Federal employees COLA slashed

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2020, 09:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not sure that I agree.  If you're going to adjust the worker's salary for inflation (I think the factor used is something like 3.92), then you must adjust the CEOs pay by the same factor.

When you do that, it actually softens the difference between the two, as CEOs pay in "adjusted for inflation" dollars would have been closer to $6.5M, rather than the $1.65M they actually earned in 1978.  And if you compare the "adjusted" number of ~$6.5M to today's $12.4M, that's not nearly as dramatic of an increase.

Yes, the disparity between CEOs and workers is great, but not as exponential as some are making it out.  Does something need to be done to bring up the workers?  Absolutely.  I'm just saying compare apples to apples when making the case.

We are not as different, as one would think at first glance.  You work in policy, coming from an accounting background.  You're used to dealing with exact amounts and absolute values.  Just as I work in Surveying, we deal in exact calculations and precise, exact boundary measurements.  When someone says that "you must consider inflation", I think to myself "how does having 5 acres of land in 1978 equate to having nearly 20 acres of land, today?".  Sure, the same piece of ground may be worth nearly 4X what it did in 1978, but he still only owns what he owns.  Value is relative to time that it is established, not retroactively.  (yes, I do understand the concept of inflation) 

My point is, I do agree that there is a wage disparity, and that something needs to be done.  I just don't feel it fair to use inflation values to make that point, as no one had ever even heard much about inflation, until around that time.  I was alive and aware, heck I remember the "fuel crisis" of a few years prior.

You should adjust all of it for inflation, and in fact the numbers you were responding to were adjusted.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Now, this is an actual researched article from a think tank, which isn't as easily digestible as some of the other links thrown around. You can look at the key points, though, but I think table 2 in the article is the most relevant to our conversation. But yeah, adjusted for inflation the difference is still stark and shows CEO pay has grown at a more exponential pace while worker pay has remained in a more logarithmic pattern.

[GMDino]

Listen there are "facts" but really how do they help support "conservatives" who want to screw the american worker by saying the numbers aren't "as bad" as they are?

[SunsetBengal]

(02-14-2020, 10:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Listen there are "facts" but really how do they help support "conservatives" who want to screw the american worker by saying the numbers aren't "as bad" as they are?

I am an American worker.  I acknowledge the "facts", and also acknowledge that things need to be done to raise the scales for workers, AND I'm a conservative.  What more do you want?  I just don't feel like exaggerating the differences is the right way to display the facts.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2020, 08:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am uncertain how taking inflation into consideration is an exaggeration of the statistics. It's actually disingenuous to not adjust for inflation when looking at these things. It provides a more accurate assessment for comparison. Trying to compare 1978 dollars to 2018 dollars, or so, doesn't tell the whole picture.

That's like analysis 101 when it comes to these things.

(02-14-2020, 09:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not sure that I agree.  If you're going to adjust the worker's salary for inflation (I think the factor used is something like 3.92), then you must adjust the CEOs pay by the same factor.

When you do that, it actually softens the difference between the two, as CEOs pay in "adjusted for inflation" dollars would have been closer to $6.5M, rather than the $1.65M they actually earned in 1978.  And if you compare the "adjusted" number of ~$6.5M to today's $12.4M, that's not nearly as dramatic of an increase.

Yes, the disparity between CEOs and workers is great, but not as exponential as some are making it out.  Does something need to be done to bring up the workers?  Absolutely.  I'm just saying compare apples to apples when making the case.

We are not as different, as one would think at first glance.  You work in policy, coming from an accounting background.  You're used to dealing with exact amounts and absolute values.  Just as I work in Surveying, we deal in exact calculations and precise, exact boundary measurements.  When someone says that "you must consider inflation", I think to myself "how does having 5 acres of land in 1978 equate to having nearly 20 acres of land, today?".  Sure, the same piece of ground may be worth nearly 4X what it did in 1978, but he still only owns what he owns.  Value is relative to time that it is established, not retroactively.  (yes, I do understand the concept of inflation) 

My point is, I do agree that there is a wage disparity, and that something needs to be done.  I just don't feel it fair to use inflation values to make that point, as no one had ever even heard much about inflation, until around that time.  I was alive and aware, heck I remember the "fuel crisis" of a few years prior.

(02-14-2020, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You should adjust all of it for inflation, and in fact the numbers you were responding to were adjusted.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Now, this is an actual researched article from a think tank, which isn't as easily digestible as some of the other links thrown around. You can look at the key points, though, but I think table 2 in the article is the most relevant to our conversation. But yeah, adjusted for inflation the difference is still stark and shows CEO pay has grown at a more exponential pace while worker pay has remained in a more logarithmic pattern.

