CEOs SUCK (YOUR TAXES)!

Steve Jobs, who just stood down as boss of Apple: "Would the next WASP in line who wants to make an obscene amount of money please step forward."

We all know Chief Executive Officers of large corporations make a fortune, right?

Wall Street can crash, the economy can take a header, unemployment lines can stretch around the block and poverty lines can squeeze more and more people under them. But CEOs are still laughing all the way to the Hamptons.

It's pretty sickening on many levels. For example, these jokers constantly talk about profitability and "remaining competitive." This is corporatespeak for maximizing profits by any available measure... other than cutting their own salaries. And the first port of call is generally the rank and file: pay cuts, benefits cuts, layoffs. Anybody but them.

With the recent attempts to gouge workers at Verizon and in the state of Wisconsin and, well, everywhere else; and with real wages for the majority of the workforce stagnating or declining over the past 30 years, it's nauseating that the top layer of business boys is still at the trough.


THE NUMBERS

So how much do these guys (yes, almost exclusively white males) make? You might want to get out the Mylanta before you read this.

According the the AFL-CIO website, in 2010 the average CEO pay at S&P 500 companies was as follows:

Salary: $1,093,989
Bonus: $251,413
Stock Awards: $3,833,052
Option Awards: $2,384,871
Nonequity Incentive Plan Compensation: $2,397,152
Pension and Deferred Compensation Earnings: $1,182,057
All Other Compensation: $215,911
TOTAL: $11,358,445

Quoting from the same site:

According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. corporations held a record $1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good middle-class jobs. Corporate CEOs are literally hoarding their company’s cash—except when it comes to their own paychecks.

In 2010, Standard & Poor's 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation— a 23 percent increase in one year. Based on 299 companies’ most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers’ jobs.

Fortunately, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains new tools to help limit runaway CEO pay. Shareholders now have a “say-on-pay” vote on executive compensation, and companies must disclose the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay at each company.

And on an important side note, let's not forget that corporations are BY FAR the biggest recipients of welfare -- our tax dollars!


CONCLUSION

There's something very wrong here, obviously. Think about how hard you work and how much you make (if you even have a job, of course). Now, if you divide $11, 358,445 by a salary of $40,000, you get a quotient of 283.96. Now, does anybody really work 284 times harder than you? Or is their knowledge or expertise so unique, so irreplaceable, that they are worth 284 times your sweat? And what exactly do they do to make the world a better place?

Times are very tough, brutal, for many many people. And they were tough a long time before the 2008 recession hit for many millions in the U.S. and around the world. But the one constant is that CEOs do very well, living in their own stratosphere of luxury.

But be careful, fellas. The air will get awful thin up there once you piss off enough people. And they ain't gonna throw you an oxygen tank.

Take care,
Adrian

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might also like to take a look at THE REVOLUTION IS KNOCKING -- PT. 1.

THE GROSS MISCONDUCT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

I was surfing around for places to mention this blog and build an audience. I hopped over to The New York Times (the so-called "paper of record") and found a blog there called "The Conscience of a Liberal" written by Paul Krugman.

His current blog topic is entitled: "Did the Postwar System Fail?: We could have gone on with a more progressive tax system and a stronger labor movement."

The thrust of the piece was a lot of brow wiping about which administration the American economy was strongest under and the why's and wherefore's. A brief comparative analysis from the view of someone who probably hasn't been hungry a day in his life. Or if he has, has a short memory.

There were 136 comments. I added mine -- we'll see if they run it. Here it is in full:


Your Submitted Comments
Display Name

Adrian Zupp
Location

Las Vegas, Nevada
Comment

The economic system is always failing someone! We talk about downturns and crashes, recessions and stock plunges, but for a huge portion of the American (and global) population, life is one long downturn. All this speculative guff about whether "we" were better off during the Carter era or when some other venal quarterwit was in power is basically for people who at least know what disposable income is. If we are to develop an economy that is inclusive and functions in a humane way, we need to stop all the academic hokey pokey and dig a little deeper. Dare to color outside the lines and speak up! The kind of armchair speculation in this article is the luxury of those who, for the most part, know nothing of profound, long-term hardship. Wake up! I invite anyone who reads this to join my blog:
"House On Fire: Thoughts on Saving the World" at http://adrianzupp.blogspot.com/
Take care,
Adrian Zupp


It's almost laughable that Krugman writes: "Which all goes to show just how thoroughly almost everyone has been indoctrinated by the current orthodoxy." It would be a profound statement if he weren't talking within such limited parameters and exhibiting such a myopic intellect. But then again, these are the "radical" types The New York Times puts on the payroll to show us how balanced and unbiased the paper is.

It's the same old thing in the media: Articles about tinkering with the current system while the same people continue to suffer are passed off as serious economic commentary. This is why we need radical change. And do not fear the word "radical." It means "root" -- as in going to the root of the problem. (Krugman co-opts the word when he has no business doing so whatsoever: "Radical change happened because a powerful political movement wanted it, not out of economic necessity.")

Thanks so much for reading -- and never hesitate to take a swipe at The New York Times or any of the other sacred cows of the media.

They are not to be awed.

Take care,
Adrian Zupp

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might like to take a look at FDR's SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS.