(<a href="http://duanegran.com/blog/?p=136">reposted</a>)

Unions established the "Made in America" movement in the 70s as a response to foreign imports. It resulted in some patriotic buying habits that continue to this day and the ever present “made in x country” labels that we see on nearly every product we buy. It was generally a good idea, as it made people aware of a new dimension to their purchasing habits.

However, times have changed and globalization, for good or bad, is so pervasive that this strategy holds little sway over purchasing decisions. Between diluting the idea with lies from walmart and inherent complexity of identifying a country of origin, the label is no longer worthwhile. I suggest we move to version 2.0 of the info-label.

I propose that the label should indicate a simple ratio that denotes the wage differential of the typical executive to the typical worker. In case anyone thinks that this is a non-issue, I draw this from a summary of <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0412-10.htm">BLS data</a>:

<i>The United States long has had the industrialized world’s largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker’s wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</i>

Although I have some doubts about consumer social consciousness, I think providing the facts is a good start. We provide FDA information for consumers to make healthy choices about food. I think we should provide them a way to support companies that operate with a more fair compensation differential. It should be a part of our purchasing decision.

Why do liberals always want to change the rules of a free market society? If you don't like earning what a worker earns, become the CEO. Start your own company. Heck everyone wants to be boss!

I don't see anyone complaining about the ridiculous compensation that artists, actors and sports figures make. The guy selling hotdogs at the game makes significantly less than 419 times what Derek Jeter makes. Or the person taking tickets at the movies makes a hell of a lot less than what Susan Sarandin or hubby Tim Robins makes. Maybe they should post the data on these items before one purchases tickest to these events.

"Derek Jeter will make $111,111.00 today even if he strikes out at every at bat. The hotdog guy will make about $34.50 and he has to work his but off."

You see it is kind of nonsensical to look at things this way. Being the boss is just as hard and probably harder than being Derek Jeter.

liberals just want to B!tch and complain about fairness and equality so that they can feel that they are on the moral high ground and feel "superior" to others. It does not matter to them weather or not what they want is feasable in the real world.

Than again maybe they are just stupid. I'm not sure.

Why do liberals always want to change the rules of a free market society? If you don't like earning what a worker earns, become the CEO. Start your own company. Heck everyone wants to be boss!

I don't see anyone complaining about the ridiculous compensation that artists, actors and sports figures make. The guy selling hotdogs at the game makes significantly less than 419 times what Derek Jeter makes. Or the person taking tickets at the movies makes a hell of a lot less than what Susan Sarandin or hubby Tim Robins makes. Maybe they should post the data on these items before one purchases tickest to these events.

"Derek Jeter will make $111,111.00 today even if he strikes out at every at bat. The hotdog guy will make about $34.50 and he has to work his but off."

You see it is kind of nonsensical to look at things this way. Being the boss is just as hard and probably harder than being Derek Jeter.

I would disagree on a sociological level with your assertion. As evidence I would point to the most recent spate of incidents involving fans and athletes. No longer to people feel a connection with sports stars like they used too. Because of the salary differences, and the price with which they pay to see a game there is no longer an honorable relationship with players and fans. They are seen as greedy, slackers that can't feed their families on the paltry 15 million that they make. It is this shifting dynamic that I think is hurting sports and is contributing to the violence between fans and athletes.

Now, now. I am sure they have good intensions. Misguided, but good. I just can never figure out why they get such a rush counting everyone else's money. Then they try to pin the inequities of life on the wrong people. If they really looked they would see that Hollywood and the entertainment industry has caused much of what they despise. Just look at who the average person tries to emulate and idolize. Look at where people spend their money. This should tell you a lot about who has what and why.

It's not hurting sports financially. At least not yet. Ticket sales to baseball are at an all time high. People will still pay $100 for a BB jersey.

The incidents you cite have more to do with other social ills than a lack of interest in the sport or a loss of respect for the athletes. People do not honor or even perceive boundaries any longer. That is a different issue entirely.

<i>The United States long has had the industrialized world’s largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker’s wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</i>


That's an awesome trick - kudos to you (I suppose it's really CommonDreams I should be admiring). Cite the BLS to give credibility to a statistic that they only provided half the data for. The BLS doesn't track "CEO" pay. The closest category they provide is "Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations". So CommonDreams is taking the average CEO pay - probably of the Fortune 500 (so, only the largest Companies) and dividing by the average worker wage of all companies (including all small companies). The two aren't comparable, yet CommonDreams not only does it, but pretends that it is a BLS statistic. Great work.

