Corporate Profits at All-Time High; Wages at All-Time Low: Can We Call it Class War Yet?

Originally posted by colbyforce
Especially for a person with a degree or any other specialized schooling.

So you think someone who has furthered their "education" deserves more money than the guy who built the school? That kind of misplaced value is exactly what's causing these problems.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by wishful1gnorance

 

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, but unfortunately, you're not the exception to the rule.

And that's the problem. As time goes on, your scenario becomes more common, and the greed becomes unstoppable. Eventually, something has to give, and I'm afraid the common folk have already given everything they've got...

Common folk huh. Nice try. I can tell from your avatar pic that you live in a CASTLE. You're too out of touch to know about common folk!

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I came across some data that gave me pause in relation to the title of this thread. Namely this:


research.stlouisfed.org...

WASCUR to GDP


www.businessinsider.com...

It was the contrast of WASCUR to GDP juxtaposed with the WASCUR data that gave me pause. WASCUR, according to the graph, has increased. From this it's obvious that in no time in U.S. history have wages & salaries been higher. And oddly enough the curve was parabolic (roughly) until on/about 2000, but whatever.

Looking at this data and the claim "wages at all-time low" is incoherent at this point. Unless I am misinterpreting the data, I can't imagine how the "wages at all-time low" claim stands. Perhaps it stands in terms of Apple's numbers, but as a measure of the economy (per Fed Reserve Economic Data) the claim is incoherent.

Another piece of the puzzle that gave me pause was given by the New York Times writer, David Segal:

The company also offers very good benefits for a retailer, including health care, 401(k) contributions and the chance to buy company stock, as well as Apple products, at a discount,” so including benefits may offset some of the discrepancy between pay by Apple and pay by other companies. The information necessary to calculate this offset is unavailable, but it is not believable that these benefits fully or even significantly make up such a large shortfall in wages.

source: www.epi.org...

I don't have the information necessary to make a quantitative judgement whether these perks compensate workers for the lower wage, but judging by David's response it does not appear he does either.

Don't get me wrong: this snippet was an eye-opener

The discrepancy between Apple’s profits/executive pay and its compensation to its workers is a particularly glaring example of what is occurring in the wider economy. The gap between CEO compensation and that of a typical worker is now 231-to-one, where it used to be just 58.5-to-one in 1989. Corporate profits are now higher as a share of corporate-sector income than in any year since the early 1940s when we had a War Labor Board consciously suppressing wage growth.

source: www.epi.org...

I'm not convinced we can call it class warfare. The ratio of corporate executive pay to non corporate executive pay is interesting, but the WASCUR curve certainly doesn't justify some of the claims used. For that matter I'm uncertain how WASCUR as a percent of GDP measure is being used to support the idea of aggregate wage & salary depreciation.

At any rate if the real purchasing power of our fiduciary money were equivalent to its 1940 or whatever value (heck, even 2000 value), we might not be having this discussion. Besides that I wouldn't describe this executive and non executive pay gap as fundamental in terms of economics. Admittedly, I think the gap leans toward unsettling. Despite that I don't think this (i.e. executive pay) is ... the best focus point in terms of economic growth.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by colbyforce
Especially for a person with a degree or any other specialized schooling.

So you think someone who has furthered their "education" deserves more money than the guy who built the school? That kind of misplaced value is exactly what's causing these problems.

Fine. Specialized knowledge or experience as well. There ya go.

reply to post by wagnificent


What an awesome example of someone who knows jack!@#$ about economics. Thank you. You are a perfect example of why this country sucks.

YES WE CAN....AND WE SHOULD!!!!!!!!

this is the biggest barrier keeping us ALL unified. This is all about class war, its always been about class war. They try to divide us along racial lines to keep us fighting but this is about the poor vs the rich.

Always has been, always will be!

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

$12 to do a job that a monkey could do?

And?

Innovation and good products IS what makes Apple profitable. I pay a premium for my Apple products because the alternatives don't fit my needs. I know I pay a premium, and I don't really care. Should we force companies to pay low level employees more? NO ... because that just raises what the "poverty threshold" is. If we had not raised the minimum wage by 70% since 2007 then $12 an hour would be a GOOD wage. I used to make $8 in high school and that was a lot of money.. everyone else was making $5.25. Now it's not even minimum wage.. and everyone I used to work with at the same job makes the same because the company couldn't raise it's prices. Decent jobs became minimum wage jobs....... all because of Government and the voters know jack @%@! about economics.

I'm sorry, but you're paying a premium for ignorance. There are other products out there that do the exact same thing, for half the price or less, and infact can do it better. The different is, they don't have an apple logo on them.


Explain to me how having a decent minimum wage is bad for the economy. Thanks.

Originally posted by Kovenov
From this it's obvious that in no time in U.S. history have wages & salaries been higher. And oddly enough the curve was parabolic (roughly) until on/about 2000, but whatever.

Looking at this data and the claim "wages at all-time low" is incoherent at this point. Unless I am misinterpreting the data, I can't imagine how the "wages at all-time low" claim stands. Perhaps it stands in terms of Apple's numbers, but as a measure of the economy (per Fed Reserve Economic Data) the claim is incoherent.]

Are you factoring in the buying power of the dollar, aka, the cost of living? Wages are higher than they were in the past, in terms of actual dollars, but what you can get with those dollars has decreases significantly.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I understand the point you're making, but no--it's not a point I'm emphasizing per se, except where I suggest there are more important or fundamental factors worth focusing on than executive pay (see the latter end of my initial reply). But I want to reiterate that the 231-1 pay gap is unsettling. Despite that I'm still uncertain how this affects the economy for worse when wages are at an all-time high. Moreover, the hypothesis that WASCUR to GDP (its current ratio) is a contributing factor to a sluggish economy while the WASCUR is at its all-time high ... well I find the proposition confusing.

On the one hand we have the WASCUR, which I've interpreted to measure the heath of individual incomes. On the other hand we have a graph that shows WASCUR to GDP, indicating that personal incomes have fallen in relation to GDP. How does the WASCUR to GDP graph support the proposition that "wages are at an all-time low" when wages are at an all-time high? That is the essence of the pause I wrote about in my initial reply. The clause "wages at all-time low" seeks to find support from the wrong data set. (Edit: That data is non-existent to begin with.) And beyond these charts executive pay does not have an impact on inflation any more or less than non executive does not have an impact on inflation. That is, neither of these wage/salary groups' personal income have an impact on inflation. I guess Congress can increase the minimum wage, but such action does not move us to real GDP 1965 or whenever.