FARK.com: (7061544) Obama's anti-business agenda has gotten so bad, CEO pay rose to 380 times average employee income last year

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Obama's anti-business agenda has gotten so bad, CEO pay rose to 380 times average employee income last year (dailykos.com)		245
		More: Asinine, political agenda, Wall Street reform, Health Care, International, Daily Kos, incomes

• • •

1429 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2012 at 5:07 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7061544

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

245 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

Grand_Moff_Joseph		2012-04-20 11:31:19 AM

"Well, the average CEO of a company on the S&P 500 Index earned 380 times the average American worker's wage, with average CEO pay having increased 13.9 percent in 2011."

Record profits and 14% raises? Surely, Obama is the greatest monster in the history of the business world.

But work harder, peons! Your CEO needs a 20th pair of Italian loafers.

AmazinTim		2012-04-20 11:42:44 AM

Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: It's not like the president has the power to stop corporate greed. What exactly did you expect him to do?

vpb		2012-04-20 12:06:29 PM

AmazinTim: Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: It's not like the president has the power to stop corporate greed. What exactly did you expect him to do?

Yep. He's a politician. He is still better than someone who is in favor of corporate greed.

AdolfOliverPanties		2012-04-20 01:47:18 PM

AmazinTim:
Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: Damn it Obama. We really thought you would handle this. At least you are trying, despite unprecedented Republican obstruction. And there's no way in hell that Romney would do anything but make this problem much much worse, so we will gladly give you another term, as on the whole, everything is getting better and you are not a farking unlikeable robot

FTFY.

WTF Indeed		2012-04-20 01:49:22 PM

To be fair, Obama's socialist workers policies are killing jobs.

Weaver95		2012-04-20 01:50:14 PM

something for our Randian cultist friends to consider - Ayn Rand herself would have found this information disgusting. those CEOS are, in Rand's philosophy, 'looters'. And she hated looters more than she hated moochers.

Grand_Moff_Joseph		2012-04-20 02:04:06 PM

Weaver95: something for our Randian cultist friends to consider - Ayn Rand herself would have found this information disgusting. those CEOS are, in Rand's philosophy, 'looters'. And she hated looters more than she hated moochers.

I actually like the thought process at play here. Perhaps if we got rid of most of the looters, we would not have as many "moochers" (as they call it)

doublesecretprobation		2012-04-20 02:06:08 PM

AmazinTim: Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: ~~It's not like the president has the power to stop corporate greed. What exactly did you expect him to do?~~ Republicans have and will continute to block every possible effort because JOB KILLING__________!!!

Slives		2012-04-20 02:09:06 PM

Don't you see, the CEOs deserve this kind of payout. After all, they are directly responsible for holding off the Democratic greed to use company coffers to fund an endless line of social programs that would GIVE money to people rather than treating them like slaves for the right to be overworked and underpaid while feeling proud of the company's success and 15th straight record profit for the quarter.

Nadie_AZ		2012-04-20 02:10:33 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: AmazinTim:
Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: Damn it Obama. We really thought you would handle this. At least you are trying, despite unprecedented Republican obstruction. And there's no way in hell that Romney would do anything but make this problem much much worse, so we will gladly give you another term, as on the whole, everything is getting better and you are not a farking unlikeable robot

FTFY.

AmazinTim, he's right.

I really wish we'd have had a more progressive administration the last 3 years, but it's better than any 3 years stretch of Bush Jr. There is no way in hell I'm gonna vote for Mittens. Even though I am frustrated at what corporations and banks are able to get away with.

FlashHarry		2012-04-20 02:11:13 PM

AmazinTim: Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: It's not like the president has the power to stop corporate greed. What exactly did you expect him to do?

republicans 2008: "obama is a socialist."
republicans 2012: "obama is a socialist."

DozeNutz		2012-04-20 02:14:00 PM

Its because he is handing out money like its going out of style, and also because he isn't going after Wall St. He lets them get away with all sorts of shiat that got us in this mess in the first place. Maybe go after Wall St. with real rules/regs instead of them regulating themselves.

http://youtu.be/CBxBtK-2XJc

/people need to realize he is handing the banks/CEO's money

AmazinTim		2012-04-20 02:16:08 PM

FlashHarry: AmazinTim: Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: It's not like the president has the power to stop corporate greed. What exactly did you expect him to do?

republicans 2008: "obama is a socialist."
republicans 2012: "obama is a socialist."

