For whom the boom tolls
Libby Spencer
[Updated below]
As long as I'm pimping my other blogs, I have a post at Newshog on why the average Jake isn't hearing the sound of the Bushenomic boom. Bush is always so puzzled about why us working stiffs aren't cheering about the economy and the usual apologists are quick to point out all the postive figures and point the finger of blame at that naughty liberal press, who just won't report all the good news.
Maybe they all should take another look at The Consumerist's chart. These are numbers even a mathophobe like myself can grasp. Between 1990 and 2005, CEO pay rose 298.2%, corporate profits rose by 106.7%, while the average worker pay has only risen by 4.3%. The Consumerist also notes that the chart seems to show no direct relationship between CEO pay and profit performance.
Meanwhile, worker productivity has risen another 2.8 percent. I'm no economic genius but when I read those numbers what I see is the working man is working a whole lot harder for less than he's worth, while the guys at the top are raking in all the dough. What I don't see is why he would have any reason to cheer about it.
Update: This just in from The Washington Wire with some sound advice for any investor class types who might be reading this post.
[Updated below]
As long as I'm pimping my other blogs, I have a post at Newshog on why the average Jake isn't hearing the sound of the Bushenomic boom. Bush is always so puzzled about why us working stiffs aren't cheering about the economy and the usual apologists are quick to point out all the postive figures and point the finger of blame at that naughty liberal press, who just won't report all the good news.
Maybe they all should take another look at The Consumerist's chart. These are numbers even a mathophobe like myself can grasp. Between 1990 and 2005, CEO pay rose 298.2%, corporate profits rose by 106.7%, while the average worker pay has only risen by 4.3%. The Consumerist also notes that the chart seems to show no direct relationship between CEO pay and profit performance.
Meanwhile, worker productivity has risen another 2.8 percent. I'm no economic genius but when I read those numbers what I see is the working man is working a whole lot harder for less than he's worth, while the guys at the top are raking in all the dough. What I don't see is why he would have any reason to cheer about it.
Update: This just in from The Washington Wire with some sound advice for any investor class types who might be reading this post.
When the CEO buys a trophy home, investors would do well to sell shares in the company.For the rest of you, here's an interesting list of CEO compensation packages. I think they speak for themselves.
The new study looked at the stock performance of Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies after their CEOs bought new homes. The study by Arizona State University finance professor Crocker Liu and New York University finance professor David Yermack, who is credited with the earliest research on backdating options, found that the bigger the home, the worse the stock performance.
Labels: economy
posted by Libby Spencer at 8:15 PM
4 Comments:
I remember when Reagan was president and I was waiting for the trickle from his "trickle down economics".
I seem to remember it being really, really humid one afternoon.
LOL Jim. That's the first time I've laughed all day.
It doesn't take a whole box of crayons to color me "investor class" but I'm not in the stock market and don't plan to be for some time. To observe that the casino is making money doesn't argue that this is a good time to put my nickels in the slot machines.
Brilliantly said Fogg. You're such a wise man.
Post a Comment
<< Home