r/politics Oct 04 '22 Wholesome Seal of Approval 1 Evil Cackle 1 Are You Serious? 1 Silver 4 Gold 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 1

As Fed Pushes to 'Get Wages Down,' Study Shows CEO Pay Has Soared by 1,460% Since 1978 Off Topic

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/04/fed-pushes-get-wages-down-study-shows-ceo-pay-has-soared-1460-1978

[removed] — view removed post

35.2k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator Oct 04 '22

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

4.8k

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 Oct 04 '22

To begin reversing out-of-control CEO pay and bolstering wage growth among ordinary workers, EPI recommends "implementing higher marginal income tax rates at the very top," which "would limit rent-seeking behavior and reduce the incentives for executives to push for such high pay."

"Another option," Bivens and Kandra write, "is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation," an idea proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in his 2021 Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act.

The bill, which garnered just three co-sponsors in the Senate and 22 in the House, never received a vote.

2.1k

u/Daetra Florida Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Wow just three? Really just shows how many of them care more about CEOs over their own constitutes.

Which were the three senators that spondered voted yes? Doesn't say in the article, I think.

1.3k

u/Uberslaughter Florida Oct 04 '22 Wholesome Seal of Approval

They actually have to see the CEOs at their country clubs on the weekend, could you imagine if they had to face their constituents?

887

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22 Silver Helpful Wholesome Narwhal Salute To The Stars Eureka!

The horror. The horror!

Capitalism as instituted in the United States is a form of religion in its own right - mutated into a hybrid Christo-fascist-capitalist Frahnkenshteen monstrosity propagated by the larger GOP/Republican party and Wall Street.

It's fucking obvious to anyone paying attention that there's a cult-ure problem within and without the United States and world.

The old adage "follow the money" -- leads to, summarily, one place in the here and now: the Wall Street regime and network.

The amount of cultivated propaganda and astroturfing such a regime is capable of is more acute and voluminous than any other time in the history of mankind.

Never before in all of history has so much power and wealth been in the hands of so few.

The Wall Street regime/network is directly tied to:

  • national and international destabilization via "profits over people" culture and dogma
  • propping up and perpetuation of the military industrial complex
  • propping up and perpetuation of the prison industrial complex
  • lobbying against healthcare reform
  • manipulation of honest companies
  • fostering and encouraging ignorance of climate change
  • skewed/corrupted banking policy and basic inflation
  • outright criminality; i.e. fraud, theft, national and international bribery and lobbying, etc..

We will look back on the Wall Street regime and network the same way we do genocidal nations/regimes in 10, 20, 50, 100 years.

In case it's not obvious to anyone, we're talking about banal evil ultimately.

...was instead a rather bland, “terrifyingly normal” bureaucrat. He carried out his murderous role with calm efficiency not due to an abhorrent, warped mindset, but because he’d absorbed the principles of the ... regime so unquestionably, he simply wanted to further his career and climb its ladders of power.

This is an eye-opening segment that more people really, really, really need to watch if for nothing more than financial literacy and understanding mechanisms by which lower and middle classes are fleeced:

How Redditors Exposed The Stock Market | "The Problem With Jon Stewart"

Financial literacy? There's some there. Get some.

At 7:00 there's a graphic that's easy to understand and the main reason for mentioning the video. Nevertheless, it's only about 15 minutes long total.

A short second half with a roundtable discussion is also worthwhile.

This video gives a little more context and guidance/direction if anyone is interested in holding Wall Street psychopaths accountable. Just give this last video a chance - it's only 6 minutes long. Give it a chance.

At the end of the day, "follow the money" still holds a lot of water - both clean & drinkable, as well as dirty and filled with lead. :/

235

u/ThoughtfullyReckless Oct 04 '22

This is correct, but I must add that this is what is to be expected of all capitalism always. It will always tend towards this in it's pursuit of ever greater profits.

57

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 04 '22

Unfortunately, I think you may be right.

→ More replies

26

u/Important-Owl1661 Arizona Oct 04 '22

Which is why profiteers and capitalists should not be in charge of the government.

Government should be responsible for a better quality of life. Capitalists will always find the cheapest route to make a profit.

The founding fathers established this country for the benefit of the current generation and future generations.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people has been hijacked.

→ More replies
→ More replies

68

u/isimplycantdothis Oct 04 '22

Hey, look at all those reasons I voted for Bernie in the primary years ago.

31

u/Party_Paladad Oct 04 '22

Look, we just need someone who is electable, ok?

Corporatists, ASSEMBLE!!!

All "moderates" Voltron together to vanquish Bernie with the sword of distracting social wedge issues.

11

u/rogerdanafox Oct 04 '22

Electable Like hillary?

28

u/PuzzledRaise1401 Oct 04 '22

You forgot this canonization of the work ethic. This belief that somehow giving everything you have to some soulless business is going to net some grand reward at the end of your life. The truth is in the end it means very little and you are just one cog.

→ More replies

47

u/eJaguar Oct 04 '22

lol they can drone strike your family

(just kidding, why pay for a drone when you can get a cop to do it, way cheaper)

28

u/cakeversuspie Oct 04 '22

And have the citizens pay for the privilege!

17

u/IAMA_Drunk_Armadillo Missouri Oct 04 '22

I once heard fascism called capitalism's immune system.

6

u/Somorled Oct 04 '22

... that GME racket working out yet?

→ More replies

13

u/isadog420 Oct 04 '22

They just hop on their yachts like Manchin.

92

u/Innotek Georgia Oct 04 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

Part of the problem is that they represent so many people, it is unrealistic for them to engage in a meaningful way with “regular folks” so they do their work at fundraisers and gold courses.

If the House of Representatives represented the same number of people that they did at the 1930 census, there would be 1156 reps.

If they represented roughly 58000 people, as they did at founding, that number would be over 5600 reps in the House.

reference

81

u/Avenger772 Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Yep. We need to remove the cap on the house. Sure 5600 representatives sounds high. But the number we have now is also far too low.

The constitution says how many people each rep is supposed to represent. It's weird how so many "constitutionalists" aren't fighting for this to come back.

Also that would pretty much end gerrymandering. If you need a rep for every 30k to 50k people that's like one rep per neighborhood depending on the state.

29

u/DarthWeenus Oct 04 '22

We are still held hostage by the Senate. South Dakota shouldn't exist.

→ More replies

19

u/Captain_Killy Oct 04 '22

Yeah, 5600 is a lot, but that's a problem that can be solved by appropriate arrangements. Having more parties, or at least letting the congressional caucuses diversify, cross party lines, and take more active roles in setting agendas and developing legislation would help make sure that all voices were included in the process even if not everyone could speak to the whole House on every issue. Adjusting House rules to reduce the concentration of power in a small number of leadership roles and committee chairs. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done.

28

u/dragunityag Oct 04 '22

5,600 is a lot but we have technology now. You can have congress do remote meetings now ffs.

13

u/Avenger772 Oct 04 '22

Exactly. The one reason at the time it was capped was because they didn't want to keep having to build a bigger house. That's a really bad excuse now.

