We will take a slightly different tack with this one. Please post any and all income inequality cutpastas in your desktop folder. All will be given a presumption of legitimacy. Provided however, in order to be presumed legitimate, they must account -out- 1. Entry level wage earners, those working through school, trade apprentice equivalents and the like. 2. Retired people who have adequate savings, but are working to "stay busy" and active. 3. Legitimately disabled people and mental incompetents. 4. CEO income statistics that do not also include the ~30,000,000 private company CEOs. 5. Addicts, personality disorders and recidivist criminals. 6. Unemployment "gamers." 7. Small business owners and entrepreneurs who intentionally and legitimately move as much income as possible into business expenses and reinvestment. 8. Commissioned salespeople who have feast and famine years. 9. Several more categories I'll add later So let's see them, ALL of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex charts, graphs, claims, data, ANYTHING that excludes the above... as any honest analysis must... on income inequality. Your conception of politics in the U.S. relies heavily on income inequality? Prove real income inequality with real, convincing data. We already know that people who work more earn more. It needs to be -more- than that. Can't wait. Anticipating few replies on this one.
30,000,000 CEO's? How about you check that number? And all the rest for that matter. It's a very simple metric, how much does the 1% income grow compared to the rest, particularly compared to the middle 60%? With that you have your answer.
There are about 30,000,000 companies in the United States. Each of them has a CEO as a matter of fact and not opinion. Their average compensation is ~$400,000 last I checked (and have cited many times on this forum). There are about 15,000 public companies in the United States last I checked, and that includes pink sheets and OTC only companies. Their average compensation is much higher, but since they are the pro athletes of the corporate world, and pro athletes regularly earn $XX million dollars per year or more, why should public CEOs earn less than they are worth in the market? Simple, direct question, if you were going to compile an accurate accounting of CEO compensation, how many of those 30,000,000 companies would you include in it? Be specific as to revenues please. Second direct question, now that you know there are 30 millions of companies in the country with CEOs, and not just 15,000, would you admit that excluding all 29,985,000 nonpublic CEOS from statistics on CEO compensation is a lie narrative towards creating resentment in weak-minded individuals? As far as the "how much does 1% income grow compared to the rest?" No, you aren't going to shoehorn the thread into a stale, inaccurate propaganda narrative. Either provide the copypastas or don't within the reasonable prerequisites posted as to accounting -out- reasonable categories of income earners. I don't care which.
30,000,000 small businesses, not corporations that have boards that elect a CEO. For the sake of argument we'll assume you mean owners and not CEOs. Of those 30M businesses how many owners have multiple businesses? You are starting from a false premise. Now, CEO compensation is one aspect of wealth redistribution up, true, the rapid growth in compensation of the CEOs compared to the rank and file of companies of over 500 employees has been extraordinary to say the least but the final and only measure is how much wealth does the top 1% increase compared to everyone else? A lot of those in the topmost 0.1% inherited all their wealth and have never worked a day in their life but their wealth continues to grow far faster than most of us who do work. Don't feel sorry and try to justify them.
No, we won't be assuming anything, I can assure you that every business entity other than maybe some weird structure I haven't seen practicing corporate law everywhere from Wall St to Main St for 20 years, incorporated or not, board or not, has a C.E.O., or occasionally, and unadvisedly, a joint chief or committee, but that is a CEO. Sometimes, even in large public companies, the CEO operates under a different title, but that's still a CEO. In LLCs, and some very large companies are LLCs especially in real estate, it is usually called a "managing member," but that is a CEO. In partnerships or limited partnerships it may be called a "managing partner" or a "general partner," but that's STILL a chief executive officer regardless of specific title. But the nomenclature is irrelevant, the narrative says "CEO compensation" dishonestly, yet totally excludes 29 million+ business entities for the express purpose of making it appear that CEOs of U.S. companies earn far more than they in fact earn, a greater multiple than line workers than they actually do.This is done to foment resentment and mislead ignorant people. It is a lie. Chief Executive Magazine has been compiling annual CEO compensation numbers for years. They -sell- more detailed versions of this information, and not cheaply, to companies who need to know how to competitively negotiate compensation packages with their CEOs and candidates. So it needs to be accurate. https://chiefexecutive.net/what-do-u-s-ceos-really-earn-about-350000-study-finds/ Now, in the OP I directly and clearly asked for data on "income inequality" that excludes classes of workers that should be either excluded entirely or weighted down in compiling relative income numbers. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any. Does -honest- income data exist that can provide useful measures of what the average fulltime adult worker earns in comparison to others? Or is it -ALL- public union and gov-edu lies of omission of necessary context? I don't know, but have never seen any honest numbers. If such data does not exist, there's no reason to do anything other than discard "Income Inequality" narratives out of hand as pure resentment propaganda.
