[dante]

An interesting piece from this mornings WSJ.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich

So the rich get richer, and then buy more crap (or, alternatively, the middle and lower class get poorer, and buy less crap) and this is news? This is something that is supposed to be healthy for America?

The Foxification of the WSJ continues, unabated...

 

[jimmydean]

So the rich get richer, and then buy more crap (or, alternatively, the middle and lower class get poorer, and buy less crap) and this is news? This is something that is supposed to be healthy for America?

The Foxification of the WSJ continues, unabated...

While I don't disagree with the foxification of any and all Fox News and Friends organizations, the real thing that bugs me is the sizable gap and where I might fit.

It just scares the hell out of me when I have been struggling in my career to be a top earner only to learn what I make is 1/4 of what my bosses boss makes. What bothered me even more is when I found out that the 33% reduction in pay I took while working at a start up back in the pre-bubble tech world was for everyone EXCEPT management.

Everyone who did actual work took the cut in order to slow burn rates until round b came in. The people responsible for securing round b funding didn't take a cut AT ALL. Wouldn't it make more sense for those responsible be financially tied to the success?

I guess it's no different than golden parachutes. CEO's who get paid billions to run a company into the ground only to be paid even more to leave the wreckage.

 

[Polandspring88]

Everyone who did actual work took the cut in order to slow burn rates until round b came in. The people responsible for securing round b funding didn't take a cut AT ALL. Wouldn't it make more sense for those responsible be financially tied to the success?

They are financially tied to success. It's reflected in the size of their bonus.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Related.

 

[Silver]

While I don't disagree with the foxification of any and all Fox News and Friends organizations, the real thing that bugs me is the sizable gap and where I might fit.

It just scares the hell out of me when I have been struggling in my career to be a top earner only to learn what I make is 1/4 of what my bosses boss makes. What bothered me even more is when I found out that the 33% reduction in pay I took while working at a start up back in the pre-bubble tech world was for everyone EXCEPT management.

Everyone who did actual work took the cut in order to slow burn rates until round b came in. The people responsible for securing round b funding didn't take a cut AT ALL. Wouldn't it make more sense for those responsible be financially tied to the success?

I guess it's no different than golden parachutes. CEO's who get paid billions to run a company into the ground only to be paid even more to leave the wreckage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/acLW1vFO-2Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/acLW1vFO-2Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[dante]

While I don't disagree with the foxification of any and all Fox News and Friends organizations, the real thing that bugs me is the sizable gap and where I might fit.

It just scares the hell out of me when I have been struggling in my career to be a top earner only to learn what I make is 1/4 of what my bosses boss makes. What bothered me even more is when I found out that the 33% reduction in pay I took while working at a start up back in the pre-bubble tech world was for everyone EXCEPT management.

Everyone who did actual work took the cut in order to slow burn rates until round b came in. The people responsible for securing round b funding didn't take a cut AT ALL. Wouldn't it make more sense for those responsible be financially tied to the success?

I guess it's no different than golden parachutes. CEO's who get paid billions to run a company into the ground only to be paid even more to leave the wreckage.

Count yourself REALLY lucky if you make 1/4 of what your bosses boss makes.

Interesting take on executive pay vs worker pay.

Many studies (for example, Lawrence Mishel's study "The State of Working America 2005, 2006") show that back in 1965 the ratio between CEO pay and average company pay was 24 to 1. By 1980 the ratio had increased to 40 to 1. The ratio tended to increase every year, and in 2000 it had increased to 300 to 1.

 

[Serial Midget]

In 1965 there was a lot less consolidating of businesses and more privately held companies that employed more managers - I don't have facts to back this up but I seem to remember something along those lines from business economics.

Are businesses spending more (as a percent of salary expense) on management today than they where in 1965? I suspect no - there are just a lot fewer managers to spread the wealth among.