Home | About | Donate

Now Earning 278 Times More Than Average Worker, New Study Shows CEO Pay Has Grown More Than 1,000% Since 1978

Its why you have to elect Sanders. The Republicans WILL go after that . George W tried it.

This is what they did in Chile under Pinochet more or less and It was guys and dolls from the Chicago school of economics that advised Pinochet . This is the same group that suggests the USA privatize Social Security.


photo caption:

Financial rock star Jeff Bezos (left) thanked adoring fans for their support before being doused with corn syrup, dropped in a supersize-me shopping cart (right), and rolled into a pit of feral pigs.

Let’s not make any mistake here. This is clearly a pathology. Amassing inhuman amounts of wealth, especially in positions requiring little of actual value, is an abuse upon humanity. Jeffery Epstein looked at the money system and the political system and saw the rot from the top down and exploited it for his own perversion. And they were complicit and perhaps collaborated and maybe were in collusion. There may have been blackmail involved. What we can learn from this is that the system is very heavily rigged against us by money. Epstein manipulated that to fund his pedophilia. Epstein’s behavior and his network of “friends and acquaintances” were and will continue to be a reflection of power, money, and sex. And the bankers being paid obscene amounts of money while performing no useful service to society makes me think of horror films where the workers, who are starving because conditions have become so hostile, end up attacking the owner and eating him part by part because they are hungry and because they are enraged. We cannot wait until we turn into cannibals.


Instead of tying CEO compensation to stock prices, maybe tying it to a number based on worker compensation and employee retention would be more appropriate. Something that measured how well the corporation was treating its workers is a better measure than stock prices that have only a tenuous relation to how well the company is doing, especially in the days of stock buybacks and other manipulative measures.


The 40 year horizon makes for a ridiculous statistic. My own pay has risen by over 1600% since 1978. I was a junior in high school that year, working a part time job at minimum wage. Using arbitrary dates to get a sensational statistic is a sign of a weak argument. The author should be ashamed.


Star, I’m of two minds about stock buybacks.

There is most definitely the negative incentive that stock compensation encourages - receive stock, and then have the company buy back shares to prop the price up. Not good.

By the same token, if the company does not have a good internal investment for the money (and most companies do reach a stage where putting more money into “growing the business” just makes it less effective, slower to adapt and less focused on their customers), giving it back to the investors, either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks (both of which prop up stock price) is probably a better use of the money than going out and buying another company (since a majority of mergers and acquisitions actually end up destroying value)

2 points - to your own question - how little are you willing to work for? Most of us (or at least those of us who are lucky) do our jobs for a combination of satisfaction and money. Personally, I strive to maximize both.

The reason CEO turnover is high has nothing to do with the executives’ choice. It is because Boards are giving decreasing amounts of time for CEOs to perform. Also, your math is off - 5 years at $17M (the average cited in the article - the median is lower) less taxes only gets you about half-way to your $100M nest egg. Still substantially more than they need, but accuracy counts.

Hi SuspiraDeProfundis:

Bernie, : ) I have loved Bernie from when he first ran and I loved all of his plan and ideas --but I loved him even more when that little blue bird in Portland ,Oregon, sat on part of Bernie’s lectern and listened to Bernie speak. That was MAGIC----I think Nature and Gaia were listening too . BERNIE is definitely NATURE approved and in this time of Climate Crisis Bernie is the ONE!. : )

Hi WWSmith:
Well LOL, I could think of a better place to money----and that would be in the employees paychecks. When people get raises (and they are fair amount raises, ) then employees work better, the service is improved—and workers care more because they feel like they are an appreciated part of the business----and they are. I call this the Santa Scenario: because like the elves who work for love of Santa, happy employees also create better products and sell more by being happier on the job! : )

Star - those are two separate issues - companies are going to pay employees what they need to in order to get people to work at an acceptable level of effort. When I was a partner in a business, we generally paid our people better than just about anyone in our business (salaries and profit-sharing and stock). As a result, we had extremely hardworking employees who were, person-for-person, head and shoulders above other people in the business. We ended up selling the company and the new owners proceeded to mess everything up. None of us (partners or employees) work there any more.

But, as a capitalist (and I make no apologies for that!) once you’re getting optimum performance from your employees, if you’re not expanding the business, the money goes back to the investors - it’s why they put their money in the business to begin with. The problem too many companies make is that they’re focused on the lowest cost employees instead of the best employees. In my experience, hiring the best employees is worth every single dollar, because the company performs dramatically better when you have excited, motivated people.

Hi WWSmith:
But that’s the trouble with capitalism----it seeks growth and profit over superior product from superior people. Employees who make a fair wage do become superior people.
However, often when employees speak up and try to speak of problems----very often they are dissed or ignored ,or even let go. BOEING is a prime example of this----it’s all about the Benjamins, " at Boeing----and too much focus on growth through profit very often leads to a lot of dead people.
People used to be able to work for one company their entire work life, and even had pensions------I guess that was the mentality after WW 2, as so many people had so many experiences with war. I always thought that was the one possible benefit fo war, making people keep working together so as not to have another war. That’s all been left behind though—and somehow having a stable company seems to elude so many businesses--------------how do you fix that?

Star, I’d disagree. If you make a better product, you can charge a higher price, and to make better products, you need good people. The problem isn’t capitalism, it’s stupidity, short-sightedness, butt-covering, and a range of other human failings.

I think too many people are too focused on the short-term - whether it’s the software programmer who has to get the net sprint released on Thursday, the CFO who’s worried about next quarter’s earnings release or anyone in between. One solution - at least for executives - would be to require them to hold some large percentage of any stock they get for at least 3-4 years after they leave a company.