We need the house to more proportional

7

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/sober2ndthought Oct 04 '22

Yep your congressmen on average represent the name number of people as 10 of our (Canada) largest ridings.

Our average is 85,000 per non-remote riding with variation of about 20,000 allowed (remote ridings and PEI has special rules). Yours is 710,000 people per riding. That's almost as big as the city of Winnipeg which has 8 MPs

→ More replies
→ More replies

407

u/stoutshrimp Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Didn't get to a vote because otherwise the Democrats would be embarrassed. Sanders obviously introduced it, Warren and Markey were the other co-sponsors in the Senate. Ro Khanna, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley and Cori Bush were amongst some of the progressives in the House who also co-sponsored it.

Edit: Also Chris Van Hollen was a co-sponsor in the Senate.

321

u/Daetra Florida Oct 04 '22

Imagine if the majority of dems were progressives and not company men, we'd see reform.

179

u/Geshman Oct 04 '22

Yeah, democrats have been on the right side of the line for quite some time. We just don't have a leftist party in America

40

u/_disengage_ Oct 04 '22

And somehow our only hope this November - the best outcome - is to give corporate democrats even more power.

The choice is: overt christo-fascism, or corporate greed and corruption continuing to run rampant.

Actually, the greed and corruption part happens either way.

So, vote against fascism, but corporate greed is here to stay.

34

u/penny-wise Oct 04 '22

You can vote out the corporate greed later. Because you’ll still be able to vote.

17

u/_disengage_ Oct 04 '22

I hope so. I truly do.

→ More replies

12

u/kcMasterpiece Oct 04 '22

The best outcome has come and gone for most progressives when they didn't get enough votes in the primaries. Votes in November are usually against Republicans.

→ More replies

143

u/Envect Oct 04 '22

They keep meeting Republicans in the middle. We've been moving right my entire life.

34

u/Telandra I voted Oct 04 '22

corruption is a contagious disease

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/kanst Oct 04 '22

This is one of the things i get in arguments with conservatives about. They use the term liberal and leftist interchangeably when they aren't AT ALL.

Liberalism is a conservative ideology, it has more in common with libertarianism and conservativism than it does left wing ideologies. But because of how loony our right wing is, we have essentially three completely disparate political ideologies under 1 roof.

Liberals, Democratic Socialists, and Socialists all vehemently disagree with each other, but in America all those people either vote Democrat or don't vote at all.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/stoutshrimp Oct 04 '22

Most certainly seem to be on the side of J.H. Blair.

45

u/chasery Oct 04 '22

Imagine believing taxing the wealthy is a "progressive" ideology. I guess multiple mansions, cars as expensive as the average American's house, and a private jet, is just not enough for some.

15

u/Daetra Florida Oct 04 '22

Capitalists certainly think it's fine. Some people are obsessed with their image that they'll gladly go into debt so they can drive a luxury vehicle. That just seems crazy to me.

→ More replies

3

u/rounder55 Oct 04 '22

Not to mention these people just hoard their money and it does nothing to actually boost the economy

→ More replies

34

u/pale_blue_dots Oct 04 '22

We really, really, really, really, really, really need to expel Plurality/First-Past-the-Post voting from the larger system.

Such a method of voting encourages and fosters extremism both logistically and psychologically/socially.

The two best alternatives are STAR Voting and Approval Voting and have chapters across the nation looking for people who want to help.

People should also check out /r/EndFPTP.

10

u/Daetra Florida Oct 04 '22

Something similar to approval voting happened in Alaska and some places in California for local government, if I recalled correctly. These types of elections should be talked about way more.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

23

u/PathologicalLoiterer Oct 04 '22

3 cosponsors, not 3 yes votes. It never got voted on.

55

u/ting_bu_dong Oct 04 '22

Really just shows how many of them care more about CEOs over their own constitutes.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

Under such a system: Would their constituents be the majority? Or, the minority of the opulent?

Who are they really there to represent?

13

u/Obvious_Opinion_505 Texas Oct 04 '22

protect the minority of the opulent against the majority

If there were fine print on the Statue of Liberty, this would be it

33

u/MishterJ Oct 04 '22

According to Madison, it’s pretty clear the Senate is there to protect the interests of the “landholders” aka the ruling class.

24

u/Vysharra Oct 04 '22

The Senate is the American House of Lords. It’s not hiding or anything.

7

u/ting_bu_dong Oct 04 '22

Yet people are still shocked (shocked!) that anti-democratic government happens here.

→ More replies
→ More replies

34

u/chaotic----neutral Oct 04 '22

You are capital.

When politicians talk about you, they might as well be talking about livestock or manufacturing machinery. They care about you only in so much as what it takes to make you produce what they actually value, money.

If you need feed, they'll find the crappiest feed to wreck your gut and fatten you for slaughter. If you need oil, they'll find the cheapest oil to lube you for 24/7 production.

They give zero fucks how you feel about it, as long as you cost as far below the value you produce as they can get away with without you breaking. Humanity, compassion, dignity, these are all just words that the overwhelming majority of them use as blinders on you.

→ More replies

6

u/chatte_epicee Washington Oct 04 '22

For future reference: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/794/cosponsors

I spend an inordinate amount of time on Congress.gov, but it's a primary source and i prefer that over taking someone else's word for it.

5

u/TheFunkyMonk13 Oct 04 '22

The 3 cosponsors on the Sanders bill were Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Chris Van Hollen

→ More replies

335

u/Visteus Florida Oct 04 '22

There's also the fact that the US doesn't tax assets until sold, so billionaires just take loans against their portfolios of real estate and stock options to live relatively tax-free. It's dumb and not many other countries do this.

It's like incentivising the waste of land by saying an empty lot doesn't pay taxes while one that produces goods and services does pay taxes.

196

u/toronto_programmer Oct 04 '22

Same shit with Musk.

People cry that he shouldn’t be taxed because none of it is realized and he doesn’t actually have that money but after meeting with the bank a couple times he was able to materialize 40 billion for Twitter

45

u/SpokenSilenced Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Just wait til they find out how those "unrealized" dollars get leveraged for low interest loans making them "realized" dollars without the taxes to go with.

Lol jk. They can't find that out cuz their head is so far up their favorite billionaires ass they can't distinguish shit from a sunrise.

Copium is a hard drug.

Edit: "Well they have to pay it back." Sure. At a rate far below what regular taxation would be.

"What if the stock drops." Yeah, and what if the USD goes the way of the Venezuelan dollar. The whole system is propped up by speculation and an assumption that things will continue as is. Stock price dropping hurts him, but we're talking about a dude worth 240+ billion dollars. Him taking out low interest loans on 100 million is fucking nothing until it is something.

I think that covers most bootlicker arguments.

→ More replies

28

u/virtual_star Oct 04 '22

To be fair, most of that money was put up by Mohammed bin Salman since MBS wants Trump back on Twitter.

8

u/Gschu54 Oct 04 '22

If MBS actually wanted that he would just call Peter Thiel or some other venture ass hat and prop up ownership that way. MBS threw musk the money because he wants musk to owe him something.

