Speak,

I wouldn't guess. You'd have to have some experience with these kinds of numbers before drawing any conclusions.

It says "Trump and his money managers." That doesn't mean Trump has any firsthand knowledge of the individual trades.

He might simply have a very active portfolio that is rebalanced automatically, which could generate a huge number of transactions.

Cuti,

"what political purpose it serves."

It serves the purpose of exposing what upper management wants to kept hidden.

It exposes the greed of upper management the next time they do layoffs.

It exposes the fact they should demand better pay.

I might have voted for Trump but I am pro labor.

Cuti,

"ratio of "average" employee hourly wage to "average" CEO compensation is just one of the populist "nonsense ratios" designed to impress the economically illiterate"

I worked in accounting for years, and one of the first things you learn to do is ask yourself, does this number seem reasonable?

I briefly worked for a midsize company where I saw that payroll was not being handled correctly. I pointed it out to the owner. His exact response was, "You DO realize your job is to put as much money in my pocket as possible."

I replied, "Yes...but legally."

Over the years, I saw plenty of companies pushing things to the edge, fudging something somewhere or taking the most favorable interpretation they could, and CPAs still signed off on the books.

That experience influenced how I see the business world. Those are the kinds of things they never teach you in college.

So when I see figures showing CEO compensation rising dramatically compared to ordinary worker wages, I don't automatically dismiss them because someone calls the ratio "nonsense."

Considering the dramatic reduction in top tax rates these past several decades, changing attitudes toward wealth and what I see as a broader decline in social restraint and shame surrounding unbridled greed, the overall trend certainly passes the common-sense test for me.

The exact ratio can be debated, but the dramatic widening of the gap doesn't strike me as unreasonable at all.

Cuti,

So...put a summary on the end.

In summary.....

Corky,

Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:10

"If any would not work, neither should he eat."

Notice it says would and not could.

Meaning if you are able to work and refuse, do without.

That's pretty harsh but keep in mind Christianity is not a ticket to get away with no responsibility.

Truth,

I see I shouldn't expect much introspection from you.

I'm simply interested in seeing whether anyone here is willing to examine what their own side may have contributed to the problems we're discussing.

I'm done...I'll check back tomorrow and see if the thread is still open.

Eb,

Then will someone write the other side of the story and address what the political and cultural left has contributed to the problems we see today?

The problem is that this is a heavily left-leaning site, and getting people to examine their own side's faults with the same honesty they demand from the other side seems to be in short supply.

Ideally, I'd like to see an honest critique from someone on the left examining what their own side has contributed, rather than just another conservative criticizing liberals.

Truth,

"Why did people challenge the values associated with Christianity?"

Many factors.

1. Religious leaders sometimes overreached and tried to control too many aspects of people's lives.
2. People became tired of being told what they could and couldn't do.
3. Some of the things they were being told not to do were pleasurable and more appealing.
4. Some atheist and secular advocates were aggressive and effective in challenging religious beliefs, particularly among younger people.

And the list goes on.

Rejecting religious control was understandable in many cases.

But that still doesn't mean every social value associated with Christianity was harmful or worth throwing away.

In rejecting the influence of Christianity in America, society also discarded some values and social restraints that had served it well.

Truth,

"So, yeah we are sliding as a society."

On that much, we agree.

And you're right on a number of the points you made.

America did benefit enormously from its unique position after World War II. Poverty, racism and discrimination certainly existed in the 1950s. Women had fewer opportunities and choices. Economic changes, growing inequality and the loss of good-paying jobs have also contributed to many of the problems we're seeing today.

I'm not denying any of that.

What I don't understand is why you seem able to see responsibility and accountability only when they point in one direction.

Do you really believe the political and cultural left contributed nothing to the changes in family structure, personal responsibility, attitudes toward drugs, sex, marriage, work and acceptable public behavior over the past several decades?

You say we're sliding as a society.

On that point, we agree.

But if we're ever going to understand why, don't we have to be willing to look at all the forces that got us here instead of assigning virtually all the blame to the side we already oppose?

You seem to have thought pretty carefully about what you blame on conservatives and the political right.

What about the political and cultural left?

Have you given the same thought to what it may have contributed?

Truth,

"Bill is one of those -------- who glorifies the 50s"

Some of your historical points may be perfectly accurate.

But what do they have to do with anything I've actually said?

I never argued that the 1950s were economically perfect, that poverty didn't exist, that discrimination didn't exist, or that women and minorities were treated fairly.

You're arguing against a position you assigned to me instead of the one I've actually been making.

Saying that some social values, social expectations or "social contracts," as they say, and standards of conduct were healthier or more moral in the past is not the same thing as saying everything about the past was better.

To put it another way, many cities had not yet become overwhelmed by concentrated poverty, drugs and homelessness to the extent we see today. In my view, an increasingly permissive culture helped weaken some of the values and social restraints that had once held communities together.

And some people openly challenged traditional social values precisely because they associated those values with Christianity and traditional religion. In rejecting the religious foundation, they were also willing to discard social standards that had helped hold communities together for generations.

Eb,

"As a follow up...those same morons all say the same thing when the stock market is performing well, but a president they didn't vote for is occupying the WH....'Wall Street is not Main Street!!!'"

As long as my IRA continues to grow, I don't care if they rattle chicken bones in a sack and scatter them on the ground to divine the future, I'm happy.