(02-14-2020, 10:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I am an American worker.  I acknowledge the "facts", and also acknowledge that things need to be done to raise the scales for workers, AND I'm a conservative.  What more do you want?  I just don't feel like exaggerating the differences is the right way to display the facts.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-14-2020, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote:

  What?

I stand by what I wrote.  I was alive and well in 1978.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2020, 07:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm gonna call BS on those stats.  Using *adjusted for inflation* numbers to claim that average, non-supervisory workers made 48K in 1978 is a load of crap, and I'm pretty sure that you know that.

The truth is, the average wage in 1978 was $6.10/hr. (Dec 1978)  Today, the average wage is $23.87/hr. (Jan 2020)  The minimum wage in 1978 was $2.65/hr, or about 43% of the median.  Today, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25, or about 30% of the median.  So, yes the minimum wage is due for a bump.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?data_set_group_id=773&count=all


Now, the average CEO wages in 1978 was about $1.65M, and today the average is above $12.4M.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/ceo-pay-ratio-average-worker-afl-cio


So, while the CEOs are outpacing the working class, there is no need to exaggerate the statistics by boosting the 1978 workers' numbers by adjusting them for inflation.  In 1978 the average CEO made 127X the average worker's salary, today it's abour 248X the worker's salary.  

In conclusion, yes something needs to lever the scale to the labor side.  Just not in as dramatic fashion that some are arguing, by using skewed data to distort the picture.

Employees just need to work harder for those merit based pay raises.

And if that fantasy actually worked then CEO pay wouldn’t out pace employee pay by 127X, 248X, or 900% with or without adjustment for inflation.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2020, 12:39 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Employees just need to work harder for those merit based pay raises.

And if that fantasy actually worked then CEO pay wouldn’t out pace employee pay by 127X, 248X, or 900% with or without adjustment for inflation.

How so?  Do you not enjoy living in a world with nice products?  Do you not enjoy the pleasure of owning products?  I mean, you could just be a P.A. living in the remote, helping people to get past their ailments and injuries for free and living totally off the land for all I know.

As for me, I like the world we live in.  I love new products, new cars, all the stuff.  I can't afford to buy all the cars, the homes and the stuff, but that's alright with me.  I love knowing that it's all there, and that it enables me to be able to work in a competitive field and be compensated fairly for it.  Am I "wealthy"?  Nope.  Do I have more than I need to get by?  Absolutely, and most likely so do you.  Largely in part because of Capitalism, and the rewards of growing up in a society based upon it.

[Benton]

(02-15-2020, 12:55 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How so?  Do you not enjoy living in a world with nice products?  Do you not enjoy the pleasure of owning products?  I mean, you could just be a P.A. living in the remote, helping people to get past their ailments and injuries for free and living totally off the land for all I know.

As for me, I like the world we live in.  I love new products, new cars, all the stuff.  I can't afford to buy all the cars, the homes and the stuff, but that's alright with me.  I love knowing that it's all there, and that it enables me to be able to work in a competitive field and be compensated fairly for it.  Am I "wealthy"?  Nope.  Do I have more than I need to get by?  Absolutely, and most likely so do you.  Largely in part because of Capitalism, and the rewards of growing up in a society based upon it.

On the other hand, if worker pay increased just a third of what CEO pay had increased, you could afford to buy most of that stuff.

Personally, I'm tired of CEO bonuses that,often, are just the result of healing more work on workers without additional compensation. We live in a society where if you have a decent job, most people are afraid to take a sick day.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2020, 12:55 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How so?  Do you not enjoy living in a world with nice products?  Do you not enjoy the pleasure of owning products?  I mean, you could just be a P.A. living in the remote, helping people to get past their ailments and injuries for free and living totally off the land for all I know.

As for me, I like the world we live in.  I love new products, new cars, all the stuff.  I can't afford to buy all the cars, the homes and the stuff, but that's alright with me.  I love knowing that it's all there, and that it enables me to be able to work in a competitive field and be compensated fairly for it.  Am I "wealthy"?  Nope.  Do I have more than I need to get by?  Absolutely, and most likely so do you.  Largely in part because of Capitalism, and the rewards of growing up in a society based upon it.

We all love that stuff. Just waiting on those merit based pay raises to catch up with the last 40 years or so.

It’s so funny you should bring this stuff up. I’ve been in my current position as part of a regional hospital group for 3 years. Last year they were bought out by a larger hospital. This year the larger hospital group is outsourcing staffing to smaller companies. I currently have the opportunity to continue doing my current job, but as an employee of the staffing company for 2.5% less salary, 3% less in matching 401K contributions, 15% increase in health insurance costs at a minimum, at least 41% less PTO, and the prospect of working more nights and holidays, and any overtime hours will be paid at strictly straight time instead of time and a half like my current contract. So much for contracts! Right?