You misspelled soshulist.

Diogenes		2012-04-20 02:23:41 PM

Damn that guy and his class warfare!

Car_Ramrod		2012-04-20 02:45:50 PM

I'm confused, I thought companies wanted to hire people, but there's just too much uncertainty in the market, and there's not enough cashflow to justify increasing the payroll?

Oh, you can increase the payroll at the top, just don't expand it at the bottom. Gotcha.

thomps		2012-04-20 02:47:43 PM

Car_Ramrod: I'm confused, I thought companies wanted to hire people, but there's just too much uncertainty in the market, and there's not enough cashflow to justify increasing the payroll?

Oh, you can increase the payroll at the top, just don't expand it at the bottom. Gotcha.

my assumption is that most of the comp increase comes in the form of appreciating market value of equity grants, not actual paycheck raises.

ShawnDoc		2012-04-20 02:56:11 PM

FlashHarry: republicans 2008: "obama is a socialist."
republicans 2012: "obama is a socialist."

Don't forget
Republicans 2008 : He's going to take your guns
Republicans 2012 : He didn't take them yet, but you know he will!

namatad		2012-04-20 02:57:35 PM

Obama's anti-business agenda has gotten so bad, CEO pay rose to 380 times average employee income last year

You know, if a real american had been president instead, we would have seen 400-500 times average numbers. Clearly President Obama is not doing enough!!

Diogenes		2012-04-20 02:58:33 PM

thomps: Car_Ramrod: I'm confused, I thought companies wanted to hire people, but there's just too much uncertainty in the market, and there's not enough cashflow to justify increasing the payroll?

Oh, you can increase the payroll at the top, just don't expand it at the bottom. Gotcha.

my assumption is that most of the comp increase comes in the form of appreciating market value of equity grants, not actual paycheck raises.

True, but his point remains. That uncertainty stuff is nonsense. Our corporate earnings have repeatedly bested the estimates over the past 12 years. I think we've missed in only one quarter. Staff is still shrinking and raises are non-existent. Not even cost of living (which is increasing).

namatad		2012-04-20 02:59:17 PM

DozeNutz: Its because he is handing out money like its going out of style, and also because he isn't going after Wall St. He lets them get away with all sorts of shiat that got us in this mess in the first place. Maybe go after Wall St. with real rules/regs instead of them regulating themselves.

http://youtu.be/CBxBtK-2XJc

/people need to realize he is handing the banks/CEO's money

do you mean TARP?
do you know that we got MOST of that TARP money back, right?

do you mean where government bought part of GM?
you know we made a killing on that investment, right?

/why do you hate the government making a profit on its investments ????

Rev. Skarekroe		2012-04-20 03:00:03 PM

They work 380x harder.
If you were motivated enough, you could too.

thomps		2012-04-20 03:08:33 PM

Diogenes: thomps: Car_Ramrod: I'm confused, I thought companies wanted to hire people, but there's just too much uncertainty in the market, and there's not enough cashflow to justify increasing the payroll?

Oh, you can increase the payroll at the top, just don't expand it at the bottom. Gotcha.

my assumption is that most of the comp increase comes in the form of appreciating market value of equity grants, not actual paycheck raises.

True, but his point remains. That uncertainty stuff is nonsense. Our corporate earnings have repeatedly bested the estimates over the past 12 years. I think we've missed in only one quarter. Staff is still shrinking and raises are non-existent. Not even cost of living (which is increasing).

oh the uncertainty talking point is absolutely nonsense. i'm just pointing out that it's probably less of a function of boards giving CEOs raises and more a function of CEOs getting equity benefits from their high performing stocks (didn't apple's stock price go up by like 50% in 2011?)

serial_crusher		2012-04-20 03:12:20 PM

What we can't know is how much CEOs make compared with the workers in their own companies; however, that's something the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill will soon require companies to disclose

I'd say you should hold off on this kind of article until that change takes effect. Taking only the top 500 CEOs and comparing their average against the average of all employees is horribly biased. Either compare all CEOs to all employees, or compare fortune 500 CEOs to fortune 500 employees.

