I'm curious - who ever claimed that CEO pay hasn't skyrocketed? What you just said isn't a myth debunked, it is [yet another in a nearly infinite succession of] strawman.
Not to mention it skews the data by only counting the top 350 publicly traded companies for CEO pay - but using a different set of data for worker pay.
Well, let's start with this one, shall we? Who has been claiming that CEO pay hasn't skyrocketed, and who actually believes that? My counter-claim is that this so-called "myth" is itself mythological.
Well, I read two of those stories and neither of them said that the 'CEO to worker income gap' was not increasing. I'm not going to bother reading the other two...
I think the problem here, is that Mark can't actually read and comprehend - that's hard work. Therefore he just inserts whatever bullshit he wants to into whatever he is reading. That's how he thinks posting some crap to support the other crap he's posted doesn't actually support his earlier crap - because it's all crap.
Sigh, once again I did what our brave hostess apparently refuses to do and actually read his links.
connexus primus: While ratios between CEO compensation and average worker pay remain inordinately high – especially when severance packages are included – we should keep in mind that ratios peaked in 2000 with the dot-com bubble and have modestly declined. The sharp increase in the ratio in the 1990s followed passage by Congress in 1993 of section 162(m) of the U.S. Tax Code. That bill, you will recall, limited the deductibility of annual executive compensation to $1,000,000. As is so typical when government, with good intentions, intercedes unnecessarily, the unintended consequences became antithetical to original intentions – CEO compensation exploded. [...] I agree, though, that CEO compensation is often excessive, but I worry about the consequences of government-mandated rules. First, an arbitrary ratio provided by a government bureaucrat is likely to have no relationship to a business’ margins or returns. [...] That, then, brings me to my final point. A discouraging aspect of the world we inhabit is the absence of character and moral integrity. The assumption had always been that when things go wrong, responsibility would be taken. That is not the world we live in. Managements rarely utter mea culpas when results are poor. Our representatives in Washington have become masters at shedding responsibility. It would have been funny, had the situation not been so dire, to watch HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius place blame on Republicans, as she squirmed under questioning, for the disastrous start to ObamaCare.
Good points all, but weirdly enough, the bolded portion agrees exactly with what your chart claims, What myth is this link supposed to be demonstrating?
2nd link: A graph by the Economic Policy Institute shows that while the relative pay of CEOs shot up in the 1990s, it has since fallen by nearly half, a trajectory that hardly supports the class warfare rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street and the Obama Administration.
Amazingly enough, that's all of the text, and the included graph shown there also is essentially the same fucking chart you just presented. CEO compensation is way higher than 1970, but a lot less now than at the end of the Clinton administration. Under Obama, it's rising again...
3rd link: Umm, just where does it say CEO pay ratio isn't increasing? He's just claiming that comparing CEO to worker pay is a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison. I don't happen to agree completely or even mostly, but he does have a point.
4th link: Again, nowhere does author say that CEO-worker pay ration isn't increasing.
In short, those links you're using, I do not think they mean you think they mean.
Hm, I thought the point of the links was to show that some people are claiming that CEO-worker pay ratio isn't increasing, and that enough people believe it so as to require a debunking of it. And in fact, your links don't show that.
Since you can't be bothered to actually read the link you do post, what's really the point except to provide cheap laughs for people who think you're full of it?
14 comments:
I'm curious - who ever claimed that CEO pay hasn't skyrocketed? What you just said isn't a myth debunked, it is [yet another in a nearly infinite succession of] strawman.
Not to mention it skews the data by only counting the top 350 publicly traded companies for CEO pay - but using a different set of data for worker pay.
I've been wondering that myself about some of these "myths". Some of them (like this one) sound like they were made up on the spot.
Feel free to make a counter argument, Larry. So far, you have shown that you completely incapable of doing so.
You want a counter argument to a 'myth busting' of a made up myth?
You are the one who seems incapable of actually making an argument. Try that first.
Well, let's start with this one, shall we? Who has been claiming that CEO pay hasn't skyrocketed, and who actually believes that? My counter-claim is that this so-called "myth" is itself mythological.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/28/CEO-Pay-and-Social-Responsibility
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/CEO-Pay-Trend-Bucks-Class-Warfare-Rhetoric
http://www.redstate.com/diary/pjensen66/2013/09/02/comparing-ceo-pay-to-worker-pay-is-ridiculous/
http://townhall.com/columnists/robertmurphy/2007/09/13/in_defense_of_ceo_compensation
Oh isn't that cute, M went and trolled up some sites that no one here cares about.
You expect us to defend those, right?
Well, I read two of those stories and neither of them said that the 'CEO to worker income gap' was not increasing. I'm not going to bother reading the other two...
I think the problem here, is that Mark can't actually read and comprehend - that's hard work. Therefore he just inserts whatever bullshit he wants to into whatever he is reading. That's how he thinks posting some crap to support the other crap he's posted doesn't actually support his earlier crap - because it's all crap.
Sigh, once again I did what our brave hostess apparently refuses to do and actually read his links.
connexus primus: While ratios between CEO compensation and average worker pay remain inordinately high – especially when severance packages are included – we should keep in mind that ratios peaked in 2000 with the dot-com bubble and have modestly declined. The sharp increase in the ratio in the 1990s followed passage by Congress in 1993 of section 162(m) of the U.S. Tax Code. That bill, you will recall, limited the deductibility of annual executive compensation to $1,000,000. As is so typical when government, with good intentions, intercedes unnecessarily, the unintended consequences became antithetical to original intentions – CEO compensation exploded. [...] I agree, though, that CEO compensation is often excessive, but I worry about the consequences of government-mandated rules. First, an arbitrary ratio provided by a government bureaucrat is likely to have no relationship to a business’ margins or returns. [...] That, then, brings me to my final point. A discouraging aspect of the world we inhabit is the absence of character and moral integrity. The assumption had always been that when things go wrong, responsibility would be taken. That is not the world we live in. Managements rarely utter mea culpas when results are poor. Our representatives in Washington have become masters at shedding responsibility. It would have been funny, had the situation not been so dire, to watch HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius place blame on Republicans, as she squirmed under questioning, for the disastrous start to ObamaCare.
Good points all, but weirdly enough, the bolded portion agrees exactly with what your chart claims, What myth is this link supposed to be demonstrating?
2nd link: A graph by the Economic Policy Institute shows that while the relative pay of CEOs shot up in the 1990s, it has since fallen by nearly half, a trajectory that hardly supports the class warfare rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street and the Obama Administration.
Amazingly enough, that's all of the text, and the included graph shown there also is essentially the same fucking chart you just presented. CEO compensation is way higher than 1970, but a lot less now than at the end of the Clinton administration. Under Obama, it's rising again...
CEO compensation is way higher than 1970, but a lot less now than at the end of the Clinton administration. Under Obama, it's rising again...
Hmm...I guess I don't have to put up any more links after all:)
3rd link: Umm, just where does it say CEO pay ratio isn't increasing? He's just claiming that comparing CEO to worker pay is a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison. I don't happen to agree completely or even mostly, but he does have a point.
4th link: Again, nowhere does author say that CEO-worker pay ration isn't increasing.
In short, those links you're using, I do not think they mean you think they mean.
Hm, I thought the point of the links was to show that some people are claiming that CEO-worker pay ratio isn't increasing, and that enough people believe it so as to require a debunking of it. And in fact, your links don't show that.
Since you can't be bothered to actually read the link you do post, what's really the point except to provide cheap laughs for people who think you're full of it?
I thought the point of the links
No, no, the point of any link M uses that doesn't actually support his argument is
SQUIRREL
Post a Comment