PDA

View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF THE DAY 02/23/12!



LWW
02-23-2012, 06:00 AM
According to the reich wingnut AFL-CIO ... CEO to worker pay went from 125: to 525:1 under the William Jefferson Clinton regime.

For victims of public education, that's over 4 times as high a ration.

Meanwhile, under the George Walker Bush regime, it fell from 525:1 to 263:1 ... a drop of almost half:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/2010_trend_chart_2.gif

LWW
02-23-2012, 06:02 AM
Fortunately for Wall Street and the 1%'ers, Barack Hussein Obama II rode to their rescue ... rising the ratio from 263: back up to 343:1 in just one short year.

That amounts to a 27.5% increase in the ratio.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/ceopay_2011_2b.jpg

LWW
02-23-2012, 06:05 AM
Meanwhile, since the demokrooks took over kongress ... US median household income has plummetted.

But, someone has to pay for dear leader's cronies benefit.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/paywatch2011_chart1b.jpg

llotter
02-23-2012, 07:20 AM
This is just another case of selective use of statistics to prove an ideological points. As a former CEO, I can testify that I was underpaid for my contributions.

Soflasnapper
02-23-2012, 12:00 PM
I always enjoy your attempts at math reasoning, and temporal reasoning! Correlation by itself does not prove causation, and just because something happened in one president's term in office doesn't mean he caused it. That claim requires an actual argument about the causation, not just pointing at the correlation.

Here, you may have mistaken cause for effect.

Because, we're talking a ratio, and the ratio can go up without the numerator going up, if the denominator goes down.

You cite numbers showing the average workers pay going down. That means THE IDENTICAL CEO average pay would then show a higher ratio to that denominator, without changing the average ceo pay figure whatsoever.

Sadly for your presentation, as it doesn't provide enough numbers, relying more on ratios, we cannot tease out which made this difference, or if both did, their relative contributions to these changes.

However, considering that the new UAW collective bargaining agreement has agreed that new hires come in at $14/hour, about half the starting rate before, it's clear that the denominator has indeed been going down (and to your applause, as I recall-- dirty stinking corrupt unions, and all).

It must pose quite a question in your own mind-- hating the unions and their demacrook memberships as you do, but then, it's so handy to blame Obama that you kind of stick up for workers, occasionally? What's a propagandist supposed to do? Flip a coin?

Soflasnapper
02-23-2012, 12:03 PM
I get about 5x the average workers' pay as CEO of my companies. Less a multiple compared to our best performers, who are paid more than our average worker.

LWW
02-23-2012, 04:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always enjoy your attempts at math reasoning, and temporal reasoning! Correlation by itself does not prove causation, and just because something happened in one president's term in office doesn't mean he caused it. That claim requires an actual argument about the causation, not just pointing at the correlation.

Here, you may have mistaken cause for effect.

Because, we're talking a ratio, and the ratio can go up without the numerator going up, if the denominator goes down.

You cite numbers showing the average workers pay going down. That means THE IDENTICAL CEO average pay would then show a higher ratio to that denominator, without changing the average ceo pay figure whatsoever.

Sadly for your presentation, as it doesn't provide enough numbers, relying more on ratios, we cannot tease out which made this difference, or if both did, their relative contributions to these changes.

However, considering that the new UAW collective bargaining agreement has agreed that new hires come in at $14/hour, about half the starting rate before, it's clear that the denominator has indeed been going down (and to your applause, as I recall-- dirty stinking corrupt unions, and all).

It must pose quite a question in your own mind-- hating the unions and their demacrook memberships as you do, but then, it's so handy to blame Obama that you kind of stick up for workers, occasionally? What's a propagandist supposed to do? Flip a coin? </div></div>

Can you take a dump without reading the regimes instructions first?

Soflasnapper
02-23-2012, 06:40 PM
Having no answer to clear and relevant questions about your claims, you turn to my toilet habits?

Stretch
02-23-2012, 08:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having no answer to clear and relevant questions about your claims, you turn to my toilet habits? </div></div>

That is his default setting. St.

LWW
02-24-2012, 04:01 AM
This cabal cracks me up/

Y'all have howled at the moon overt this subject, and blindly supported the unions, and no that union sources demonstrate that the change in ratio of CEP to average employee skyrocketed under Clinton ... fell under Bush ... and skyrocketed again under Obama, do you learn and fold this data into your knowledge base?