You crack me up with your merit raises BS. Yeah, federal employees should definitely quit their jobs for the civilian sector because management is tripping over themselves to hand out merit based pay raises. LOL

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2020, 01:24 AM)Benton Wrote: On the other hand, if worker pay increased just a third of what CEO pay had increased, you could afford to buy most of that stuff.

Personally, I'm tired of CEO bonuses that,often, are just the result of healing more work on workers without additional compensation. We live in a society where if you have a decent job, most people are afraid to take a sick day.

I'm not saying that worker pay doesn't need to be increased.  Heck, I've repeated that in post after post in this thread.  My whole point was that exaggerating statistics to prove a point is not the way to go about promoting change.  I still stand by that.  

Here's a "for instance" situation.  Let's say that I make $24/hr to work for an engineering firm to do Surveying work.  The Federal minimum wage raises from $7.25 to $15/hr.  Does that not mean that my skills are still not worth 3X the minimum wage for all of the study, time and experience that I've put in?  

The reason that I ask is because those in the know seem to keep bringing up inflation.  Well, it seems to me that if you increase the minimum wage by a significant figure, then all other wages must adjust to the same factor.  That sounds great on the surface, but what happens as a result?  We all know that in reality, prices go up at typically an even disproportionate ratio.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2020, 02:01 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We all love that stuff. Just waiting on those merit based pay raises to catch up with the last 40 years or so.

It’s so funny you should bring this stuff up. I’ve been in my current position as part of a regional hospital group for 3 years. Last year they were bought out by a larger hospital. This year the larger hospital group is outsourcing staffing to smaller companies. I currently have the opportunity to continue doing my current job, but as an employee of the staffing company for 2.5% less salary, 3% less in matching 401K contributions, 15% increase in health insurance costs at a minimum, at least 41% less PTO, and the prospect of working more nights and holidays, and any overtime hours will be paid at strictly straight time instead of time and a half like my current contract. So much for contracts! Right?

You crack me up with your merit raises BS. Yeah, federal employees should definitely quit their jobs for the civilian sector because management is tripping over themselves to hand out merit based pay raises. LOL

Hmm, sounds to me like your industry needs to get insurance companies, drug companies, and health care provider companies under control..  Why are they making all the money, while your're providing all of the care?  

Start an initiative, start a union, go on strike.  Once people are dying in the streets, politicians might listen.

Edit: Or, you might just do like the old country Docs did, and make house calls..

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2020, 02:02 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote:
I'm not saying that worker pay doesn't need to be increased.  Heck, I've repeated that in post after post in this thread.  My whole point was that exaggerating statistics to prove a point is not the way to go about promoting change.  I still stand by that.  

Here's a "for instance" situation.  Let's say that I make $24/hr to work for an engineering firm to do Surveying work.  The Federal minimum wage raises from $7.25 to $15/hr.  Does that not mean that my skills are still not worth 3X the minimum wage for all of the study, time and experience that I've put in?  

The reason that I ask is because those in the know seem to keep bringing up inflation.  Well, it seems to me that if you increase the minimum wage by a significant figure, then all other wages must adjust to the same factor.  That sounds great on the surface, but what happens as a result?  We all know that in reality, prices go up at typically an even disproportionate ratio.

Really?

(02-13-2020, 02:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't see what the uproar is about. Those same Federal employees that make their salary off of our taxes, are more than welcome to go get jobs in the private sector. In the private sector, performance merits raises in pay more than things like "achieving another year of seniority".

Aren’t you the guy who claimed if the federal employees don’t like having the COLA raise reduced they could quit and get a civilian job instead?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2020, 02:09 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, sounds to me like your industry needs to get insurance companies, drug companies, and health care provider companies under control..  Why are they making all the money, while your're providing all of the care?  

Start an initiative, start a union, go on strike.  Once people are dying in the streets, politicians might listen.

Edit: Or, you might just do like the old country Docs did, and make house calls..

LMAO

A Republican suggesting progressive ideas like price controls, universal healthcare, income equality, unions, and even striking! OMG you’re more of a Democrat than Trump is a Republican.

[BmorePat87]

So if I am taking the numbers supplied here as accurate (no reason to assume they aren't), adjusted for inflation, average salaries are lower while CEO pay has doubled?

Meanwhile (all adjusted for inflation and based on data I could find) the cost of college has more than doubled, the minimum wage is lower, and rent is up.

If the wealth is not trickling down, can we at least reduce the deficit?

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2020, 02:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LMAO

A Republican suggesting progressive ideas like price controls, universal healthcare, income equality, unions, and even striking!  OMG you’re more of a Democrat than Trump is a Republican.