FishyFred		2012-04-20 03:16:41 PM

380 times? That's peanuts.

My company's CEO made 1,000 times my salary.

Dusk-You-n-Me		2012-04-20 03:22:36 PM

If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It's worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend. Link

Diogenes		2012-04-20 03:26:20 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It's worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend. Link

Even when I was at AT&T during massive downsizing, we 'survivors' still got at least 3.26% (IIRC) cost of living every year.

Diogenes		2012-04-20 03:27:22 PM

FishyFred: 380 times? That's peanuts.

My company's CEO made 1,000 times my salary.

Larry or Bill?

vernonFL		2012-04-20 03:38:37 PM

Republicans 2008: Obama's a ni*bong*

Republicans 2012: Obama's a ni*bong*

FishyFred		2012-04-20 03:46:54 PM

Diogenes: Larry or Bill?

I don't make THAT much money.

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-04-20 04:56:58 PM

AmazinSpin:
Herp: Huurrrr.
Derp: Durrr. Durrr hurrr durrr?

Lando Lincoln		2012-04-20 05:02:36 PM

Well, YEAH...but...industry analysts said that CEO salaries should have risen over 16%, so obviously Obama is a failure.

dahmers love zombie		2012-04-20 05:08:50 PM

CEOs make 380 times average employee income: Republicans say "market forces, no problem whatsoever"

President of my university makes 5% of average CEO pay, which works out to roughly ten times my salary: Republicans say "OMG WTF EVERYONE IS OVERPAID!!1!!ONE"

Can't explain that.

/yes, you can

sprawl15		2012-04-20 05:10:52 PM

Clearly we need more tax cuts.

dahmers love zombie		2012-04-20 05:12:02 PM

Nadie_AZ: AdolfOliverPanties: AmazinTim:
Dems 2008: Obama will put a stop to corporate greed.
Dems 2012: Damn it Obama. We really thought you would handle this. At least you are trying, despite unprecedented Republican obstruction. And there's no way in hell that Romney would do anything but make this problem much much worse, so we will gladly give you another term, as on the whole, everything is getting better and you are not a farking unlikeable robot

FTFY.

AmazinTim, he's right.

I really wish we'd have had a more progressive administration the last 3 years, but it's better than any 3 years stretch of Bush Jr. There is no way in hell I'm gonna vote for Mittens. Even though I am frustrated at what corporations and banks are able to get away with.

See, this is what's hilarious about the right wing's spin on Obama. They screech things like "How's that hopey/changey thing workin' out for ya?" Well, to tell you the truth, it kinda sucks. But it's about a thousand percent better than your side is trying to make it, so go fark yourself.

HotWingConspiracy		2012-04-20 05:12:33 PM

I really can't understand why peons defend this. Have some farking self respect.

qorkfiend		2012-04-20 05:12:48 PM

namatad: DozeNutz: Its because he is handing out money like its going out of style, and also because he isn't going after Wall St. He lets them get away with all sorts of shiat that got us in this mess in the first place. Maybe go after Wall St. with real rules/regs instead of them regulating themselves.

http://youtu.be/CBxBtK-2XJc

/people need to realize he is handing the banks/CEO's money

do you mean TARP?
do you know that we got MOST of that TARP money back, right?

do you mean where government bought part of GM?
you know we made a killing on that investment, right?

/why do you hate the government making a profit on its investments ????

I'm more amused by the sudden flop to "OMG WHY ISN'T OBAMA DOING MORE REGULATING"

qorkfiend		2012-04-20 05:13:25 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I really can't understand why peons defend this. Have some farking self respect.

They'll be CEOs one day.

Wyalt Derp		2012-04-20 05:13:55 PM

Because CEO's are earning more they are paying more in taxes, and that's why we need tax cuts for the rich.

Geotpf		2012-04-20 05:14:25 PM

ShawnDoc: FlashHarry: republicans 2008: "obama is a socialist."
republicans 2012: "obama is a socialist."

Don't forget
Republicans 2008 : He's going to take your guns
Republicans 2012 : He didn't take them yet, but you know he will!

I love this one.

