Where has all the surplus gone?
from David Ruccio
Where has all the surplus gone?* Well, a good chunk of it in 2010 has gone to pay Chief Executive Officers of major companies.
According to the AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch,
U.S. corporations held a record $1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good middle-class jobs. Corporate CEOs are literally hoarding their company’s cash—except when it comes to their own paychecks.
In 2010, Standard & Poor’s 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation. Based on 299 companies’ most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers’ jobs.
To give a sense of the magnitude of that number consider that the combined pay of 299 CEOs could support 102,325 workers earning the median wage. Or, if you take just the average pay, consider the following:
* With apologies to Peter, Paul & Mary.
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
You better apologie to Pet Seeger.
Have this numbers something to do with the marginal product of labour?
Sorry, bad joke.
No no no – its about being comeptitive. If you can queeze the life blood out of 753 miniumum wage earners, you get to call yourself competitive.
No no no – its about being comepetitive. If you can queeze the life blood out of 753 miniumum wage earners, you get to call yourself competitive.
Now let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine the entire government sector would shrink by, say, $200 billion. That would open up a tremendous amount of “room” in the economy for those corporations to invest some of that $200 billion. I mean for every public library closed, those corporations would build a private library. For every public school teacher laid off, those corporations would hire a private school teacher. For every fire-house closed, those corporations would begin a private fire-fighting business. THINK OF THE OPPORTUNITIES those private sector businesses would have if the government would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.
[oops — I forgot they wouldn’t have any customers buying these new products because of all the reductions in income because of the government cutbacks — Oh Well — I guess they can sell these new services overseas, right — in emerging markets!]
Now suppose we taxed those unproductive corporate and CEO financial assets. Say, 1%. $19.3 billion (+) a year.
With the effect of encouraging them to invest that money, instead, in real productive assets.
http://www.asymptosis.com/want-a-flat-tax-i-got-a-flat-tax-for-you.html
I swear to God if there is one, I was writing my question as yours was posted. Either we’re both lost and clueless, or ….
To pick up the beat from Mr. Meeropol: Have any of the more mathematically inclined readers/bloggers played around with the Keen modeled summarized in https://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/the-value-of-simple-models-with-examples-of-economic-dynamics/ (the Geoff Davies essay) to see what happens if firms are given two choices either: Either invest the horde acquired, or have it taxed away? Does the latter have different effect if one thinks of the taxes as “re-distributing” demand capacity in MMT manner?
I have no problem with what the numbers are being used to show. But I do have a problem with the accuracy of the numbers. I was going to use them until I noticed that if you add up just the nobel winners through the firefighters you get 929 people and if you divide $11,000,000 by 929 you get $11,840. Not exactly high wages for these people!! Can you get better numbers so I/we can use them?
Oh! I see, you don’t mean all of these people, just one individual group or another.