Let them eat pie charts
Corporate CEOs to "the people." What recession?
[Graphic via Avedon, original here.]
CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations jumped a median of 30.5%, the biggest gain in at least three years, according to a study of the first batch of corporate CEO pay disclosures by consulting firm Hay Group for The Wall Street Journal. [...]And all those greedy working class types who want jobs. Ha ha! Let them eat pie charts.
Corporate directors said the sharp upturn was a sign of improved profits. Net income at the 50 companies increased a median of 19.4%.
Labels: Corporatocracy, economy, Workers Rights
posted by Libby Spencer at 4:18 PM
4 Comments:
Did you read the original source for the chart?
Setting aside some of the methodology complaints (ie not counting peoples cars as "assets") one would discover that "wealth" concentration didn't really change that much over the past decades
For example..in 2003 the upper 1% had 33.8% of the "wealth/ net worth"
After decades of Reagan/Bush?Clinton/Bush tax cuts, that share had increased to a whopping 34.6% in 2007
So in spite of all the "tax cuts for the rich", the "rich" gained less than a 1% share of net worth.
Wealth has never been, not will it ever be "equally" earned.
However the premise that the wealthy gained a significantly larger share of the total wealth is not supported by the data you provided.
Ha, you're so predictable. I knew you would stop at that graf. Keep reading to the part where 400 people control the bulk of the wealth and get back to me...
As I replied in the Det News forum, your original source never stated that. It referenced the INCOME of the top 400, but not the WEALTH of the upper 400.
And as you have been told numerous times..wealth is not income.
Wealth concentration (of the upper 1%)is only slightly changed after decades of significantly lower marginal income tax rates.
"And as you have been told numerous times.."
Also sprach Zarathustra? Gotteswillen, was für ein Wichtigtür!
Nevertheless, the evidence does suggest an increase in inequality of wealth over time. A small increase to the wealthy is of little import, but of course a small increase to a billionaire is a lot of money and a small decrease to those living from paycheck to paycheck is a disaster. And please don't pretend someone with a high income isn't really better off. It sounds too much like your typically crepuscular casuistry - and a bit pompous, to boot.
But then if you're a social Darwinist, who gives a shit anyway -- right? I've got mine so who cares about the remaining petit bourgeoisie and peasants. It's their own fault. Survival of the fittest and screw you -- hey what?
Post a Comment
<< Home