Posts Tagged ‘CEOs’
Tags: cartoon, CEOs, inequality, minimum wage, poor, rich, wealth
Tags: banking, CEOs, fast food, Only in America, retail, wages, workers
Yesterday, thousands of fast-food and retail workers went on strike across the United States in a signal of the growing demand for action on income equality.
But they’re not the only workers who are being paid povery-level wages. According to a new report released by the Committee for Better Banks [pdf], almost a third of the country’s half-million bank tellers rely on some form of public assistance to get by. At the same time,
The top fifty financial CEOs’ compensation collectively rose by 26% in 2010 and by 20.4% in 2011. According to a report by SNL Financial, the median CEO pay for the securities industry in general jumped overall 22 percent in 2012.
- Although Bank of America’s stock fell 58% in 2011, Brian Moynihan, the bank’s CEO, earned $8.1 million for the year. In 2012, his pay package rose to $12 million.73
- While in 2011 Goldman Sach’s stock plunged 45.6 percent, CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s compensation rose to $16.2 million.74 In 2012, he was awarded $21 million, including $13 million in restricted stock.
- Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase’s compensation increased in 2011 to $23 million as the bank’s stock fell 20%. Dimon’s salary was only reduced after admitting wrongdoing when in May of 2012 JPMorgan’s stock dropped more than 10 percent in two days.
- Despite the fact that Citigroup was in the midst of letting go of thousands of workers, it let Vikram Pandit leave his post as CEO with a hefty $6.7 million bonus in 2012.
Tags: Bill de Blasio, cartoon, CEOs, election, food stamps, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan, New York, rich, unemployed, unemployment
Tags: CEOs, chart, minimum wage, restaurants, surplus
This past Thursday was the 75th anniversary of the minimum wage in the United States.
What does it look like today, especially in comparison to the portion of the surplus received by CEOs in the restaurant industry? As the Economic Policy Institute explains:
Chief executive officers at the largest firms in the restaurant and hospitality industry have done extremely well financially, even as many of their employees have struggled to get by. Compared to the minimum wage—$15,080 if earned full-time, full-year—the $11,884,000 average pay of these restaurant CEOs in 2012 is astronomical—788 times higher. These corporate CEOs earn more on the first morning of the year than a minimum wage worker will earn over the course of a full year.
The trade association that represents these CEOs, the National Restaurant Association, has vehemently opposed any increase in the minimum wage. The figure below [above] raises the question: Who in the restaurant industry needs and deserves a raise?
Tags: Australia, CEOs, compensation, Germany, pay, Sweden, United States, workers
Well, the results are in and, to paraphrase Chico Escuela, the current recovery been berry, berry good to corporate CEOs in the United States.
According to GMI Ratings’ 2013 CEO Pay Survey, CEO compensation has set a new record: for the first time ever, the ten highest-paid chief executives in the United States all received more than $100 million in compensation and two of them took home billion-dollar paychecks.
The report also shows that the median increase in total realized compensation for S&P 500 CEOs was 19.65 percent (an increase even over last year, when they benefited from a 13.78-percent increase at the median).
While salary, bonuses, and perks remained relatively flat in the S&P 500, it was the profits made from the exercise of stock options and the vesting of restricted stock that represented the bulk of pay in the index. Examples include Michael D. White, third-year CEO of DIRECTV, who saw a realized compensation increase from $5.7 million in 2011 to $50.8 million in 2012. The increase occurred when Mr. White exercised more than one million stock options (worth $18 million) and saw more than a half million units of restricted stock vest (worth $26.8 million), all equity granted in a CEO Golden Hello. The company’s stock price has climbed about 80% over the past three years.
The average increase for the same group was 55.18 percent.
To make the appropriate comparison, consider the increase in hourly pay for workers (production and nonsupervisory) between December 2011 and December 2012. It amounted to 1.8 percent. The growing gap between those at the top and the rest meant that, in 2012, the CEO-to-worker-pay ratio in the United States rose to 354 to 1.*
Clearly, the current recovery has been very good for a tiny minority of executives, who are managing to leave everyone else behind.
*Again, for purposes of comparison, that ratio was 42:1 in 1982 and 281:1 just a decade ago. In terms of other countries, it was 89:1 in Sweden, 93:1 in Australia, and 147:1 in Germany in 2012.
Tags: CEOs, corporations, dividends, economists, fast food, food stamps, Medicaid, neoclassical, profits, taxes, workers
Everyone knows we live in a fast-food nation (everyone, that is, who has read Eric Schlosser’s book or seen Richard Linklater’s movie). But not everyone is aware that it’s only a tiny portion of the nation that benefits—directly and indirectly—from the existence of fast food.*
Some, of course, benefit directly, because they either receive in CEO compensation or in the form of stock dividends a portion of the enormous profits created within the fast-food industry.
The reason profits are so high is because fast-food wages are very low (an average of $8.69 an hour for those working at least 27 weeks in a year and 10 hours a week), and fast-food employers are able to shift the cost of the low wages they pay their employees to public programs (such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Earned Income Tax Credits, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
Those at the very top of the nation also benefit from the fast-food industry because, as a result of low wages and public programs to assist the working poor, fast-food prices are kept down. Thus, the price of one of the elements of the wage bundle of all workers—food—is kept low. Thus, workers in all industries—not just fast food but the production of all goods and services—have to spend less of their day working for themselves and more of the day working for their employers. That, in turn, raises profits in those industries, a portion of which shows up in the executive-compensation packages and dividends of the tiny minority of income earners.
The prototypical high-net-worth individuals who are “coastal, educated, older, white and male,” certainly don’t consume fast food on a regular basis.** But they’re the folks who benefit, both directly and indirectly, from the existence of a fast-food nation.
*The information in this post comes from two recent reports: Super-Sizing Public Costs: How Low Wages at Top Fast-Food Chains Leave Taxpayers Footing the Bill [pdf], by the National Employment Law Project, and Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry [pdf], by Sylvia Allegretto et al. at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Urban & Regional Planning.
**Although at least one neoclassical economist who opposes any increase in the minimum wage, John Cochrane, occasionally does.
Tags: capital, CEOs, class, economics, labor, mainstream, profits, recovery, Second Great Depression, wages
The unevenness of the current economic recovery is so obvious even mainstream economists have been forced to invoke the dreaded “c” word: class.
As I’ve pointed out many times on this blog, the more mainstream economists try to deny the relevance of class—after the crash of 2007-08, in the midst of the Second Great Depression—the more it rears its ugly head.
And so we have the spectacle of even the most vulgar of economists, such as Robert Samuelson, finding themselves in the position where they can’t ignore it. They really hoped the trend for labor’s share of national income to decline and capital’s share to rise would be reversed. But it didn’t. Not by a longshot.
Now, it’s true, mainstream economists like Samuelson have no idea why the two class shares are moving in opposite directions. But they do know that, as things continue in this direction, there are going to be real problems in terms of the fundamental unevenness and injustice of this recovery, and thus of the legitimacy of the current way of organizing economic and social life. That’s why they’re begging capital to do something about it:
What would improve the odds is more exuberance from the custodians of capital. CEOs seem content to sit on their profits and invest only when the needs and the returns are indisputable. Careless capital, which fostered the financial crisis, has given way to ultra-cautious capital, which is making a lackluster economy self-fulfilling.
Even the students at Harvard Business School are now enunciating the dreaded “c” word and admitting that class matters.
And Goldman Sachs [ht: sm], it seems, has been busy creating its own in-house class divisions.