A CEO is merely the highest ranking member of an institutional. There is nothing incorrect about his phrasing. BLS CPS data already adjust for individuals holding more than one job. Forbes and the Billionaire census has pretty good metrics on tracking the self-made status of the Top 0.1% and I don't know how you know that a lot of them inherited all their wealth. What we do know is that we don't control the circumstances we were born into. It is illogical to punish people based on those circumstances.
From what I can glean online we only have 18,204,679 registered businesses in the USA with employee numbers ranging from 1 to multiples well over 10,000.As far as publicly listed companies on the stock exchange we have less than half the number that were listed in 1996.
The 30,000,000 comes from the IRS, and is the number of business returns. Sole proprietorships, which may have many, few or zero employees, do not have to register with the state, but most have to obtain business licenses in their locale.
how many is a lot? the list of super rich also has a LOT of self made individuals if you look at it. the top .01% is about 35000 people and a lot of them are absolutely crushing it.
The specter of equal outcomes is as absurd as the specter of equal inputs. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL - TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY
I didn't find anything credible that supported the income inequality claims of the left but I did find this interesting article: "Is increasing income inequality a myth?" Which linked to this paper by David Splinter that is the subject of the article. Bump.
Forgot to include a sample of the article: "You thought income inequality was rising dramatically, right? Well, so did I. In fact, maybe you thought so in part because I and journalists like me have been reporting it as fact, for decades. But maybe we’re wrong — all of us. That’s the startling conclusion of a new academic paper making the rounds of the economics profession, contradicting conventional wisdom: that incomes of the top 10 percent, 1 percent and especially the tippy-top .1 percent, have been pulling away from the rest of Americans like an iceberg calving in Antarctica. The gap has risen some, says the paper. But nowhere near as much as alleged. ..."
Rising top end income is a very good thing for similar reasons that rising wealth among innovators is a good thing in a system of voluntary transactions. Innovation that proliferates to the masses makes the innovators wealthy and also makes talent in organizations that continue to enrich the world with innovation more competitively paid. If the most talented people are making more income, it signals that a) the broader public is being better served with innovations, and more importantly b) that the public has the $$ necessary to trade for those innovations. Lie narratives perpetually and purposefully omit the "other side" of income and "wealth" statistics. We are in the greatest tech/innovation boom in human history that is barely a century old. It's amazing that "income and wealth" inequality aren't far more than they are.
The past 3 years have been the greatest windfall the top 1% of our citizens have seen in their lifetimes.
Agreed. I think what this paper illustrates is that the increase in top end income is more moderate than the narratives hyperventilate about and is completely appropriate to technological innovation that is accelerating exponentially, (per Ray Kurzweil).
Thanks for the bump, even though it's pure, nonresponsive hot air. I asked for someone(s) to post an honest income inequality argument/graph, etc. that excludes classes of workers that should be excluded from any honest comparison of who earns what and who earns more than whom in the U.S. That was going to be the mere first step, but you and yours have faltered right out of the gate. No takers so far including you, so -I- have -nothing- further to do. It was admittedly a stacked deck because I already knew no -honest- narratives existed and it was all bent-nose public union and self-serving media/statist crapola. Wealth and Income inequality narratives are lies towards unnecessary resentment that bring immense profits to the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex at the rest of our expense. Will be getting around to threads on the next set of LW/Complex lie narratives on race, gender, poverty/hunger in the U.S. and the environmental lies and hoaxes over the weekend.