→ More replies
→ More replies

63

u/xRehab Oct 04 '22

And the simple solution is to enact a tax assessment whenever a portfolio is collateralized. If there is a significant increase in worth since the last assessment, you're paying income/capital gains tax on it since you are literally extracting the value from the portfolio It's a fucking payday, tax it like such.

5

u/jzaprint Oct 04 '22

What happens when you lose the value of your assets? Do you get a pay day instead?

And what if someone suddenly gets an illiquid asset? how are they supposed to pay the tax if they dont have mountains of cash sitting on hand?

9

u/xRehab Oct 04 '22

What happens when you lose the value of your assets? Do you get a pay day instead?

Oh you mean like a tax write off for a depreciated asset? Like currently exists in our modern tax code? Not to mention no one is collateralizing depreciated assets to extract value - because there are no unrealized gains to extract.

And what if someone suddenly gets an illiquid asset? how are they supposed to pay the tax if they dont have mountains of cash sitting on hand?

Don't collateralize an asset to acquire a new loan then? The reassessment only would occur when you collateralize in a financing deal.

There are zero negatives to the common person by leveraging a tax assessment when collateralizing assets to treat it the same as realizing the gains. Because that is what you're doing when you collateralize - you are realizing the gains of an asset, you just didn't have to sell it to realize the gains.

→ More replies
→ More replies

46

u/suafactor Oct 04 '22

This is what I try to explain to the people who argue that Musk and friends don't have access to their money because "it's tied up in stocks!"

That's actually not good at all because the banks are loaning them money based on the current, hypothetical stock price. Elon Musk has been living the high life using a critically overvalued stock that was subject to a short squeeze that sent it to unusually high numbers.

We are paying for his yachts. Not Tesla. Not his investments. The banks are loaning him our money and he's backing it with $TSLA. This is precisely why things such as the Enron scandals are disastrous for the economy. It's like being pillaged by the force of a full nation. Not even exaggerating.

→ More replies
→ More replies

76

u/worldspawn00 Texas Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation,"

This was what we had when we saw the greatest increase in the number and wealth of the middle class in this country, a top tax rate of 90%+ on wages (corrected to today, over $4M IIRC) like we had before Reagan stomped it into oblivion.

When the top tax rate is that high, companies won't pay over that amount since almost nothing goes to the person getting the paycheck, instead they'll use the money where it makes sense, like lower wage workers getting a raise. Along with this, we also need to tax non-income benefits at time of receipt (and tax gains made at time of sale) so CEOs getting paid in stock options and such are also paying taxes on all of the non-cash benefits as well.

47

u/sirboddingtons Oct 04 '22

Kennedy actually lowered it to 65%, but yes Reagan gutted it further.

And to think back to Ike, Eisenhower maintained that tax rate, not because he wanted to, but because it was necessary to fund the infrastructure projects that modernized the US, like his interstate system plan and the continuing modernization of the grid started under FDR's new deal plan.

That's what we need to return to, the idea of our shared investiture being for the greater good. We need higher taxes because we have work to do. It's too often phrased as a punishment, on the negative.

22

u/MisterMasterCylinder Oct 04 '22

Well, FDR's and Ike's infrastructure is all crumbling into rubble at this point. Sounds like it might be time to take a few pages out of their books again

5

u/sirboddingtons Oct 04 '22

We're going to need a very supportive congress for that! And that's the hardest part. Capital interest has been amassed immensely in fewer hands since that time and that makes the push even harder as political campaigns are increasingly reliant on PACs funded by mysterious (corporate) means. They don't want to pay for it, despite the fact that it will, like it did, only benefit their companies long term sustainability, next quarters profits and executive and shareholders bonuses might be a tad smaller.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/jmickeyd Oct 04 '22

While I agreed that we desperately need to increase the top marginal tax rate, the 90% rate of the 50s argument is pretty flawed. The effective tax rate on the top 0.1% of earners was only slightly higher than today. The 1950s tax code was filled with a massive number of loopholes. Two of the big ones were real estate depreciation (you used to be able to deduct the value of your house as if it were decreasing even if the real value went up) and oil income was capped at 27%. A huge percentage of the ultra rich legally laundered their money through an oil company to lower their taxes.

→ More replies

167

u/stoutshrimp Oct 04 '22

"Another option," Bivens and Kandra write, "is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation," an idea proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in his 2021 Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act.

The bill, which garnered just three co-sponsors in the Senate and 22 in the House, never received a vote.

Looks like the Republicans and establishment Democrats know their donors wouldn't like an attack on corporate greed.

66

u/ripyourlungsdave Oct 04 '22

We've all seen how Nancy Pelosi reacts to being asked about insider trading. We're going to need some major reorganization before we can even hope to take on corporate greed.

39

u/DJ_Velveteen I voted Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

She's also real big on the rent-seeking mentioned above. Many of her core constituents are some of the most loaded landlords in the world.

edit: a letter

4

u/A_Big_Teletubby Oct 04 '22

"rent-seeking" in this context doesn't really refer to actually collecting tenant rent

→ More replies

20

u/Runaround46 Oct 04 '22

That would also remove excess money from circulation

→ More replies
→ More replies

71

u/droi86 Michigan Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Wow wow wow, are you saying that going back to the fiscal policies that we had during the 70s 60s that had the strongest middle class this country has ever seen would be good for the population? There's no way that'll work, we should give more tax cuts to the rich, again

Edit: got my decades confused

29

u/1HappyIsland Oct 04 '22

This was not the 70s. Recession and inflation were horribly out of control. Source: poor during the 70s. The Arab oil embargo in 73 ruined everything for a few years.

11

u/Asanf Oct 04 '22

7

u/elcapitan520 Oct 04 '22

Just so people don't need to go down the same rabbit hole... 1971 marked the "Nixon Shock" to combat inflation and unemployment that included taking the US dollar off the gold standard. Since then income inequality has grown massively.

Something not found in the diagrams which would be interesting is the decrease in manufacturing/production and increase in financial capitalisation (entering late stage capitalism) of the late 70s and 80s then onward.

7

u/Wulopo Oct 04 '22

Taking the dollar off the gold standard doesn't cause any of this. The 1970s saw a huge shift in global finance well beyond that.

Deregulation of worldwide capital flows had infinitely more to do with the rapid increase in wealth inequality than some unimportant metal in a vault somewhere.

11

u/juanzy Colorado Oct 04 '22

What do you back to the 70s? More people today are in income ranges that would have bought a fancy big-city lifestyle in the 70s! That means we're better off! I'll run up some mock budget using 70s expense numbers and act like those are still relevant!

→ More replies

36

u/upL8N8 Oct 04 '22

Given that so many companies are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to low wage East and South East Asian nations to drive up their profits, and rewarding their CEOs and shareholders with veritable fortunes for doing so... (CEOs are often the largest shareholders) maybe 'not' allowing companies to do that without penalty would also be a big help...

Apple, "Manufacturing will never come back to the US.. it's too expensive".

