 years.

They're not being rewarded because of performance or credentials. They're being rewarded because they are connected.

 

[whatbogsends]

This conversation is about all rich people, not just CEO’s. Is your issue only with CEO’s or is it with all rich people?

But in response to your answer, when a company takes away that which they gave in the first place, (the job) the person is in the same position they would be in if the company never existed. So your argument, that the rich get richer by taking from the poor; fails.

No, I say technician because it seems that is the only job you are talking about. This conversation is about ALL jobs; not just yours. If you are getting screwed at your job, I can understand your frustration; but let’s not act as if this is standard procedure for all jobs.

Most corporate businesses operate this way. It is standard procedure for these large businesses. You cite the self-made man as representative of CEOs. That is the misrepresentation.l

http://business.salary.com/why-do-ceos-make-the-big-bucks/

As the link says, as a general rule, CEO base salary only makes up 20% of their total compensation, (usually less than a million per year because of IRS restrictions on excessive compensation) the other 80% is from performance based incentives.
In other words, if a CEO is making massive bucks, he is probably performing very well.

Well, that's as your link says.

Here's something from a CEO:

"But what troubled me then and now from a policy standpoint was why the average and, worse, the poor performers make almost as much. We can’t disregard the fact that the revenues, earnings and scope of a Fortune 500 company today are integral multiples of those of decades ago, and they continually grow, which would account for some increase. But so much? And so uniformly without much regard for performance?

Thank our regulators and corporate governance efforts to reduce CEO compensation through disclosure and oversight of board decisions. I’ve been a long time observer of public companies and a reader of their proxy statements. In 70’s and even the 80’s the compensation of the CEO seemed to be mostly a matter arrived at between the board and the CEO that resulted from discussions and negotiations and the public disclosure was a matter of a few pages. But there was then nothing like the pressure to conform to best practices backed up by the reliance upon the advice of consultants and the concommitant availability of market data that there is today.

You can guess how it works. No board that isn’t about to fire its CEO really wants to admit that their CEO is a less-than-average performer by paying him or her less than average. But if the lowest-paid CEO’s are always being brought up to the average, then the average increases every year. Then for the high performers to be paid well, their compensation needs to be increased, but that raises the average… and so on every year. And the compensation committee and the board always have this market data before them, the recommendations of their consultants and “best practices” to adhere to. These influences are not easily resisted. You see the result."

https://www.aei.org/publication/a-ceo-explains-why-ceos-make-so-much-money/

Or there's this explanation:

"The big change happened in the 1990s. In 1965 the multiple was 20, and by 1978 it had risen only to 30. The next decade, going into 1990 saw the multiple rise to 60. But then from 1990 to 2000 it jumped from 60 to well over 300 – where it has averaged since. So it was long ago that large company CEO pay made its huge gains, and such compensation has now become the norm.
...
If average workers are angry, and some investors are angry, and politicians are increasingly speaking negatively about the topic, why does CEO pay remain so high?

CEOs are like kings. They aren’t elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling internecine political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.

Who can change the pay? Ostensibly the board of directors. But who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn’t do any board member’s reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don’t want your objection to “Joe’s” pay coming up when its time to set your pay."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2015/06/22/why-ceos-make-so-much-money/

Let me repeat what the article mentioned: "But who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn’t do any board member’s reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don’t want your objection to “Joe’s” pay coming up when its time to set your pay.""

Doesn't that sound familiar?

Oh wait, it's what we've been saying, and you have categorically denied by attempting to hand-wave it away when it's a fact.

The article continues and reiterates the claim made by the CEO in the previous article:

"So when the “average” CEO pay is announced, any CEO would be expected to go to the board, tell them the published average and ask, “Well, don’t you think I’ve done a great job? Don’t you think I’m above average? If so, then shouldn’t I be compensated at some percentage greater than average?”

Repeat this process 350 times, every year, and you can see how large company CEO pay keeps going up. And data in the EPI report supports this. Those who have the greatest pay increase are the 20% who are paid the lowest. The group with the second greatest pay increase are the 20% in the next to lowest paid quintile. These lower paid CEOs say, “Shouldn’t I be paid at least average – if not more?”"

I work in industry as well, and my company does plan for the long term. Don't assume all companies are like yours.

If there were an ounce of merit to your claim, you would have backed it up by now. And by the way, the link you provided does not support your claim. The link is about people who serve on the board of directors for multiple companies. Your claim is that Board members are usually made up of CEO’s from competing companies; big difference between the two.

No, the claim was that the Board members are usually made up by CEOs of other companies, all of which vote on each others salaries. And it's not a claim, it's a fact.

