- This topic has 415 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]Average “lazy” worker productivity has constantly increased over the years:
Meanwhile, median family income compared to GDP has gone down steadily over time:
Meanwhile, the ratio of CEO to average worker pay has risen to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. I’d love to see this graph extend to 2009:
So to summarize: while workers have increased their productivity, their pay has stagnated — or even declined if you factor inflation. Meanwhile, management pay has skyrocketed. Has management’s pay increases been consistent with their productivity? It’s hard to tell — how do you measure CEO productivity? EPS?[/quote]
Once again, very well stated, afx114.
[/quote]
There are a couple of pieces missing here.
One, there’s no mention of the capital invested in plant, equipment and technology by the company that played the major role in increasing the workers’ productivity. To use auto workers as an example, I doubt the average auto worker from 2009 is considerably more productive than the same auto worker from 1985 without the updated equipment and technology. The same can be said of white collar workers with respect to computers. The difference being that the cost of computers and servers relative to the increased output of most white collar workers is smaller than the cost of tech/equipment relative to the increased output of an auto worker (or so I’ve read – I can’t vouch for this).
Two, does median family income include benefits? Again, to use the auto workers as an example. While the salaries aren’t that high, the benefits are enormous relative to base pay. Much higher than they are for most white collar folks. Think about government workers as well – same deal. So, I’d like to see the same chart, but adjusted for the value of retirement and health care benefits that most higher-earning folks don’t have.
[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]Average “lazy” worker productivity has constantly increased over the years:
Meanwhile, median family income compared to GDP has gone down steadily over time:
Meanwhile, the ratio of CEO to average worker pay has risen to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. I’d love to see this graph extend to 2009:
So to summarize: while workers have increased their productivity, their pay has stagnated — or even declined if you factor inflation. Meanwhile, management pay has skyrocketed. Has management’s pay increases been consistent with their productivity? It’s hard to tell — how do you measure CEO productivity? EPS?[/quote]
Once again, very well stated, afx114.
[/quote]
There are a couple of pieces missing here.
One, there’s no mention of the capital invested in plant, equipment and technology by the company that played the major role in increasing the workers’ productivity. To use auto workers as an example, I doubt the average auto worker from 2009 is considerably more productive than the same auto worker from 1985 without the updated equipment and technology. The same can be said of white collar workers with respect to computers. The difference being that the cost of computers and servers relative to the increased output of most white collar workers is smaller than the cost of tech/equipment relative to the increased output of an auto worker (or so I’ve read – I can’t vouch for this).
Two, does median family income include benefits? Again, to use the auto workers as an example. While the salaries aren’t that high, the benefits are enormous relative to base pay. Much higher than they are for most white collar folks. Think about government workers as well – same deal. So, I’d like to see the same chart, but adjusted for the value of retirement and health care benefits that most higher-earning folks don’t have.
[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]Average “lazy” worker productivity has constantly increased over the years:
Meanwhile, median family income compared to GDP has gone down steadily over time:
Meanwhile, the ratio of CEO to average worker pay has risen to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. I’d love to see this graph extend to 2009:
So to summarize: while workers have increased their productivity, their pay has stagnated — or even declined if you factor inflation. Meanwhile, management pay has skyrocketed. Has management’s pay increases been consistent with their productivity? It’s hard to tell — how do you measure CEO productivity? EPS?[/quote]
Once again, very well stated, afx114.
[/quote]
There are a couple of pieces missing here.
One, there’s no mention of the capital invested in plant, equipment and technology by the company that played the major role in increasing the workers’ productivity. To use auto workers as an example, I doubt the average auto worker from 2009 is considerably more productive than the same auto worker from 1985 without the updated equipment and technology. The same can be said of white collar workers with respect to computers. The difference being that the cost of computers and servers relative to the increased output of most white collar workers is smaller than the cost of tech/equipment relative to the increased output of an auto worker (or so I’ve read – I can’t vouch for this).
Two, does median family income include benefits? Again, to use the auto workers as an example. While the salaries aren’t that high, the benefits are enormous relative to base pay. Much higher than they are for most white collar folks. Think about government workers as well – same deal. So, I’d like to see the same chart, but adjusted for the value of retirement and health care benefits that most higher-earning folks don’t have.
[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]Average “lazy” worker productivity has constantly increased over the years:
Meanwhile, median family income compared to GDP has gone down steadily over time:
Meanwhile, the ratio of CEO to average worker pay has risen to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. I’d love to see this graph extend to 2009:
So to summarize: while workers have increased their productivity, their pay has stagnated — or even declined if you factor inflation. Meanwhile, management pay has skyrocketed. Has management’s pay increases been consistent with their productivity? It’s hard to tell — how do you measure CEO productivity? EPS?[/quote]
Once again, very well stated, afx114.
[/quote]
There are a couple of pieces missing here.
One, there’s no mention of the capital invested in plant, equipment and technology by the company that played the major role in increasing the workers’ productivity. To use auto workers as an example, I doubt the average auto worker from 2009 is considerably more productive than the same auto worker from 1985 without the updated equipment and technology. The same can be said of white collar workers with respect to computers. The difference being that the cost of computers and servers relative to the increased output of most white collar workers is smaller than the cost of tech/equipment relative to the increased output of an auto worker (or so I’ve read – I can’t vouch for this).
Two, does median family income include benefits? Again, to use the auto workers as an example. While the salaries aren’t that high, the benefits are enormous relative to base pay. Much higher than they are for most white collar folks. Think about government workers as well – same deal. So, I’d like to see the same chart, but adjusted for the value of retirement and health care benefits that most higher-earning folks don’t have.
[quote=CA renter][quote=afx114]Average “lazy” worker productivity has constantly increased over the years:
Meanwhile, median family income compared to GDP has gone down steadily over time:
Meanwhile, the ratio of CEO to average worker pay has risen to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. I’d love to see this graph extend to 2009:
So to summarize: while workers have increased their productivity, their pay has stagnated — or even declined if you factor inflation. Meanwhile, management pay has skyrocketed. Has management’s pay increases been consistent with their productivity? It’s hard to tell — how do you measure CEO productivity? EPS?[/quote]
Once again, very well stated, afx114.
[/quote]
There are a couple of pieces missing here.
One, there’s no mention of the capital invested in plant, equipment and technology by the company that played the major role in increasing the workers’ productivity. To use auto workers as an example, I doubt the average auto worker from 2009 is considerably more productive than the same auto worker from 1985 without the updated equipment and technology. The same can be said of white collar workers with respect to computers. The difference being that the cost of computers and servers relative to the increased output of most white collar workers is smaller than the cost of tech/equipment relative to the increased output of an auto worker (or so I’ve read – I can’t vouch for this).
Two, does median family income include benefits? Again, to use the auto workers as an example. While the salaries aren’t that high, the benefits are enormous relative to base pay. Much higher than they are for most white collar folks. Think about government workers as well – same deal. So, I’d like to see the same chart, but adjusted for the value of retirement and health care benefits that most higher-earning folks don’t have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.