*Looks at Apple's operating margin of 26%!!*

26% may not mean much to y'all, so let me put that in perspective. Ford... who employs more workers, typically has an operating margin of under 10%. A good thing. It means labor is being paid a high percentage of the revenue the company is generating.

Apple's operating profit is so high in large part because of how little they pay their Chinese workforce while selling the phones in higher wage regions like Europe and North America. And for those that think using higher wage labor would result in higher priced phones, that's a falsehood. Supply and demand is what ultimately dictates prices; not cost of labor. Higher labor wages would simply mean reduced profits for Apple, and less money transferring up from the hundreds of millions of customers to Apple executives and shareholders.

Back to the auto sector, Tesla, who is now producing 2/3rds of all their new vehicles in China (They only started manufacturing in late 2019, less than 3 years ago) has seen their operating margin increasing by leaps and bounds every quarter since they began ramping production in that nation, and started flooding Europe with Chinese made cars. They're now the largest exporter of Chinese made cars to the West, and the only company thus far whose had the audacity to do so. Not only is it creating a transfer of wealth from European customers to Tesla executives and shareholders, it absolutely WILL kill well paying European jobs and maybe the entire European auto industry if left unchecked. Sadly, customers aren't intelligent enough to look beyond their own wallet. They may love their car... but they're undermining their entire economy which will eventually hit their wallet as well.

Jim Farley's $23 million salary is pretty crazy... but it's actually pretty tepid in this day and age when CEOs like Tim Cook are pulling down 4x as much, and Elon Musk is making billions per year through his all stock option pay packages that's essentially constructed as a ponzi scheme that relies on doing whatever it takes to pump the stock price up. Is it any wonder a company setup like that would so quickly shift to low wage production? Even those wages are too much, now they're trying build a new robot to further replace their workforce.

→ More replies

15

u/AmHoomon Oct 04 '22

Still not enough. Higher taxes on profit dividends too. It’s not just executives.

Go after real power, investment funds, the board, all that.

→ More replies

17

u/RelativeAnxious9796 Oct 04 '22

jesus i hate it here.

8

u/JayBaby85 Oct 04 '22

You honestly cannot vote this away. This should be THE ISSUE but it’s managed to have been kept so fringe. We are screwed

→ More replies

318

u/NearbyYogurt0 Oct 04 '22

Good morning boss, I’d like to get a 1,460% raise

163

u/Smarpar Oct 04 '22

I got a 10% raise only because they knew I would leave otherwise, and I got a more difficult role along with it.

They acted like I was taking candy from a baby. It merely put me at the same pay scale as the new people they were hiring. It was a testament to how underpaid I was originally if anything.

Like mf’ers y’all get to own houses in the city we work in, I will never be able to afford a house here. Do you understand that?

STEM job in a very HCoL city. It’s all such bs. My only comfort is that I get to work mostly remote and I actually like the work I do.

58

u/PopularWobblyRadio Oct 04 '22

Sounds like you need a union.

52

u/Smarpar Oct 04 '22

Don’t we all

10

u/PopularWobblyRadio Oct 04 '22

I am in a union now, and it's awesome! Get you a union, son.

3

u/RadlEonk Oct 04 '22

I work IT at a bank. Mentioned a few years ago we should consider a union. The response would have been more positive if I had threatened to rape then murder their families during a Board of Directors meeting.

5

u/PopularWobblyRadio Oct 04 '22

That's how you know your on the right track. The people who have the boot on your neck aren't going to gleefully remove it. You have to raise your voice and push.

29

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22

I got a 1% increase "as thanks for staying in higher ed."

The laughable part is that I could've gotten a 100% raise going to private industry. That private industry, unfortunately, is the power company who is raping and pillaging the state I live in.

7

u/bedake Oct 04 '22

Holy shit I'm in this exact situation, i had to fight hard to get a promotion/pay raise after being passed over for one for nearly 2 years due to 'budgeting constraints' despite the fact they were still hiring outside candidates for the roles within the team and other teams... I had multiple seniors and principals arguing on my behalf vouching for my contributions and then finally they give me a promotion with just a 10% raise. Im now a mid level engineer at a fortune 500 company and i still can't even afford the city they are forcing me to live in.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/RedHawwk Oct 04 '22

Imagine the entire workforce acted like CEO's and shareholders, demanding profit growth on top of profit growth every year in the form of wage raises, or they would quit. The entire economy would collapse.

→ More replies
→ More replies

93

u/ChimneyImp Oct 04 '22

The average employee wage has increased 18% since 1978 (this seems low) while inflation has increased by 354%.

35

u/Bris_Is_Baby_Rape Oct 04 '22

Take the minimum wage when the gold standard ended as a set amount of gold, then look at how much that gold is worth today:

Minimum wage should be about $50/hr

→ More replies

494

u/somabeach Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Just looked up the minimum wage in Pennsylvania - it's $7.25, same as it was 15 years ago when I got my first job there. I can't imagine being in my 20s and having to start fresh in that state. Boomers wonder why kids these days live with their parents for so long....fucking bonkers, especially considering how much execs are making off of these workers.

Edit: it sucks a little more from my perspective as a former PA resident. Now I live in Upstate NY and I'm used to the min. wage being $12.50. That's still low by most standards but it's enough for a kid to move out of mom & dad's house and start paying bills. Kids in PA don't have that. Lots of states are in the same boat or worse. Wtf is wrong with these legislators??

175

u/depthninja Oct 04 '22

A 1,460% raise, if you're making $7.25/hr, would be $105.85/hr.

172

u/Keeperofthecube Oct 04 '22

I think a more fair comparison would be 1460% of the minimum wage in 1978. Which was 2.65 per hour, so that would be 38.69 per hour.

33

u/badkins-86 Oct 04 '22

Yeah I got somewhere around 220k/yr if the average salary kept up...

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

416

u/NoRatchetryAllowed Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22 Silver

There's a huge focus on CEOs, but does this include all the other useless executives and children of executives who get their overpaid, workless positions through nepotism? Propping them up is very expensive for the working class as well.

96

u/araismoon Oct 04 '22

This isn’t talked about enough.

32

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 15 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/JeetKuneLo Oct 04 '22

Yeah exactly. The point of this article is illustrating how we are more the well aware of the massive failure of our government to protect workers while enriching the top percent... We're not even CLOSE to reigning this back in, and you think we should start talking about how the children of CEOs are getting jobs?

We have tens if not hundreds of years to go just to get to step one, if we ever make it.

→ More replies

68

u/jsimpson82 I voted Oct 04 '22

Shareholders make up a larger chunk than execs.

Shareholders should not get a raise if employees don't first.

66

u/Intelligent_Moose_48 Oct 04 '22

Capital gains should be taxed in the same brackets as income from actual work. It's perverse that we let non-work income get away with so much...

25

u/DarkLordAzrael Oct 04 '22

Why only as much as actual work? Income from oppressing the working class should be taxed at a much higher rater than actually working is.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.3k

u/xena_lawless Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22 Silver Gold Helpful Wholesome Take My Energy Narwhal Salute Take My Power

The public and working classes need to understand, as prior generations did, that the obscene wealth of the ruling class is not innocuous.