It is discussed again here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150409120449.htm

or here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ceo-pay-may-be-boosted-by-fellow-ceos-researchers-say-1.3025246

The fact that you cannot back up your claims is not a big deal because I didn’t want to side track the thread; but it would be nice if you only made claims you could back up.

So this is another example of something you seen happen so you use that “broad brush” of yours to paint the picture that it happens all the time? Got it.

Ken

We've also talked about the ridiculousness of golden parachutes, which again, you seem to try to hand-wave away by closing your eyes.

"Last week the Target Corporation announced it would be closing all 133 stores in Canada, laying off 17,600 employees in the process. Many thought the expansion was too much, too fast:
...
As a result of the failed Canadian experiment and a massive data breach, then CEO Gregg Steinhafel was fired.

Now we learn the compensation package for the 17,600 laid off employees is roughly equal to the golden parachute package given to failed CEO Gregg Steinhafel. This is everything wrong with corporate America today:
...
Fortune Magazine put the value of his total "walk-away" package, including stock options and other benefits, at $61 million US, including severance of $15.9 million."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...as-the-total-compensation-for-17-600-workers#

Your evidence that these practices aren't routine is.... what, exactly? We've been waiting 15 pages for you to present any evidence, all we get is a bare assertion.

 

[FanthatSpark]

LOl. This guy is a nut case. He first claims the politicians represents the average person 0% of the time then thinks the solution is a Constitutional amendment which has to be passed 2/3 of same politicians that never represents us.

Thus, go Wolf-Pac.Com . These guys are doing it from state to state. This is not a fix it right now because Government is a slow beast yet Wolf-Pac is gaining momentum now so much so the Kock brothers have started fighting it. In Wolf-Pac there is no partacism just one goal. Take money out of politics. D's & R's in state level are starting to come together in this 1 amendment. A corporation IS NOT a person and therefor has no voice/money for speech. Watch some vids on wolf-pac yet the one supplied below is a good starting point.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most corporate businesses operate this way. It is standard procedure for these large businesses. You cite the self-made man as representative of CEOs. That is the misrepresentation.

I never said anything about a self made man, nor did I say anything about a CEO. Again; is your issue only with CEO's or is it with all of the 1%? Because no all of he 1% are CEO's ya know

No, the claim was that the Board members are usually made up by CEOs of other companies, all of which vote on each others salaries. And it's not a claim, it's a fact.

It is discussed again here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150409120449.htm

or here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ceo-pay-may-be-boosted-by-fellow-ceos-researchers-say-1.3025246.

Okay I get it. I thought you meant competing companies. And thanks for backing up your claim

Ken

 

[FanthatSpark]

What I can not understand is the time wasted in issues? That is the illness. Why is it so difficult to go to cause? Look at all the issues here in American Politics. This is the illness correct? Why can we not go singular in cause like post #296 gives us a means to fight the CAUSE . I do it too so don't get that I am better than thou attitude on me . Why not share above link in post #296 to our friends ?

Yes, he has a foul mouth. Yet he does not effect us with policy as this government does. His mission is true, singular and focused at cause yet our sensibility is why we wont listen to the message? We can not control the messenger but the message is sound and now proven to work. Why not refocus the lens to cause? Simplify to cause, not these issues = illness, that are the sickness of said cause in post #296. Pray for the man, but, listen to the message and it is now working today. What comes out of his mouth is his problem but the message is true and today working. One does not have to work with that man. We , and our like minded churches can do what Wolf-Pac is doing by joining the organization or let our church fund their own Wolf-Pac with that very same singular purpose to tweak the constitution with one singular amendment. Watch that video I implore you people.

 

[super animator]

LOl. This guy is a nut case. He first claims the politicians represents the average person 0% of the time then thinks the solution is a Constitutional amendment which has to be passed 2/3 of same politicians that never represents us.

Or ratify by 3/4 of the states. Just saying.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Or ratify by 3/4 of the states. Just saying.

Is this not the mission? Heres whats not seen in videos. When the Wolf-Pac is shot down they go after the nay vote. These are the people that can not be in politics. State is two years. We move into their districts (The nay voters) and go door to door and school the people that their representative is not for them. Wolf-Pac has done this and low and behold the nay reps stand shocked . This organization is not playing the radio to doubters . It goes and does. Yes, this takes time, however, it now has traction in...Doing. Representatives are now seeing a nay vote ends their careers. Its simple, if they represent the corporation and provide a nay vote in majority in next election the entire house has new representatives and we put the vote to these. Know that 86% can not be ignored. The Koch brothers are seeing it and trying to block it but they are just being ran over .