Speak,

"Once again, the things you complain about are the exact things you vote for."

Permissiveness didn't begin with Trump.

Changes in attitudes toward sex, marriage, family, personal responsibility, government dependency, drugs, language and acceptable public behavior have been developing for decades.

My opinion is that the political and cultural left has been a major driving force behind much of this.

At the same time, the systematic denial of equal opportunities to minorities created another set of serious social problems that also shaped society and helped put us where we are today.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

But pretending the political and cultural left had nothing to do with these changes is refusing to acknowledge its contribution.

My question still stands.

Do you think the direction we're going is healthy?

What can be done that won't be just another quick fix that makes things worse in the long run?

At some point, everyone is going to have to face reality, stop pointing fingers and accept their own contribution to the current state of things in America.

Hor,

"Religious zealots (and religious cons) have been predicting 'the downfall of humanity' for as long as civilization has been around."

Is that your most clever response?

I wouldn't exactly call what's happening in America thriving, would you?

Look at the growth of single-parent families. We're voting for more government programs and more free benefits, which in turn gives the government more power over our lives.

Do you think things are going to get better if fewer people are willing to get jobs, work and support themselves?

I don't know how far things will go, but I see a downward spiral even if you don't.

More and more wealthy people live in gated communities, increasingly separated from the problems around them.

Look at the decline of many inner cities.

So how do you think things are going to get better?

Seriously. Do you have an answer to that?

Lee,

"The at-will workers chanting 'Protect the shareholders' equity!' are particularly moving."

If you had an IRA that you actually worked and saved to build, you might understand why protecting shareholder value matters to ordinary working people too.

Stockholders aren't all rich.

Eb,

At the risk of sounding histrionic, I believe both are contributing to the downfall of humanity.

The human race, from all appearances, seems to be trending downward on so many fronts without much of a safety net.

Permissiveness is destroying us. We have steadily weakened the moral restraints that once placed limits on greed, behavior, and self-indulgence, and I don't think a society can continue doing that indefinitely without serious consequences.

Authoritarian control like China's isn't ideal either. There is a vast difference between people possessing moral restraints and a government imposing them.

Eb,

Do you believe that attitudes toward greed have become more permissive and greed itself more socially acceptable, contributing to society's moral decline as much as social permissiveness and increasingly lax moral standards have?

Eb,

Your warehouse example explains why an Amazon warehouse worker doesn't automatically make more than a warehouse worker at a locally owned business.

But it doesn't explain why CEO compensation went from around 40 times worker pay to more than 300 times worker pay.

You are right. Companies became larger. The economy became more global. Consolidation created some enormous corporations.

But none of that explains why a CEO suddenly became worth hundreds of times more than the typical worker.

Think big picture.

The article is talking about the overall change in CEO compensation compared to the workforce over a span of decades.

And something else changed about the same time CEOs were only paid about 40 times the labor force worker.

The top marginal income tax rate fell dramatically. It had been around 70 percent and by the late 1980s it had fallen to 28 percent. That greatly increased the after-tax benefit of ever-larger compensation packages.

Society was changing too.

There used to be considerably more shame attached to being blatantly greedy and openly flaunting wealth. During the late 1980s and 1990s, attitudes toward money, wealth and what was considered acceptable behavior changed. Society as a whole was changing what it considered "right" and "wrong" in a lot of areas.

I lived through it and watched it happen.

I even saw it in the large conservative evangelical church I attended for about 20 years.

At one Sunday school get-together at someone's house, the host herded the entire class into a room and gave us an Amway presentation. He had a captive audience.

And increasingly you heard religious messages that wealth itself was evidence of being blessed and that God wanted people to prosper financially. You were "blessed" with wealth, naturally in conjunction with giving to the church.

That may seem unrelated to CEO compensation, but it was part of a much larger cultural change. What people considered excessive, embarrassing or simply greedy was changing.

CEOs aren't simply paid for what their position is worth. CEOs are also paid based on how much power they have and how much they can negotiate. As attitudes toward wealth changed, CEOs became more willing to use that power aggressively and push for larger compensation packages.

And corporate size certainly doesn't explain everything.

Companies could perform poorly, lose money or lay off thousands of workers while executives still received enormous and ever-expanding compensation packages.

Bigger corporations are part of the story, but are not the whole story.

Why did CEO compensation grow so enormously compared with the compensation of the ordinary worker?

That's the issue the article is illustrating.

I am suggesting greed, tax incentives and a major cultural change in attitudes toward wealth played major roles in the changes we've seen over the past several decades.

Doc,

I could tell you many instances of remarkable happenings in my life.

Some are mighty strange.

Lamp,

"So, I asked why that change in ratio, from 40 to 325."

Read the rest of #5.

I suggested a theory.

Lamp,

Why what?

Unless people can read your mind, I can think of different things you could mean.

Doc,

"Yup, it was definitely God at work there, Bill, just for you. Bow wow."

Yep...just for me.

I assume you don't have any of those experiences.

True,

"There's no point in claiming this is a good agreement either for the same reason."

Really?

You don't understand that's based on what we've been told so far?

Eff,

"The Iranians have a Worldview."

Yea...and you support it?

Eff,

"The Iranians have a Worldview."

Yea...and you support it?