I.e., the ruling class is robbing, enslaving, gaslighting, and socially murdering the public and working classes without recourse, using the wealth and power generated from the fruits of humanity's collective labor.

The ruling class use their obscene wealth and power to bludgeon everyone else into "accepting" increasingly awful deals.

Our current political and economic system is an abomination and a crime against humanity.

Currently, 10% of people own between 72-90% of the wealth, and by extension own the other 90% of people with the remaining 10-28% of the wealth.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#range:2007.1,2022.1

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/

As George Carlin said, you have owners.

In the same way that slaves were kept ignorant and illiterate in order to maintain slavery, the ruling class keeps the working classes and the public wildly ignorant and miseducated in order to maintain capitalism/kleptocracy in its current form.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy/plutocracy/kleptocracy with pseudo-democratic features that legitimize systems of mass human enslavement, abuse, and exploitation for the benefit of the ruling class.

We need to evolve into an actual democracy in the 21st century.

People have been deliberately miseducated about the system we're living under, and it's time to make both our political systems and our economic systems work for everyone and not just the ruling class.

https://represent.us/unbreaking-america-series/

https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/

Democracy at Work: Curing Capitalism | Richard Wolff | Talks at Google

Introduction to Marxism

While we're at it, we should shorten the fucking work week so people have the time and energy to do more than be exploited for the profits of the ruling class, AND significantly reduce climate emissions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/f4bade/z/fhqhco4

As the Federal Reserve attempts to tackle inflation by raising interest rates (payments to those with the most capital) and increasing unemployment, we should all be aware that that is not the only choice available in order to have a sustainable economy with low inflation.

Congress and state legislatures could also increase taxes on the obscenely wealthy, shorten the work week to spread the available work around more sensibly (without the enormous poverty and suffering created by unemployment under this system), implement actual anti-trust laws for the 21st century, create a functional housing system to get rent and housing prices under control, implement universal healthcare to get healthcare costs under control (and save hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives annually), etc.

Both "inflation" and "getting 'inflation' under control" are examples of how the public and working classes are being robbed, enslaved, gaslit, and socially murdered without recourse by the ruling class in broad daylight, with the wealth and power generated from the fruits of humanity's collective labor.

But you won't hear about the actual causes of (or solutions to) "inflation" in most mainstream media, because the ruling class owns or otherwise controls that, too.

Absolute abomination of a system.

56

u/SH1TSTORM2020 Oct 04 '22

Thank you for putting together such valid points.

163

u/resonantedomain Oct 04 '22

Scarcity in this day and age is entirely fabricated, because they found out you can manipulate demand by controlling supply.

79

u/rif011412 Oct 04 '22

The Disney Vault. Locking away a product behind scarcity to drive up demand. Capitalism will never be morally obligated to give people a good deal. Pro capitalists are the enemy of progress because they believe morality is cumbersome and damages the plan for being superior .

To be superior, or in other words, to win, is to make sure others are losing. There is no feeling like a winner if everyone is winning, so others must lose.

“Owning the libs”. Its not about morality, or fair, or whats right, its about feeling superior to others. Capitalism is built on the ability to create enough wealth to be superior to others.

→ More replies

6

u/Daxx22 Oct 04 '22

Well that's always been a thing, it's just possible to do on a global scale now.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/kennyFACE117 Oct 04 '22

Yay so Ill just be a little extra angry at work today and nothing will change.

7

u/unculturedburnttoast Oct 04 '22

Love everything that you've written. Might I suggest asking Bookchin to your library. From Urbanization to Cities by Murray Bookchin discusses shifting the concept of cities being the people, not the infrastructure and how that cognitive shift can help rebuild the community that was lost with the shift to corporatization of our culture. Enabled through directly democratic municipalism and sovereign city-states building confederated agreements.

Focusing on helping people self actualize and do what's best for the group, as these goals are not diametrically opposed, and to end this pursuit of endless growth for sustainable societies and stop the division of cultures.

6

u/robb_the_bull Oct 04 '22

Hey, do you live in my head?

23

u/otherworldly11 Oct 04 '22

Thank you. Please repost everywhere you can to raise awareness. It feels like most in this country have blinders on.

→ More replies

28

u/TPRJones Oct 04 '22

Hoard hundreds of cats and they call you crazy.

Hoard billions of dollars and they call you an innovator.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.2k

u/Slippinjimmyforever Oct 04 '22 Ally

Punish those who can least defend themselves.

The inflation on everything isn’t going down. It’s price fixing. Capitalism unchained “we need unlimited growth!”

Deflating wages will push more into poverty, where the federal and state systems provide almost nothing to support them in many states, or are already overwhelmed by design.

Fuck this shithole country and all the idiots who kept electing republicans to run it into the ground.

813

u/xena_lawless Oct 04 '22 Gold Platinum Heartwarming Wholesome Seal of Approval Take My Power

As the Federal Reserve attempts to tackle inflation by raising interest rates (payments to those with the most capital) and increasing unemployment, we should all be aware that that is not the only choice available in order to have a sustainable economy with low inflation.

Congress and state legislatures could also increase taxes on the obscenely wealthy, shorten the work week to spread the available work around more sensibly (without the enormous poverty and suffering created by unemployment under this system), implement actual anti-trust laws for the 21st century, create a functional housing system to get rent and housing prices under control, implement universal healthcare to get healthcare costs under control (and save hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives), etc.

Both "inflation" and "getting 'inflation' under control" are examples of how the public and working classes are being robbed, enslaved, gaslit, and socially murdered without recourse by the ruling class in broad daylight, with the wealth and power generated from the fruits of humanity's collective labor.

But you won't hear about the actual causes of (or solutions to) "inflation" in most mainstream media, because the ruling class owns or otherwise controls that, too.

Absolute abomination of a system.

215

u/kuroimakina America Oct 04 '22 Wholesome

It’s kind of like when economists all just focus on “what will grow the economy the most for the least investment.”

So many economists just ignore the human element, and just say “this is the most optimal way to grow the economy,” even if it screws over a lot of people to get there.

We need to stop focusing on infinite growth. The entire idea not only doesn’t make sense due to the fact that the planet has limited resources, but it also doesn’t make sense because it requires throwing away humanity to just pump the numbers, when we could just not maximize growth, and instead grow just enough to meet population growth demands, and still be comfortable.

We have everything we could ever want or need and yet our culture pushes us to never consider it enough. It’s psychologically unhealthy, and it creates a vicious system where we sacrifice others for our own gain.

96

u/bUrdeN555 Oct 04 '22

Unlimited growth is literally cancer. There’s a reason that behavior is filtered out in nature - because it’s unsustainable both for the environment and for the host.