It's not hurting sports financially. At least not yet. Ticket sales to baseball are at an all time high. People will still pay $100 for a BB jersey.

The incidents you cite have more to do with other social ills than a lack of interest in the sport or a loss of respect for the athletes. People do not honor or even perceive boundaries any longer. That is a different issue entirely.

Of course it has to do with a lack of respect for the athletes...do you start lobbing beers as Ron Artest because you respect him? There is a disconnect between the fans and athletes that continues to snowball because sports is now a business. I remember one of my favorite players of all time...Lou Whitaker 2nd base for the Tigers...he was the MLB players rep for the tigers and showed up for strike negotiations in a limo...when asked about it he replied..."I'm rich what do you expect me to drive?" That statement ended the connection that I had playing second base for my little league team years before and projecting those feelings on to Michigan and Trumbell Avenue. From that point I still continue to enjoy sports, but not the athletes that play them.

For what it is worth, I also find the pay of professional athletes to be outrageous. Also, I earn what is probably in the top 5%, so your insinuation that I should be more concerned with advancing myself than the plight of the working poor is misdirected.

As for the subject itself, on what grounds would you object to informing the public about pay inequity? Is there something wrong with giving the people the facts and letting them make a moral judgment about their purchases?

liberals just want to B!tch and complain about fairness and equality so that they can feel that they are on the moral high ground and feel "superior" to others. It does not matter to them weather or not what they want is feasable in the real world.

Than again maybe they are just stupid. I'm not sure.
... has long been staked out by the right.Your moral superiority is something that you remind us sinners all the time.Then again you might be too stupid to understand this..

I think it is different than you perceive it to be. If they didn't respect these athlete for the issues you state, they wouldn't even attend the games. I think it has more to do with a general lack of respect for anyone and/or any boundaries, either formal or informal. People believe they are 'entitled' to do, say and act as they please. Look at how people drive these days and that should tell you where their mindset is. It's all about 'me'. "I have to go there and you will wait even if you have the right of way." People throw beer on athletes because they think they have a right to do so because they paid entry, not because they think they are overpaid, steroid pumping freaks. They could care less about that.

I propose that the label should indicate a simple ratio that denotes the wage differential of the typical executive to the typical worker.

How exactly would this would be useful information? What is the "proper" ratio? Who is a typical executive? Who is a typical worker? Don't you think this would unfairly taint high turnover businesses that traditionally employ a lot of minimum wage workers?

What do I care what the ratio is anyway? Workers should seek out the highest paying jobs for which they are qualified, and it's not my problem if they aim low. It's also not my problem if a corporation wants to overpay executives. I just want a decent product at a good price. The internal workings and politics of the business do not interest me at all. If the "typical" workers think they are unfairly treated, they can strike or quit.

I am very happy for you. So you are rich too?

I don't believe that the information is relevant to the purchase. It has nothing to do with morality either - in contrast to say the way certain Tuna is caught which harms certain other species. Having the knowledge that a CEO of a particular corp makes X and the guy who sewed the label on the item makes Y is irrelevant from every perspective except envy. There is no way to compare these issues on a meanigful basis. I know doctors who save people every day. They make good money, but not as much as Derek Jeter. Where's the equity there?

People throw beer on athletes because they think they have a right to do so because they paid entry, not because they think they are overpaid, steroid pumping freaks. They could care less about that.

The fact that you are arguing the opposite side and feel free to throw those type of pejoratives at the athletes does not detract from my argument.

That's an awesome trick - kudos to you (I suppose it's really CommonDreams I should be admiring). Cite the BLS to give credibility to a statistic that they only provided half the data for. The BLS doesn't track "CEO" pay. The closest category they provide is "Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations". So CommonDreams is taking the average CEO pay - probably of the Fortune 500 (so, only the largest Companies) and dividing by the average worker wage of all companies (including all small companies). The two aren't comparable, yet CommonDreams not only does it, but pretends that it is a BLS statistic. Great work.

you just dont get it. common dreams is "progressive". thats all you need to know.

