Comments on: Comprehending Income Inequality

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:52:44 +0000

Maybe I missed that this data is only for men? Otherwise, I can’t help noticing that the universal symbol for the male gender (and shades of blue) was used to represent workers. Maybe just a coincidence, but still…

By: Daily Digest: 2009-10-29 « The Mushkush Digest

Daily Digest: 2009-10-29 « The Mushkush Digest — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:03:53 +0000

[...] Images also has some nice images illustrating income inequality in the US. [...]

By: 85 Years as President… « This So-Called Post-Post-Racial Life

85 Years as President… « This So-Called Post-Post-Racial Life — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:03 +0000

[...] to make what the CEO of Hewlitt-Packard makes in 1 year. This, according to the graphic reproduced here (from this original piece). Of course, we cannot all be leader of the fee world. If you are an [...]

By: LS

LS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:06:56 +0000

And the argument used to justify the huge compensation packages is that CEO’s are “more valuable” to the company. Well, maybe they are — the good ones anyway — but there is no way you’re going to convince me that ANYone is 555 times (to use the least dramatic example up there) more valuable than the people actually working in the stores. (WalMart, as I understand it, doesn’t pay much more than minimum wage to most employees.) 500 times more valuable? No. Just… no.

By: Alex Kramer

Alex Kramer — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:13:23 +0000

It’s really quite simple, Carla. Listed above are the incomes of eight people.

EIGHT. 8. Two-thirds of a dozen.

The pay these eight people get in one year could instead be used to pay for 10,381 jobs that pay more than I made in any one of the five years I worked as a minimum-wage employee. (~$15,000 per year as opposed to my $6,000~$11,000 per year.)

TEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE. 10,381. That is eight-hundred sixty-five dozens (plus one more person).

Let’s say the relevant CEO population is ten times this size (eighty), and the average wages are 80% of this group’s. How many jobs could that be?

(10,381 * 0.8) * 10 = 83,048.

Eighty CEOs, eighty-three thousand jobs.

It’s my business to doubt that transaction because I am one of the ten thousand three hundred eighty-one people who could have a job and a living wage instead of that one person (who could also be one of the ten thousand three hundred eighty-one), but instead I am jobless in a state where the LOWER unemployment number is fifteen percent and the important unemployment number is close to twenty percent.

And here’s the math if you replaced those CEO positions with ‘Average Worker’ jobs-

8 CEO positions = 4,278 Average Worker positions

(4,278 * 0.8) * 10 = 34,224 Average Worker positions that could be paid for.

By: lex

lex — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:29:51 +0000

Carla, the WHOLE POINT is the amount of wealth (and consequently, power) that is concentrated into just a few pockets. The point is how resources are distributed in the world and where those resources could go if more equitably distributed. You cannot separate ‘individual income’ from larger patterns that affect society. To say that CEO compensation can be considered in isolation from other sociological factors is to gravely misunderstand the point of this post.

By: Carla

Carla — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:01:53 +0000

I’m not talking about income inequality, I’m talking exclusively about CEO compensation. I’m going to guess there are less than 100 CEOs in this country who make more than $10million a year. To get all bent out of shape over the income of ONE HUNDRED (or fewer) people seems ridiculous.

CEO salaries are determined by whatever the market will bear. The companies that pay them have determined that paying $x for CEO Y is a profitable investment. I don’t think it’s anyone’s business to doubt that transaction. If you think the salaries are ridiculous, I suggest you avoid patronizing those companies with very high CEO salaries.

By: Fangirl

Fangirl — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:12:45 +0000

So it’s not at all disturbing that such a minuscule portion of the population controls such a huge percentage of the wealth? That makes it even worse, if you ask me.

By: Carla

Carla — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:25:00 +0000

I don’t get why people get so bent out of shape about CEO compensation. CEOs make up such a miniscule portion of the population, getting outraged over their big paychecks is a worthless (and ultimately not very enlightening) endeavor.

By: Duran2

Duran2 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:03:58 +0000

lisa, where did the post on online dating go?

By: Beelzebub

Beelzebub — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:03:21 +0000

Here’s another nifty look at income inequality: http://lcurve.org/

By: Pay Inequity Continues for Female CEOs « Feminist Looking Glass

Pay Inequity Continues for Female CEOs « Feminist Looking Glass — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:35:03 +0000

[...] a related point, check out this graphical depiction from Sociological Images of income differences in the United States. The [...]

By: AG

AG — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:49:59 +0000

Interesting that they didn’t include any companies from the financial sector in this graphic.

By: Michael Alan Miller » Chief entitled oligarch

Michael Alan Miller » Chief entitled oligarch — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:27:56 +0000

[...] | Posted by Chill on 27 Oct 2009 at 01:27 pm | How long in years workers would have to work to earn as much as top CEOs make in a year. [...]

By: mordicai

mordicai — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:19 +0000

Wealth works when it moves. This is what economic has been slowly figuring out since it started putting itself together as a discipline. Fat paychecks for plutocrats doesn’t help.