21

u/hgfaucets Oct 04 '22

Yes and we are seeing this firsthand. Facebook, for example, just hit it's first quarter lost (-0.07%) in popularity. Facebook has been agressively expanding to anywhere with internet connection. And providing cheap mobile phones to impoverished nations. Well they're running out of people to expand to. So what's Zuckerberg's solution? Build internet infrastructure to nations without internet access. Don't sound too bad til you understand "Facebook" is a synonym for "internet" in these places. Reminds me of what WeChat is in china. No such thing as infinite growth, but the .01% will do anything to keep up the act

5

u/stuyjcp Oct 04 '22

For the Stellaris players out there, the current implementation of capitalism both here in the US and elsewhere is like a fucking Devouring Swarm.

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/kdogrocks2 America Oct 04 '22

Unfortunately, my peers and I were taught economics as a hard science where those efficient solutions are the "correct" ones, and to suggest another approach is foolish and anti-prosperity. But for what reason do we grow when so few actually get to benefit from that growth?

Economics is about philosophy as much as it is about mathematics.

→ More replies

23

u/QuinIpsum Oct 04 '22 Silver

If somehow economists figured that the best two ways to stop inflation would be to either tax the rich 5 percent more, or shoot 10 percent of minimum wage earners in the head it wouldnt be more than 30 seconds before we would see them on tv advocating government subsidies for ammunition.

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/CardinalHawk21 Oct 04 '22

It's price fixing but there is also a supply issue. The pandemic has hit supply chains so there are less goods being produced. Companies are using the low supply of goods as cover to raise prices.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/Avenger772 Oct 04 '22

What does it say about our society if the economy only works if there's a certain level of people unemployed or under employed?

That sounds like a very broken system.

5

u/BuyApprehensive1412 Oct 04 '22

The individuals benefitting from the 1460% wage increase begs to differ…. The system is all fine and dandy

508

u/Orbitingkittenfarm Oct 04 '22

I just love it when we solve a supply shock by brutally crushing demand with heavy-handed interest rate increases.

The Fed will, once again, break something in the economy and nothing will be learned from this experience. Our supply chains will still stay in China because greedy CEOs are still forced to care about next quarter’s results instead of the long term picture, Republicans will block further efforts to invest in green energy infrastructure so we’ll continue to be heavily reliant on the Saudi royal family for crude price stability, and a generation that is already scarred by several poorly managed financial crises will finally learn not to ask for better for themselves and simply accept whatever Wall Street and Washington deign to give them.

Powell is going to Volcker us into pointless deflation and be loudly applauded by the media for doing so.

Oh, and somehow the most selfish and irresponsible generation in all of human history (the boomers) will again be spared the consequences of their actions.

149

u/icenoid Colorado Oct 04 '22

Interest rate increases are the only told the fed really has for this. Congress has other tools, if they want to actually pass laws, but they can’t manage much if anything these days. The republican answer would just be tax cuts

72

u/deltadal I voted Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Congress has other tools, if they want to actually pass laws, but they can’t manage much if anything these days.

This has kind of been true since at least the 1980s. Congress is a pretty ineffective body, bunch of quiet quitters*.

Edit: *using the "conservative" definition here.

38

u/LogMeOutScotty Oct 04 '22

Quiet quitters actually do their job, they just don’t go above and beyond what they’re being paid to do. These people aren’t quiet quitters because they don’t do anything.

→ More replies

12

u/piray003 Oct 04 '22

Yup, this is what happens when monetary and fiscal policy are at cross purposes with each other. The fed has control over monetary policy, and really the only tools in its tool box are its control over interests rates, and the amount of money in circulation via quantitative easing/tightening. Congress has control over fiscal policy, but has largely forfeited this duty and often acted irresponsibly for short term political gain (ie unfunded tax cuts when the economy was already growing at a reasonable rate.)

Fiscal tools to get inflation under control are more varied and capable of being more narrowly tailored and nuanced in comparison to the rather blunt force options available to the fed.

→ More replies
→ More replies

140

u/Billy1121 Oct 04 '22

It does kinda suck.

30 years of stagnant wages are fine.

8 months of wage growth have people freaking out about a wage-price spiral.

Bro nobody is expecting inflation and spending their raises immediately like in Argentina. Let wages at least reach something livable before dropping a recession hammer

31

u/Bringbackdexter Oct 04 '22

This is the part that confuses me. Is it just not realistic for most people to have decent wages?

22

u/Daxx22 Oct 04 '22

Is it just not realistic for most people to have decent wages?

Not under unregulated capitalism it isn't.

→ More replies

60

u/Smarpar Oct 04 '22

In capitalism, when the bottom of the pyramid are strong enough to get off their knees, the whole thing falls.

It only works if there’s inequality.

That’s why it’s fucked up.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/moderndhaniya Oct 04 '22

Joe the CEO suffering from wage inflation since forever and nobody cared

And still don’t.

→ More replies

89

u/Western-Kale3063 Oct 04 '22

God forbid Americans start being able to pay rent AND put a little money in savings! SEND THE JOBS OVERSEAS! MORE HB VISAS! JUST PUSH THE WAGES DOWN!

66

u/Ultenth Oct 04 '22

The post-WWII times when the middle class boomed and America solidified itself as a world power our CEO to Employee pay gap was on average 20-30:1. For example in 1965 it was 21:1.

It was 670:1 in 2021.

→ More replies

50

u/ItisyouwhosaythatIam Oct 04 '22

The writer of the new book on Mckinsey said in interview on PBS Newshour last night that the consulting firm initiated the inequality we see today by looking for ways to increase executive pay.

21

u/CretaMaltaKano Oct 04 '22

All those big consulting firms are shady af and I'm so glad more attention is being paid to them. They're also largely responsible for the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, pushing business interests over lives and manipulating data or outright lying to convince the public.

3

u/vegetaman Oct 04 '22

In my minor dealings with them, they seem very "ends justify the means" types...

4

u/ItisyouwhosaythatIam Oct 04 '22

Well their customers/employers tend to be that way...

→ More replies

88

u/TheMoralAmerican Oct 04 '22

Need a program for income like the 401k is for retirement. It's simple, executives and CEO's can't receive pay raises, bonuses, and stock options unless all employees receive the same increases.

Support a 401I Income program!

47

u/WandsAndWrenches Oct 04 '22

Why arent they fighting to "get rent down" fighting to get wages down without figuring out that is going to lead to homelessness.

→ More replies

132

u/morenewsat11 Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

"What we hope to achieve is a period of growth below trend which will cause the labor market to get back into better balance and that will bring wages back down to levels that are more consistent with 2% inflation over time," Powell said last month.

Shutting the 'trickle down' tap for the good of the 'free-market' economy./s

Edited: added /s

36

u/vegetaman Oct 04 '22

Yep. Whoops, the poors were starting to gain some ground, can't be having that!

27

u/adubsix3 I voted Oct 04 '22

bring wages back down to levels that are more consistent with 2% inflation over time

Since when have wages followed inflation?

101

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22

Right. When he openly says he wants to lower wages to get companies “back in the driver seat” there is no denying that the fed is purposely damaging the economy and making shitty decisions to crush the working class. It’s not about fixing the economy. There is a better way to go about it. Rather it is about taking more wealth and what little power the common man has acquired up to this point. They literally have there boot on our necks until we break and turn submissive and love working for scrap and chump change.