I was using your argument. You feel that people perceive these athletes as steroid pumping jerks and use it as justification for their actions to throw beer at them or physically encounter them. I don't buy it. If people were really concerned about athletes using steroids and being overpaid, they wouldn't be buying tickets and jerseys and everything else that goes into the machine of big time sports. They are still buying at a record setting pace.

I believe they are overpaid, steroid pumping jerks and I don't buy their stuff. I have pretty much had it with professional sports. It isn't about the sport any more it's about ratings and money. Period. I may watch on TV, but I do not buy tickets to events any longer. I gave up my season tickets to the Rangers and passed on Yankees tickets. I may instead buy tickets to the Staten Island Yankees. At least these are guys who are trying to make it and are working their butts off. I guees it is still about money for them, but at least they are doing it now for the prize at the end. Not the prize they already have.

you just dont get it. common dreams is "progressive". thats all you need to know.

No, I get it. I can admire good statistical manipulation regardless of its source.

I can admire things and people that I don't agree with.

I believe they are overpaid, steroid pumping jerks and I don't buy their stuff. I have pretty much had it with professional sports. It isn't about the sport any more it's about ratings and money. Period. I may watch on TV, but I do not buy tickets to events any longer. I gave up my season tickets to the Rangers and passed on Yankees tickets. I may instead buy tickets to the Staten Island Yankees. At least these are guys who are trying to make it and are working their butts off. I guees it is still about money for them, but at least they are doing it now for the prize at the end. Not the prize they already have.

Just for a moment...do you think that it is possible for 2 people to have the same beliefs yet act on those beliefs in two divergent ways? One decides to move away from the sport while another more neanderthal person may decide to exact some sort of recompense for the outrage of having steroid addled losers to watch who biatch about money? Let me make this clear I am not defending the jerks who do this...rather I am looking at a rationale...a cause that has specific definitions that can be traced to the way fans and athletes now look at one another.

I was just going to add to my prior post that even though I believe they are steroid pumping, overpaid jerks, I wouldn't toss beer on them. I would wonder why someone else who believes the same would wear a sports jersey to an event they paid to attend and then proceed to throw beer on the athletes. I think it has more to do with poor upbringing and poor moral values than any outrage or statement they may want to make about these athletes and what they may have done to get to where they are. Just my opinion of course :D

I was just going to add to my prior post that even though I believe they are steroid pumping, overpaid jerks, I wouldn't toss beer on them. I would wonder why someone else who believes the same would wear a sports jersey to an event they paid to attend and then proceed to throw beer on the athletes. I think it has more to do with poor upbringing and poor moral values than any outrage or statement they may want to make about these athletes and what they may have done to get to where they are. Just my opinion of course :D

Anticipating my next move...perhaps we have learned to argue against one another too well?

Do you believe that people are outraged and are reacting and/or making a statement? Or, do you really believe that people are out of control, have little respect for others and are not able to keep their emotions in check?

Do you believe that people are outraged and are reacting and/or making a statement? Or, do you really believe that people are out of control, have little respect for others and are not able to keep their emotions in check?

I think societally speaking it is easier to act out when you feel you don't have anything in common with said person...that they are not one of your group anymore. I mean do I have anything in common with Lattrell Sprewell? He can't seem to feed his family on 15 mill a year yet me and my wife feed ourselves on what is in his wallet all year long. This feeds for me a sense of entitlement among athletes that I find alien. Now being a responsible adult I don't by a ticket to harangue or violate an athlete, but...when the malace in the palace broke out...I was rooting for the fans. (Except those that came on the court) Now the fact that some of these people turned out to be hooligans tempered that...but when you have Ron Artest pounding a guy asking...are you the guy who threw the beer on me? and the fan between punches screaming....NO! You kind of get the sense that maybe things are really wrong between athletes and fans.

I root for a positive test against Barry Bonds...I do...because he has this aloof sense of entitlement that MEN like Cal Ripken never had. It isn't as simple as I envy Barry so I wish him ill...no rather I think children like Barry degrade men like Cal and the game that he played. People like that ruin something inside the heart of fans like myself who dreamed of turning two with Alan Trammel and it does not have to be like that...

I would think that shareholders would have some stake in seeing less money going into the pocket of the CEO, in the same way they consent to gutting the wages and benefits of the line worker, but for some reason it doesn't happen. You bring up a good point about definitions. The terms could be manipulated easily if it isn't pinned down properly. That said, if it could be done, I think it would make a helpful indicator of the moral compass of a company.