Gun dealers and manufacturers do too, as ammo and guns go flying off the shelves.

lacrossestar83		2012-04-20 05:16:12 PM

Republicans in 2008: Herp.
Republicans in 2012: Derp.

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde		2012-04-20 05:17:26 PM

dahmers love zombie: See, this is what's hilarious about the right wing's spin on Obama. They screech things like "How's that hopey/changey thing workin' out for ya?" Well, to tell you the truth, it kinda sucks. But it's about a thousand percent better than your side is trying to make it, so go fark yourself.

I don't normal say "this" but when I say "this" I mother farking mean ^THIS^

farkityfarker		2012-04-20 05:17:52 PM

Britain's and Canada's Conservative Prime Ministers are to the left of Obama.

Gotta love American politics.

quatchi		2012-04-20 05:19:27 PM

The 100th highest-paid CEO, Heinz's W.R. Johnson, had total compensation of more than $18 million, 543 times the average worker's income.

Obama and the Dems want to slow the increasing wealth inequality by taxing these guys more and the GOP whine that it's Class War^TM to do so and unfairly punishing the Job Creators^TM and then in the next breath accuse Obama of not caring about the deficit while demanding tax cuts.

Government is supposed to pro-business in the sense that it's job is to balance the legitimate concerns of industry with the long term goals and needs of the entire country not just be pro business to the exclusion of any other concerns.

Which is what the GOP have become.

Vindibudd		2012-04-20 05:20:34 PM

I'll just leave this right here:

"The iPhone maker has $64 billion or so of its cash sitting overseas, taxed at an attractively low 5% rate but also earning little to no interest. Any cash Apple chooses to bring back to the States would get hit at the 35% U.S. tax rate, not a pleasant prospect. Spending that money on expanding offshore production is far more compelling. Apple keeps the depreciation expense while keeping production costs down." -Forbes

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde		2012-04-20 05:22:29 PM

Vindibudd: I'll just leave this right here:

"The iPhone maker has $64 billion or so of its cash sitting overseas, taxed at an attractively low 5% rate but also earning little to no interest. Any cash Apple chooses to bring back to the States would get hit at the 35% U.S. tax rate, not a pleasant prospect. Spending that money on expanding offshore production is far more compelling. Apple keeps the depreciation expense while keeping production costs down." -Forbes

It's the American way to hide your money and invest overseas - duh.

Serious Black		2012-04-20 05:23:15 PM

sprawl15: Clearly we need more tax cuts.

Obviously. I think we should be working towards a head tax on every individual in this country with the punishment for not paying said tax being an immediate execution with no appeal of your sentence.

Saiga410		2012-04-20 05:23:30 PM

Weaver95: something for our Randian cultist friends to consider - Ayn Rand herself would have found this information disgusting. those CEOS are, in Rand's philosophy, 'looters'. And she hated looters more than she hated moochers.

Wasn't looters the term for people who use the govt to guarantee profits? So not looters... at least not enough information to call them that.

NallTWD		2012-04-20 05:24:45 PM

Vindibudd: I'll just leave this right here:

"The iPhone maker has $64 billion or so of its cash sitting overseas, taxed at an attractively low 5% rate but also earning little to no interest. Any cash Apple chooses to bring back to the States would get hit at the 35% U.S. tax rate, not a pleasant prospect. Spending that money on expanding offshore production is far more compelling. Apple keeps the depreciation expense while keeping production costs down." -Forbes

It's a THEORETICAL tax rate of 35%. No corporation in these Unites States pays ANYWHERE near that. Some even have a negative tax rate, where we pay them to rape our environment and our communities. (*coughs GE *coughs*)

HotWingConspiracy		2012-04-20 05:24:48 PM

farkityfarker		2012-04-20 05:25:15 PM

Vindibudd: I'll just leave this right here:

"The iPhone maker has $64 billion or so of its cash sitting overseas, taxed at an attractively low 5% rate but also earning little to no interest. Any cash Apple chooses to bring back to the States would get hit at the 35% U.S. tax rate, not a pleasant prospect. Spending that money on expanding offshore production is far more compelling. Apple keeps the depreciation expense while keeping production costs down." -Forbes

If Americans were capable of voting in their own interests, this would be illegal.

Displayed 50 of 245 comments