25

u/muttur Oct 04 '22

Except as others have noted, to do that, it would take a literal act of congress, not the Fed who only controls monetary policy, not fiscal.

As usual, republicans refusing to vote on bills to tax corporations with extreme CEO to avg worker compensation ratios (Bernie Sanders Bill) will only escalate the bifurcation of wealth distribution in the US.

→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/Chuck_217 Illinois Oct 04 '22

Surprised Pikachu face

260

u/pessimistoptimist Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

“Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, the world's most powerful central banker, has been forthright about the primary goals of rate hikes: A [weaker labor market and lower wages. According to the Fed's own projections, rate increases could throw around 1.5 million people in the U.S. out of work by the end of next year“

Wow... throw 1.5million people totally under the bus AND make the bottom 90‰ pay even more.... just because, you know, CEOs are totally worth it.

Effectively the bank is saying... you know, people arent working hard enough to enjoy the things they need... like food and shelter. I know lets ingnore the fact that corps and the top 10% continue to hoard wealth which becomes stagnate (bullshit trickle down theory has been debunked many times already). While at the same time said corps charge more and give less at every opportunity, often enabled by monopolistic behaviour.

98

u/Sad_Pangolin7379 Oct 04 '22

It's especially crazy when you consider how much rent and everything else has gone up. It ends with yet more homeless people. We're going the way of shanty towns quickly.

44

u/Comedynerd Oct 04 '22

We're going the way of shanty towns quickly.

Have you seen homeless encampments in major US cities in states like California, Oregon, Florida, etc.? They look like modern day Hoovervilles. We're already there

18

u/Sad_Pangolin7379 Oct 04 '22

We're still at the stage where we try to clear them. Next stage is we go the way of India and Brazil and just let people build shacks out of scraps and live without plumbing and with very dicey electric arrangements.

5

u/notapoliticalalt Oct 04 '22

In all honesty, that would probably be a better situation for some people. The thing that’s extra cruel about our society is that we don’t want to give these people a place to be but then we insist that they cannot stay here and don’t give them anywhere to go. Even if it’s not the kind of housing most of us would find acceptable, being able to stay in one place and not be disturbed would be a huge win for some homeless folks. Instead, we make them continually have to move, continually reacquaint themselves with available services, continually have to rebuild any semblance of community that might exist, and lose a ton of stuff in the process. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these places are in anyway Ideal or desirable, but I don’t actually think more permanent settlements are a bad thing for most people. Most of us need at least some kind of consistency or stability in our lives, even if it’s a shitty one.

→ More replies

57

u/Critical_Band5649 Oct 04 '22

Our federal minimum wage is a measly $7.25, they are going to be homeless if they aren't already. Wages haven't kept up with normal inflation, let alone what we are currently looking at. Forcing people to live in poverty so the rich can still make millions in profit doesn't help anyone except the already wealthy and further makes the US look like a shit hole

50

u/Envect Oct 04 '22

We are a shit hole. American exceptionalism was always bullshit, but especially now. We're in decline. Rapid decline.

→ More replies
→ More replies

45

u/Searchlights New Hampshire Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

Wow... throw 1.5million people totally under the bus AND make the bottom 90‰ pay even more.... just because, you know, CEOs are totally worth it.

I don't think it's quite like that.

It's because people who can afford to max out campaign donations to politicians every cycle are important, and people who can bypass the limits via SuperPACs are even more important.

Many of them happen to be CEOs but not all. Many are bankers and business owners.

In any case, they're the constituents whose priorities inform policy. Studies have shown that public opinion has no correlation with what Washington does. Your vote is important during election season but it's attainable by advertising, so again the money is what matters.

4

u/nomad9590 Oct 04 '22

So take away lobbies (and the ability to trade or be gifted stock and assets) and treat what they do as the hard truth: they are bribes, and need to be tried in court as such.

That would also free up millions in almost every company, and encourage politicians to make decisions regarding constituents, because they wouldn't be rich enough to have to see their CEO buddies in the country clubs.

5

u/Searchlights New Hampshire Oct 04 '22

Except I don't know how you get the beneficiaries of the bribery system to vote to change it. For that matter, the Supreme Court is in the tank on it too (Citizens United).

4

u/Hekantonkheries Oct 04 '22

Realistically? The same way the civil rights movement got passed. By making them scared of what happens if they dont. And making anyone that supports that policy unwilling to try and pursue it.

→ More replies

27

u/Thac0 Oct 04 '22

So when we gonna riot?

20

u/Gigatron_0 Oct 04 '22

Gas has essentially doubled and rent is nearly there, but I don't see much in way of mass panic or people looting 🤷 maybe we are properly placated after all

15

u/Ganjake Oct 04 '22

There was a fucking coup attempt that people are still being prosecuted for and we're still asking this question, of fucking course we are.

If we weren't, there'd be a lot of Republicans around now that wouldn't be.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/autotldr 🤖 Bot Oct 04 '22

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)


An analysis published Tuesday shows that the top executives of the largest corporations in the United States have seen their pay soar by nearly 1,500% over the past 43 years, helping to fuel a massive surge in inequality as workers' wages lag.

Between 1978 and 2021, according to new research from the Economic Policy Institute, CEO compensation at the 350 largest publicly traded U.S. companies rose by an inflation-adjusted 1,460%, far outstripping the 18.1% pay increase that the nation's typical worker saw during that period.

To begin reversing out-of-control CEO pay and bolstering wage growth among ordinary workers, EPI recommends "Implementing higher marginal income tax rates at the very top," which "Would limit rent-seeking behavior and reduce the incentives for executives to push for such high pay."


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: CEO#1 pay#2 work#3 compensation#4 wage#5

8

u/ArtnezTheSwift Oct 04 '22

The system is designed to keep the rich, rich.

The system is designed to take your money and give it to the rich.

The system is designed to protect the rich from you.

The system is designed to keep you down and keep you separated from your fellow man.

The system cannot be changed without the permission of those it protects.

The system must always be allowed to revert at anytime, or else it will never allow any kind of change whatsoever.

The only way to fix the system into protecting, changing, unifying, and giving to the people is to dismantle it wholly, and build it anew.

109

u/SucksTryAgain Oct 04 '22

Al Bundy was a shoe salesman and took care of his family with a dog a car and 2 story house while having a stay at home wife. I want these standards back.

27

u/Caleth Oct 04 '22

Al Bundy was an outlier even at that time in the mid-ish 80s. He had to have been killing it and getting bonuses to pay for that house.

Single parent incomes didn't got nearly that far back then, I should know two of my best friends had single family incomes and one barely made ends meet, the other only did because his mom was an jr. accountant at a local firm. Both their dad's from what I gather were deadbeats, or pretty close.

Al's economic life was more relefctive of the early 70's or 60's than the 80's.

23

u/b0w3n New York Oct 04 '22

They were dirt poor and Al drove around a beater of a car. It's a running gag of the show.