I don't believe that the information is relevant to the purchase. It has nothing to do with morality either - in contrast to say the way certain Tuna is caught which harms certain other species. Having the knowledge that a CEO of a particular corp makes X and the guy who sewed the label on the item makes Y is irrelevant from every perspective except envy. There is no way to compare these issues on a meanigful basis. I know doctors who save people every day. They make good money, but not as much as Derek Jeter. Where's the equity there?

There are some good examples of consumer activism changing industries. We have seen cosmetics make a point to not test on animals and free trade coffee is a rising business. These still represent a niche, but the goal of informing the consumer is an effort to shift the center. This alone is a victory when the business world has no natural incentive to do the right thing.

As for the complexity of comparison, I think people have an innate sense of fairness. Sometimes common sense is dead wrong, but that is why I propose this idea. One may be able to purchase a good or service and compare the "fairness" ratio between vendors. Most people would ignore in favor of other factors, such as price, but a significant minority would seek out what I term "fair employment" vendors.

I don't see anyone complaining about the ridiculous compensation that artists, actors and sports figures make.
OK...I will complain. It is obscene how much they make.

No, I get it. I can admire good statistical manipulation regardless of its source.

I can admire things and people that I don't agree with.
c'mon TJ...aren't almost ALL statistics manipulated? Is there such a thing as a pure statistic? Everytime I make a report for my boss I use choice stats that make things look as good as they can look. Why would I cut my own throat by intentionally including stuff that makes us look bad?

I would think that shareholders would have some stake in seeing less money going into the pocket of the CEO, in the same way they consent to gutting the wages and benefits of the line worker, but for some reason it doesn't happen. You bring up a good point about definitions. The terms could be manipulated easily if it isn't pinned down properly. That said, if it could be done, I think it would make a helpful indicator of the moral compass of a company.
I agree...I think one of the reasons there isn't more outrage over CEO compensation is because most of us don't know how much they actually make. While salaries are pretty easy to obtain the additional perks such as private jets (with compensation for taxes on said jet included) and stock options and the like are largely hidden from the average person. This stuff can be a huge portion of total compensation for a CEO. If shareholders knew how much total compensation their CEO was getting they might decide he/she isn't worth that much, but when kept in the dark things pretty much stay the way they are and the pay scale keeps getting further and further out of proportion.

Wouldn't that be fun. And useful to the entire economy.

I don't really care what the Godhead earns. I'd like to know if the employees have health insurance and other benefits.

In the broader view, most of the money is holed up at the top. It needs to flow down, as advertised.

Why do connies alway think liberals are envious of wealth? The issue is the welfare of workers at the expense of greedy execs, not wealth envy.

What do I care what the ratio is anyway?

Let them eat cake?

Where does our unconcern with social inequality end? Where does it begin?

Is the growing extreme disparity between average worker's pay and bloated CEO pay a sign of a healthy society?

Does it mean nothing? What does it mean?

Is it informative that the privileged caste is largely white males?

Is there a positive message in such disparity?

I would think that shareholders would have some stake in seeing less money going into the pocket of the CEO, in the same way they consent to gutting the wages and benefits of the line worker, but for some reason it doesn't happen. You bring up a good point about definitions. The terms could be manipulated easily if it isn't pinned down properly. That said, if it could be done, I think it would make a helpful indicator of the moral compass of a company.

I don't see any connection between CEO pay and the "moral compass" of a company. I want to see your proof and methodology for this assertion. Prove to me that companies with a highly paid CEO are less moral than ones with a lesser paid CEO.

I also don't get what point you are trying to make. Do you think people aren't going to buy toilet paper because the CEO makes too much? Or that someone will choose Ford over Chevy because Ford has a better CEO to worker ratio? I'm shaking my head trying to find some meaning in this idea.

I don't see any connection between CEO pay and the "moral compass" of a company. I want to see your proof and methodology for this assertion. Prove to me that companies with a highly paid CEO are less moral than ones with a lesser paid CEO.

I also don't get what point you are trying to make. Do you think people aren't going to buy toilet paper because the CEO makes too much? Or that someone will choose Ford over Chevy because Ford has a better CEO to worker ratio? I'm shaking my head trying to find some meaning in this idea.
I'd be more likely to support a company that distributed the wealth more than one that kept most of it at the top and screwed their workers.

