Seriously, now post the 50 others that contradict that.

Anyway...a more serious answer is "None of them contradict those, because it's really hard to contradict a fact without being unfactual."

 

The other things that show up on the signs commonly are requests to end specific wall street abuses and to end specific results of this inequality.

 

 

475:1? I highly doubt that number. You are telling me that at an average company in the US, if the average worker makes say 50k, that the CEO makes $23,750,000? Not a chance. The number of CEO's who make that kind of money can be counted on one hand. The rest are below that, in most cases way, way below that, by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.

 

If you are going to use stats to make your case, at least try to make them believable.

 

Anyway...a more serious answer is "None of them contradict those, because it's really hard to contradict a fact without being unfactual."

 

The other things that show up on the signs commonly are requests to end specific wall street abuses and to end specific results of this inequality.

 

 

 

See that's the funny thing. I know what is on the signs. I have been down there about pretty much everyday. I'm not just making stuff up.

475:1? I highly doubt that number. You are telling me that at an average company in the US, if the average worker makes say 50k, that the CEO makes $23,750,000? Not a chance. The number of CEO's who make that kind of money can be counted on one hand. The rest are below that, in most cases way, way below that, by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.

 

If you are going to use stats to make your case, at least try to make them believable.

 

It has been fact busted. The irony of it though is that the effort to fix the problem of CEO salaries tied into Sarbanes Oxley has been the primary driver of the increases salaries.

475:1? I highly doubt that number. You are telling me that at an average company in the US, if the average worker makes say 50k, that the CEO makes $23,750,000? Not a chance. The number of CEO's who make that kind of money can be counted on one hand. The rest are below that, in most cases way, way below that, by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.

 

If you are going to use stats to make your case, at least try to make them believable.

Part of the problem is that you assumed the typical worker makes $50k. That number might be a little off depending on the year you pick.

In 2010, chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned an average of $11.4 million in total pay -- 343 times more than a typical American worker, according to the AFL-CIO.

 

 

....

 

According to the AFL-CIO, in 1980, CEOs at the largest companies received 42 times the pay of the average worker. In 2000 the gap hit a high, with CEOs making 525 times the average worker.

 

In 2010, the gap narrowed with CEOs making 343 times the average worker, said Trumka, who himself makes roughly four times the average worker.

 

"If (CEOs) go down to four-to-one, I'd take it," Trumka said. To top of page

It has been fact busted. The irony of it though is that the effort to fix the problem of CEO salaries tied into Sarbanes Oxley has been the primary driver of the increases salaries.

Except for the fact that the explosion did not start with Sarbanes-Oxley, here's a version as of 2005.

 

Clearly that bill in 2002 caused everything that happened from 1980-2001.

 

Link

Except for the fact that the explosion did not start with Sarbanes-Oxley, here's a version as of 2005.

 

Clearly that bill in 2002 caused everything that happened from 1980-2001.

 

Link

 

You really can't see the acceleration of the last 10 years?

 

Well you probably good if it wasn't missing data.

You really can't see the acceleration of the last 10 years?

 

Well you probably good if it wasn't missing data.

Can't easily find one with 2010-2011 data yet, here's the next version.

 

Sure looks to me like the 2005-2007 "boom" just pushed things back to where they were in 2001. (Note that the only image I could easily find has switched bases and is here normalizing to minimum wage rather than average salary...same story, just different basis)

 

Can't easily find one with 2010-2011 data yet, here's the next version.

 

Sure looks to me like the 2005-2007 "boom" just pushed things back to where they were in 2001. (Note that the only image I could easily find has switched bases and is here normalizing to minimum wage rather than average salary...same story, just different basis)

 

 

So salaries double in three years, versus the 7 it took prior, and you don't see it as different?

Part of the problem is that you assumed the typical worker makes $50k. That number might be a little off depending on the year you pick.

See that trick they used? "The nation's largest companies". It might be $11.1M among, perhaps, the Fortune 50. For all companies, that number will be under a million, I guarantee it. Also see how they used "the average American worker" - not necessarily the workers in those companies. This is an obvious trick of numbers.

 

Now, if you want to tell me about ONE company... say, you don't believe the CEO of Ford should make 12M when the line workers make 60k... then fine, make that argument to Ford, and there are plenty of reasons to do so. But don't make it sound like something it isn't.

 

So salaries double in three years, versus the 7 it took prior, and you don't see it as different?

If you look at the previous boom, 1996-1999, they tripled in 3 years. So no, I don't see it as different when the next boom sees a doubling in 3 years, I see Sarb-Ox as basically having failed completely to change a long term trend.