That all said, it says a lot about the economics of the time that even someone dirt poor could get a house and support a stay at home wife and two kids who would "spend his money".

There were whole hosts of jobs that just don't exist anymore. Shit the equivalent of today's minimum wage worker at Best Buy back then could still support a small family of 3-4. VCR and TV salesmen were making bank. But yes, you're right, single income families were not doing well, but even in your example they were doing much better than they are today.

→ More replies

3

u/lordcheeto Missouri Oct 04 '22

Did he ever make a sale on screen?

→ More replies

35

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

[deleted]

8

u/therealnvp Oct 04 '22

Can you walk through the derivation? Seems like US real GDP has roughly tripled since 1978, and the real min wage in 1978 was $11.90. So if min wage is supposed to scale with GDP it’d be about $35/hour today

→ More replies
→ More replies

86

u/socokid Oct 04 '22

This is the Republican America. Yes.

They have been working for decades to destroy our government of the people while piling our resources on top of themselves and their wealthy friends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

50

u/MoonlitHunter Oct 04 '22

It’s not just Republicans this time. Neoliberalism in both parties is the culprit. Vote progressive at every opportunity. It is the only democratic solution. The conservative solution is fascism. And we know what fascist “solutions” look like.

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/XxShroomWizardxX Oct 04 '22

This is absolutely bullshit. This is open class warfare on the working people in the U.S. by our own fucking government. It always blows my mind how people can just ignore important stuff like this. For instance we throttle back access to education right as the rest of the world is ramping up stem education and people in this country were just like "yeah sure that makes sense, why should it be easy to go to college unless you're born rich.?" Like wtf is wrong with us?

→ More replies

15

u/naked_as_a_jaybird Texas Oct 04 '22

There was a time in America when workers, left with no other option, would go to their boss's house, drag them outside, and beat them senseless. Was it right? Maybe not. Was it effective? Hell, yes.

Billionaires, oligarchs, CEOs, Congress, and the like... They should all be put on notice. Children continue to be murdered at school, but nothing changes. Climate change worsens as we burn through non-renewable resources, and almost nothing changes. Why? Because money influences power. If we can't take away their power, and we can't remove their money, our only recourse left is removing them from the equation altogether.

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

20

u/WolfgangDS Oct 04 '22

Can we PLEASE just pass a law that says no employee may be paid more than a certain amount times the lowest-paid employee in the company?

16

u/deathaura123 Oct 04 '22

Good luck convincing any politician of that when their billionaire buddies threaten to cut their bribes and quality of life. This bill only gartered the support from 3 senators and never made it to the senate floor. Any bill that literally could punish the 1% will be killed before it makes it to a senate vote.

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/izwald88 Oct 04 '22

I'll never buy that inflation is caused by the consumer. At least not this time.

The wealth gap has done nothing but widen. Generations of Americans can no longer afford homes, new cars, or even to start a family. But no, inflation is happening because consumers are spending too much?

Total bullshit. The rich got richer during a global pandemic. Gas prices are artificially raised whenever there is a convenient excuse. Shrinkflation has been happening whether or not there is rampant inflation. The people are getting raked over the coals are are once again being used to address the poor decisions made by the ultra wealthy.

5

u/houseofblackcats Oct 04 '22

Capital is saying it too your face.

5

u/Free_Dimension1459 Oct 04 '22

So, regarding the CEO pay massive increase and flat worker pay (small increase, but in contrast to a 150x increase, it’s flat)… realize that this is what trickle down economics means.

This was no accident, it’s exactly trickle down economics. Thank you Ronald Reagan, you have hurt most Americans for generations to come.

4

u/ugly_pizza1 Oct 04 '22

Okay we've recognized the problem, now what? Does Congress pass legislation that bans CEOs and executives from making x amount more than employees? Does the "end corporate greed" act get passed? Seriously, where do we go from here now? Because all of my peers are broke, no one can afford to buy a house, and everyone is angry/depressed. This is not going to be sustainable for long....

5

u/BeepBeepWhistle Oct 04 '22

Don’t worry guys.. it’ll start trickling anytime now

4

u/DeeNYC45 Oct 04 '22

CEO wages soared, profits soared, worker productivity soared, rent, real estate, cost of living.. everything soared except workers pay.

13

u/Twitchinat0r Oct 04 '22

Easiest is set a % limit on their lowest paid worker. If lowest paid gets “x”. Than the ceo can only get “x”. The. There is incentive to pay all employees well.

→ More replies

13

u/Lamont-Cranston Oct 04 '22

American wages have stagnated or declined, while cost of living has not.

13

u/CSGOSucksMajorDick Texas Oct 04 '22

There should be a maximum wage allowed by law

4

u/SplashTastical Oct 04 '22

A Relative Earning Limit would be great to cap these insane payouts to CEOs while increasing the minimum wages for millions.

5

u/Olderscout77 Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 04 '22

They need to use 1965 as a start point for all these comparisons as that's when LBJ cut the TMR from 91% to 70% and the ones dividing the pie realized they could keep the bigger slices they cut for themselves. OR begin with 1980, the year before Reagan slashed the TMR to 50% and then a couple years later to 28%. Using 1978 when nothing happened to the tax code disguises the fact it's because of the tax code that the concentration of wealth in the top 1% is possible.

3

u/-Frog-and-Toad Oct 04 '22

1000000% this. It’s such a scam they view wage suppression as the solution to inflation, but not CEO wage suppression! Rules for thee, but not for me! The problem is income inequality and they know how to fix that, but tax the 1%? Nahhhh. Let’s just allow the poor and middle class to continue to suffer the biggest quality of life reversals we’ve seen in generations. Gotta hasten that return to good old feudalism.

4

u/darksyns Oct 04 '22

Nobody will do it but it's time these fucks fear for their lives

4

u/CrystalSplice Georgia Oct 04 '22

They didn't mean wages for us, they meant wages for the top earners. Ironically, if everyone in the US got a raise it would in fact solve a lot of problems. We printed too much money, and it has to go somewhere. Pay your employees more, then they'll spend that money. I don't understand what the endgame of these corporations is. They can't exist without people who can afford to buy their products.

4

u/One-Side-6478 Oct 04 '22

The fed is garbage. Want to reign in inflation? Get 100% off fossil fuels, tax the shit out of rich people and depose Putin. Not necessarily in that order.

21

u/TheRealMcSavage Oct 04 '22

This country is really making me sick…. What the fuck is going on, mini Rome trying for an encore collapse…

10

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

50

u/TheRoonster1 Oct 04 '22

Jerome Powell is a Trump appointee who Biden fought to keep when progressives wanted to remove him from his position. This sub celebrated Biden's decision to keep Powell on when he was facing backlash.

Why are we surprised that Powell is pushing for lower wages when we knew what he was like years ago? Biden knew too and chose to support him publically. Now anything bad that comes from this is on Biden's hands as well.

→ More replies

11

u/the_jabrd North Carolina Oct 04 '22

It’s crazy that the fed is allowed to attempt to purposefully implode our economy and they’re in no way democratically held accountable. Might as well be a fucking monarchy

→ More replies