The f**k you talkin' about?  Just because one is a conservative does not mean that "they are against all humanity".  That's the problem lately, people can't seem to have different points of view, yet come to some reasonable solution in the middle.

With you being of the medical profession, I would think it more advantageous for you to be encouraging for more people to agree with you, yet you continue to ridicule.  Did you swear to a different oath, perhaps the one of Dr. Kavorkian??  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2020, 02:02 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not saying that worker pay doesn't need to be increased.  Heck, I've repeated that in post after post in this thread.  My whole point was that exaggerating statistics to prove a point is not the way to go about promoting change.  I still stand by that.  

Here's a "for instance" situation.  Let's say that I make $24/hr to work for an engineering firm to do Surveying work.  The Federal minimum wage raises from $7.25 to $15/hr.  Does that not mean that my skills are still not worth 3X the minimum wage for all of the study, time and experience that I've put in?  

The reason that I ask is because those in the know seem to keep bringing up inflation.  Well, it seems to me that if you increase the minimum wage by a significant figure, then all other wages must adjust to the same factor.  That sounds great on the surface, but what happens as a result?  We all know that in reality, prices go up at typically an even disproportionate ratio.

If a McDonalds worker makes $15/hour will they suddenly start competing with you for the same job? No.

If you’re making $24/hour then you’re compensated more than someone making minimum wage at $15/hour. Their qualifications haven’t increased so they won’t be competing for your job. Which means your employer won’t need to pay an extra dime to keep you in that same position. Your employer isn’t going to pay you extra just because McDonalds has to pay their employees more.

If your employer raised your pay to $50/hour my employer isn’t going to pay me more because your pay doubled.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2020, 02:25 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The f**k you talkin' about?  Just because one is a conservative does not mean that "they are against all humanity".  That's the problem lately, people can't seem to have different points of view, yet come to some reasonable solution in the middle.

With you being of the medical profession, I would think it more advantageous for you to be encouraging for more people to agree with you, yet you continue to ridicule.  Did you swear to a different oath, perhaps the one of Dr. Kavorkian??  

I’m talking about in order to get those industries under control as you suggested requires price fixing at a minimum and government regulation, the antithesis of capitalism and Republican deregulation as just one example.

And unions? Pfft. People just need to work hard and with they will be able to negotiate industry leading wages.

My contract and all of my co-workers contracts expressly prohibit discussing wages with co-workers. So we can’t even enter into informed salary negotiations relative to what our peers earn.

[Benton]

(02-15-2020, 02:02 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not saying that worker pay doesn't need to be increased.  Heck, I've repeated that in post after post in this thread.  My whole point was that exaggerating statistics to prove a point is not the way to go about promoting change.  I still stand by that.  

Here's a "for instance" situation.  Let's say that I make $24/hr to work for an engineering firm to do Surveying work.  The Federal minimum wage raises from $7.25 to $15/hr.  Does that not mean that my skills are still not worth 3X the minimum wage for all of the study, time and experience that I've put in?  

The reason that I ask is because those in the know seem to keep bringing up inflation.  Well, it seems to me that if you increase the minimum wage by a significant figure, then all other wages must adjust to the same factor.  That sounds great on the surface, but what happens as a result?  We all know that in reality, prices go up at typically an even disproportionate ratio.

A lot of "what I'm worth" used to be controlled by supply/demand with a mix of labor negotiations. Republicans have stripped the negotiations part, and supply/demand doesn't mean much when there's a high demand for low skilled jobs that people have to take because there's no real alternative. Meanwhile, tax payers are supplementing low payers like Walmart that pay little taxes while having workers who have to work 2-3 jobs.

[*michaelsean*]

In the end, does it matter what the CEO makes? I assume we are pretty much talking about Fortune 500 companies. If we distribute the difference between what a CEO makes, and what we think they should make, will it make much of a difference? I think it's stockholders more than CEO pay.

[Belsnickel]

(02-17-2020, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In the end, does it matter what the CEO makes? I assume we are pretty much talking about Fortune 500 companies. If we distribute the difference between what a CEO makes, and what we think they should make, will it make much of a difference? I think it's stockholders more than CEO pay.

One of the big reasons that there is a focus on the rise in CEO pay in comparison to worker wages is that it is one of the largest pieces of evidence that shows the whole idea of "trickle down" economics is a fallacy. In a well functioning market, an increase in capital would result in a (relatively) equal rise in revenue for all parties in the stream. This is what the whole idea of Reaganomics is founded on. However, what we are seeing is that the increase in capital is not being spread throughout the economy as is theorized. This is a market failure.

This metric can also help explain the compression of the middle class in this country and the lack of socioeconomic mobility.