 

If anything, the fact that CEO Pay is at the same point as it was in 2001 might say that Sarb-Ox actually worked...the exponential increase trend has stopped and it has just sat "Flat" for 10 years. I won't say that, but that's closer to the data than saying that Sarb-Ox made it worse.

If you look at the previous boom, 1996-1999, they tripled in 3 years. So no, I don't see it as different when the next boom sees a doubling in 3 years, I see Sarb-Ox as basically having failed completely to change a long term trend.

 

If anything, the fact that CEO Pay is at the same point as it was in 2001 might say that Sarb-Ox actually worked...the exponential increase trend has stopped and it has just sat "Flat" for 10 years. I won't say that, but that's closer to the data than saying that Sarb-Ox made it worse.

 

The only thing that slowed the acceleration down was the Clinton Recession. After that it exploded without the stock market explosion that the late 90's saw.

The only thing that slowed the acceleration down was the Clinton Recession. After that it exploded without the stock market explosion that the late 90's saw.

The S&P 500 went up from a low around ~800 to ~1475 during the "Bush boom", nearly a factor of 2. CEO pay ratios went up by ~ a factor of 2.

The S&P 500 went up from a low around ~800 to ~1475 during the "Bush boom", nearly a factor of 2. CEO pay ratios went up by ~ a factor of 2.

 

And it almost tripled during the time that salaries doubled before SOX.

And it almost tripled during the time that salaries doubled before SOX.

 

And actually since your first chart only goes to 05, the SP went from about 800 to about 1200, during that time period. So salaries doubled with SP only up 1.5 times.

And it almost tripled during the time that salaries doubled before SOX.

95-2001, the S&P nearly tripled, and CEO salaries relative to average employees nearly tripled.

And actually since your first chart only goes to 05, the SP went from about 800 to about 1200, during that time period. So salaries doubled with SP only up 1.5 times.

 

 

95-2001, the S&P nearly tripled, and CEO salaries relative to average employees nearly tripled.

 

Again, keep your time frames consistent. The rate is increasing. It is clear.

Fine...95-2001, CEO salaries went from about 100-1 to 300-1, increasing by a factor of 3, while the S&P went up by a factor of 3.1 (450-1400). While in the following "Boom", the S&P doubled and CEO pay ratios again doubled. Therefore, Sarb-Ox has had a positive impact and limited the growth of CEO pay when you use fully consistent dates and go from the start of the S&P boom to the peak of the S&P boom.

 

At worst, there's nothing here from Sarbanes Oxley. It didn't help.

Fine...95-2001, CEO salaries went from about 100-1 to 300-1, increasing by a factor of 3, while the S&P went up by a factor of 3. While in the following "Boom", the S&P doubled and CEO pay ratios again doubled. Therefore, Sarb-Ox has had a positive impact and limited the growth of CEO pay when you use fully consistent dates and go from the start of the S&P boom to the peak of the S&P boom.

 

At worst, there's nothing here from Sarbanes Oxley. It didn't help.

 

Except they didn't.

Except they didn't.

True. The S&P went from 800 to ~1500. And CEO pay went up by less than a factor of 2.

True. The S&P went from 800 to ~1500. And CEO pay went up by less than a factor of 2.

 

Again follow your time frame. The salary chart ended at the beginning of 05, at which the SP was about 1200. Quit manipulating the numbers. The 1500 peaks were until during the middle of 2006.

Again follow your time frame. The salary chart ended at the beginning of 05, at which the SP was about 1200. Quit manipulating the numbers. The 1500 peaks were until during the middle of 2006.

That's why I added about 4 other charts.

 

If you actually pay attention, there's a slight bit of out of phase to the 2 peaks...the CEO pay shot back up before the S&P, but then leveled off before the S&P. The only way that your numbers work is if you ignore the fact that the S&P kept going up through the end of 07, when the CEO pay level-off happened in 05-06 (maybe because Sarbanes-Oxley was implemented and working so incredibly well ).

That's why I added about 4 other charts.

 

If you actually pay attention, there's a slight bit of out of phase to the 2 peaks...the CEO pay shot back up before the S&P, but then leveled off before the S&P. The only way that your numbers work is if you ignore the fact that the S&P kept going up through the end of 07, when the CEO pay level-off happened in 05-06 (maybe because Sarbanes-Oxley was implemented and working so incredibly well ).

 

And as NSS pointed out, they aren't consistent from chart to chart.

And as NSS pointed out, they aren't consistent from chart to chart.

So you admit that your entire "It's clearly gone up faster under Sarb-Ox" point is BS?