Of course you don't.

Instead you attack the messenge ... and induce doublethink.

How unsurprising.

Stretch
02-24-2012, 07:00 AM
Thanks for another load of nothing. Your information diet to the single digit membership is great for giggles. St.

Qtec
02-24-2012, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for another load of nothing. </div></div>

So I'm not the only one who noticed this?!!!!!!!!!


Q

Soflasnapper
02-24-2012, 10:25 AM
How did Obama achieve this deed?

From the AFL-CIO where you got the graphic:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For the first time in U.S. history, the federal government was directly responsible for setting CEO pay levels at companies that received “exceptional assistance” from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). As the U.S. Treasury Department’s special master for executive compensation, Kenneth Feinberg required executives to take most of their salary in stock and prohibited perks.

For other financial institutions that received government bailout funds, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 prohibited cash bonuses, retention awards or incentive compensation and limited restricted stock grants to one-third of total compensation. The act required bailout recipients to submit their executive compensation plans to an advisory vote by their shareholders. It also prohibited stock option compensation and golden parachute payments to bailout recipient executives.</div></div>

But wait, that would REDUCE CEO pay, for at least the large banks and financial institutions. So how did it go up so far?

Next paragraph:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the end of 2009, the nation’s biggest banks had repaid the Troubled Asset Relief Program in part by issuing new shares to raise capital. These share issuances were made possible by the government’s stabilization of the financial system. By repaying their bailout funds, these banks were once again free to pay their executives whatever they wanted. Predictably, banks awarded a record $145 billion in total compensation in 2009.[1] </div></div>

here, as you left out of your posts (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/)

So the way W 'caused' the CEO/worker pay ratio to decline was have a recession in his last two years.

After unprecedented CEO pay controls, those stopped being in effect as the TARP monies were repaid (the reason they were repaid, in fact), and then the big money guys played catch up, after having seen their total compensation decline two years in a row.

Did it really change by this much, in so short a time?

Probably not, because of a statistical issue with the numbers they used.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In an effort to shine a light on CEO pay, the AFL-CIO examined chief executive salaries at 299 firms traded on the S&P 500. Their compensation was up 23% in 2010, compared to 2009. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>AFL-CIO used Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data to define typical worker pay, which was $33,190 for all occupations in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. </span></div></div>

CNN Money's report on this same AFL-CIO report (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm)
But wait, aren't there 500 companies in the S&P 500? While nearly 300 is close to 60% of them, what about the OTHER 201 firms? What about companies that aren't in the S&P 500 that have CEOs? Private firms, even?

Would one suspect the AFL-CIO of somewhat rigging their 60% sample with the highest CEO increases to make their political point? I certainly would, unless a fuller accounting of a greater number was shown to track these same alleged increases.

AND they evidently KEPT the PRIOR year of 'worker salaries' to compare to the NEXT year of CEO compensation (using 2009 salary numbers).

Lastly, the 1980 graphic compared 'blue collar workers' average wages to CEOs of the day. This compares 'all workers' average wages. Difference? In 1980, there were some millions more working in highly paid union jobs, with much higher compensation than the rest of the workers of their day (as in the service businesses). Which would REDUCE the stated ratio from 1980 compared to how this is being measured now.

DiabloViejo
02-24-2012, 12:50 PM
The real inconvenient truth:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/417000_10150578718911275_177486166274_9457948_1921 530190_n.jpg

JohnnyD
03-07-2012, 12:20 AM
[quote=LWW]According to the reich wingnut AFL-CIO ... CEO to worker pay went from 125: to 525:1 under the William Jefferson Clinton regime.

For victims of public education, that's over 4 times as high a ration.

Meanwhile, under the George Walker Bush regime, it fell from 525:1 to 263:1 ... a drop of almost half:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/2010_trend_chart_2.gif [/quote
You brother LWW are the finest for bringing up to date news.Thank you sir.Jesus loves you.
What a great job you are doing since you became KING of this forum.We all love yo LWW.

LWW
03-07-2012, 06:05 AM
They believe whatever lies that the agents of Gog and Magog pontificate to them.

Truth sends them in a scurry towards the dark.