Freeper associate believes Carter is responsible for CEO pay

[Lorien]

seriously. I just got off the phone with a wild eyed Freeper former coworker who was trying to convince me that Carter is responsible for out of control CEO salaries, Wal-mart is a fantastic place to work, and that the tax breaks for hummer owners are really just an unfair use of a fair law meant to benefit family farmers who need to purchase trucks for their farms. She says she knows "a lot" about laws and current events because she "watches the news all day long and spends hours reading the internet" (gee, I wonder what stations and what sites? Fox, CNN, newsmax...)?

I recommended Kevin Phillips "Wealth and democracy" to her, but does anyone have any websites or articles I could send to her re: her delusional beliefs about Carter and CEO pay?

[Webster Green]

1. The part about the Hummer tax breaks is true.....

The rest is bullshit, of course.

[Lorien]

3. Bushco knew EXACTLY who would take advantage of their

large vehicle tax breaks. It's all about keeping up fossil fuel demands, after all.

[NoBorders]

4. didn't those tax breaks precede bushco?

Anyway, I believe they passed a law to phase those breaks out, but it will take years. The Carter things sounds like Hannity/Limbaugh propoganda to me.

[trotsky]

2. CARTER?!?

I'm afraid that one is lost, if she thinks Carter did it.

You could ask her what Reagan/Bush/Bush did to help control CEO salaries, I guess.

[lostnfound]

5. Financial Times: 1980: CEO 40 x avg worker; 2003: CEO=530 x avg worker

That was in the London Financial Times in an article called "Off the leash: what will bring executive pay under control?" dated August 24, 2004.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f6298804-f56a-11d8-85e9-00000e2511c8.html

[lostnfound]

6. Link to another thread, and snips from the FT article

Another thread you might be able to use..Other post-ers put some graphs on 'the gini index' in it which are useful. Shows Carter adminisration to be fairly flat for 'inequality index' and fairly flat for Clinton (major dramatic exception was 1992; not sure if that's beginning or end or who is responsible); steady climb for Bush and Reagan. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2260763

In 2003, the earnings growth for the US's largest 500 companies grew by a median 9.6 per cent, according to Standard & Poor's. The median total pay for chief executives in those companies, however, rose by a median 22 per cent, double the rise of 2002, according to the Corporate Library, a US watchdog group. The group said last month that "calls for pay constraint appear to be being ignored".

<snip>
In testimony before the US Congress in June, he pointed out: "In 1980, the average Fortune 500 CEO made 40 times more than the average person who worked for him or her . . . By2000, it was between 400 and 500 times, and last year I believe. . . it was about 530 times. There is no economic theory on God's planet that can justify that."

<snip>
Furthermore, it appears that shareholders and directors of companies that are performing poorly are reluctant to act. "A surprising number of companies continue to pay their executives stratospheric sums for mediocre performance" says Glass Lewis in its recent report on renumeration. "Some of America's highest-paid CEOs continue to manage some of the nation's worst performing companies."

The report says that Schering-Plough, the pharmaceutical company, is a good example of this phenomenon. In April 2003, the company lured Fred Hassan, a seasoned industry executive, to be its turnround architect. That year, the company recorded a $92m loss, yet Mr Hassan was paid for his part-year in cash, shares and options worth about $11m.