Showing posts with label income inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label income inequality. Show all posts

May 23, 2016

Addressing Income Inequality (v3): Coporate Profits

My #FeeltheBern friends, my #ImWithHer friends, and my less overtly political friends and I have had conversations about the hot topics today. In this edition of my Addressing Income Inequality series, we'll look at corporate profits; the first post was on 'living wages' and the second was on CEO salaries.

Like most of you, I've heard and read that corporate profits are out of control, and they make CEO pay out of control, and the giant profits being shared with people other than the workers who make the profits possible are killing the middle class.

And like some of you, I sort of sit up and take notice when I see articles like this:
According to this article (from October of 2015), the ten most profitable companies in the world include the three above; Apple and Exxon Mobil were numbers one and two, respectively; Berkshire Hathaway came in at number four. Who are the rest of the top ten?

#3 Samsung Electronics (South Korea)
#5 Chevron (US)
#6 Toyota Motor Corp.(Japan)
#7 PetroChina (China)
#8 China Mobile (China)
#9 Walmart (US) and
#10 Johnson and Johnson (US).

That's six American companies, two Chinese, one Japanese, and one South Korean firm in the top ten.

So I have to ask, what was your first reaction seeing the list?

Are you on the "those bastages, look at all that money and why don't employees see any of it?" side of the fence?  Maybe you're on the "Alright, look at our American companies go!" Or, possibly, you just go "Hmm... how on earth do they do that?"

I'll be honest,  frequently find myself in the group that says "I sure hope my 401(k) is invested in companies like these!"

All of those reactions are possible, and none of them are really wrong; it's all about perspective, and all about perception.

Now, regular readers know I'm not an economist, a statistician, an accountant or an auditor. I mention this because, while I'm capable of finding lots of information on lots of topics, I'm not qualified to say whether the information I find is 'more right' or 'more wrong.'

But, after all we've heard from the politicians about evil corporations and huge profits, would you be surprised that (according to this info) corporate profits fell to their lowest level in four years in the last quarter of 2015?

Or that, for all of 2015, profits were down over 5%?




And for one of the most left-reviled industry sectors - petroleum and coal - profits were down $124.3 billion in the fourth quarter alone, and down $40.6 for the full year?

What does all of this mean?  As with our other Income Inequality measures - minimum wage and CEO salaries, the proof may be in the pudding, but the beauty is in the beholding.

Where some might seem happy that profits are down, because everything is so unequal, others lament the fact that the numbers are down, because that can negatively impact so many other things, including investment accounts, pensions and 401(k)s.  Some would say that not everyone has the chance to have a pension, or investments, or a retirement fund -- so too bad, so sad for those people who are rich enough to have them... And so it goes.

Should the government have the right to tell a company that they can't make as big a profit as they're able? Should we be complaining that our American companies are making great profits?  Isn't that what we want them to be doing? I mean, I can't imagine anyone --  an Apple, an ExxonMobil or a mom and pop corner store - going into business to lose money, any more than we all go to work every day to do a crappy job.

Why would anyone bother?

May 21, 2016

Addressing Income Inequality (v2): CEO Pay

The other day I posted the first in a series on income inequality, since it's probably the biggest issue this election season.

For Bernie Sanders, it sometimes seems to be the only issue, although I thought there was one debate where he said the single biggest issue facing our country was climate change; I could be wrong.  For Hillary Clinton, income inequality has become a larger issue than she might have hoped, particularly when the Sanders camp is hitting her speaking engagement income. 

One of the things we hear an awful lot about is the fact that millionaires and billionaires, the 1%, are getting almost all of the new income and getting more and more obscenely rich; the rest of us, the 99% are struggling and barely keeping our heads above water - actually, or in comparison, or at least in perception. 

My first post was about the minimum wage, with a little extra thrown in about the new Obama administration overtime rules that will go into effect on December 1st.  Tonight, let's take a look at what people earn.

First, some general understanding, things we think we know to be true, or believe to be true:

  • CEOs make a lot of money;
  • the ratio of CEO salary to worker salary is skewed;
  • the top 1% make a lot of money

But what do those generally understood concepts mean? What happens if we put some numbers around the concepts?
  • In 2014, for example, average CEO pay (including stock options and all the rest) at the largest 350 companies  was $16.3M
  • That ratio of CEO to worker salary?  That was about 300 to 1.
  • To be in the top 10% (according to IRS data from 2013), you only needed adjusted gross income of $128K
  • To be in the top 1%, the figure was $429K
  • To be in the top .1%, it's $1.9M
  • To be in the top .01%, it's a mere $9.5M

Is it shocking to you that the minimum adjusted gross income requirements to be in these upper echelons are so low? It was to me.  Things get even more interesting when you look at CEO pay versus pay other people's pay.

First, here are the top 5 CEOs based on total compensation, as of 2014 (details on how the numbers were derived and what companies were included is in the small print in the article):
  1. David Zaslaw, CEO of Discovery Communications (the Discovery Channel and others): $11M salary, $145 other compensation (stock options, bonuses, etc.)
  2. Michael Fries, CEO of Liberty Global, which provides cable service in 14 countries: $16.M salary, $95.9 other compensation
  3. Mario Gabelli, CEO GAMCO Investors, a company founded by Gabelli back in the 1970s, which manages close to $40B in assets: $88.5M
  4. Satya Nardella, CEO of Microsoft, a company with over $90B revenue: $4.5M salary, $79.8M other compensation
  5. Nick Woodman, CEO and founder of Go Pro, the cool cameras; $2.7M salary, $74.7M other compensation
No question about it -- that's a lot of money. Not so much the salaries, which don't bother me all that much - but the 'other compensation' adds a ton of money and it does seem hard to justify. 

Let's look at some other 'lots of money' buckets, which seem a lot harder to justify, in my mind. Take college basketball coaches:
  1. Coach K, Duke University: $7,299,666
  2. John Calipari, Kentucky: $6,875,376
  3. Sean Miller, Arizona: $4,945,664
  4. Bill Seif, Kansas: $4,943,776
  5. Tom Izzo, Michigan State: $4,150,359
Syracuse's Jim Boeheim was only No. 20 on the list, with a paltry $2,144,284.

NFL players for 2015?
  1. Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers: $22M, $110M over five years
  2. Seattle's Russel Wilson: $21.9M, $87.6M over four years
  3. Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger: $21.85M, $87.4M over four year
  4. The Giants' Eli Manning: $21.8M, $84M over four years
  5. Carolina's Cam Newton: $20.8M, part of a five year, $103M deal
How about Major League Baseball? Here's your top five in 2015:
  1. Clayton Kershaw, with the Dodgers: $32.8M, part of a $215M deal
  2. David Price, Red Sox: $30.5M, part of a $217M deal
  3. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers: $30M, part of a $248M deal
  4. Justin Verlander, Tigers: $28.6M
  5. Yoenis Cespedes, NY Mets: $28.1M
TV personalities?  In the year spanning June 2014 - June 2015, Howard Stern made $95M; Ellen DeGeneres $75M; Dr Phil $70M, Gordon Ramsay, the cursing chef, and Ryan Seacrest both made $60M.

Actors? Good lord, it's nuts: Robert Downey Jr's $80M? Jackie Chan, $50M? Bradley Cooper, $41.5M?  

There are examples all over the place. News anchors?  ABC made a nine-figure deal with George Stephanopoulos. NBC pays Matt Lauer $20M.

Kim Kardashian made $52.5M in 2015.

So  in the overall scheme of things, do we really pay CEOs too much? Or do we pay lots of people too much?