Let them eat cake?

Where does our unconcern with social inequality end? Where does it begin?

Is the growing extreme disparity between average worker's pay and bloated CEO pay a sign of a healthy society?

Does it mean nothing? What does it mean?

Seems to me that everyone is eating plenty of cake. Who didn't get a piece of cake?

I'd be more likely to support a company that distributed the wealth more than one that kept most of it at the top and screwed their workers.

Really? What if the "good" company consistently produced crap products and the "bad" company always produced high quality stuff?

c'mon TJ...aren't almost ALL statistics manipulated? Is there such a thing as a pure statistic? Everytime I make a report for my boss I use choice stats that make things look as good as they can look. Why would I cut my own throat by intentionally including stuff that makes us look bad?

Of course all statistics are manipulated. Some people are just better at it than others. I'm only admiring the balls of CommonDreams for implying that the BLS (which is as unbiased as it gets - they present data, rather than statistics) had calculated this statistic.

Usually if you're going to twist statistics, you don't get to be so bold as to claim the Government provided it.

Really? What if the "good" company consistently produced crap products and the "bad" company always produced high quality stuff?
2 companies producing relatively equal product was assumed. An example would be WalMart vs Costco. My dollars go to Costco--not Sams Club. I like the CEO's philosophy. I'm sure he makes big bucks, but then again the workers are paid well and have good benefits.

Seems to me that everyone is eating plenty of cake. Who didn't get a piece of cake?




35,000,000, Marie.

I don't see any connection between CEO pay and the "moral compass" of a company. I want to see your proof and methodology for this assertion. Prove to me that companies with a highly paid CEO are less moral than ones with a lesser paid CEO.

I'm open to suggestions for a better metric than pay ratio, but this one seemed like an ideal choice considering problems with the wealth divide in America. Maybe we could devise a social consciousness score card for products that listed environmental impact, wage ratio, 401k match, pension support and a variety of other indicators of good employment. Heck, we could use the "top places to work" as an indicator too.

There are definitely issues with my proposal. Morality is a subjective term and I concede that it is possible for an overpaid CEO (in my opinion) to be a moral person. That said, I do think there is something fishy about the top brass taking home millions of dollars if the common worker is just getting by. If I were more informed about the relative fairness of corporations I may well vote with my dollars. I think others would too.

I'd be more likely to support a company that distributed the wealth more than one that kept most of it at the top and screwed their workers.
Why is there an assumption that if a company pays its CEO umpteen million dollars, or say, 200 times more than it's non-managerial employees, that it is automatically 'screwing' the 'workers'?

Why is there an assumption that if a company pays its CEO umpteen million dollars, or say, 200 times more than it's non-managerial employees, that it is automatically 'screwing' the 'workers'?
Because it's usually the case. Not saying you have to pay your grocery baggers $60k a year, but at least don't nickle and dime them on adequate health care coverage or make them work 39.9 hours a week so you can claim they are part time and pay no benefits. Then again, a CEO who can prove that they singlehandedly were responsible for creating a ton of wealth for the shareholders should be rewarded.

Company A

CEO Wage (totat compensation) 2,000,000
Average worker Wage 20,000

Ratio 100 to 1

Company B
CEO Wage (totat compensation) a whopping 20,000,000
Average worker Wage 40,000

Ratio 500 to 1

Which one would you rather work for? I'll take the 500 to 1 myself.

My point is the same point that others have made. You ceo to worker wage ratio is not the whole story. Just like made in USA does not tell the whoel story.

The moral high ground has long been staked out by the right.Your moral superiority is something that you remind us sinners all the time.Then again you might be too stupid to understand this..

We have the Moral High Ground and you want it

Good example. Maybe what we need is a label showing the ratio of workers above and below the poverty line? I'm sure there must be some metric by which consumers can make an informed choice. CEO pay is one indicator, but as you point out, it has problems.

OK...I will complain. It is obscene how much they make.

Easy. Don't go to pro sports. Don't watch hollywood movies (indie/euro stuff is better). Turn off the TV. I am serious, this is not a luddite response or some hippie back-to-the-hills movement. Just drop out man!

I went the fights last week and a hockey game broke out! I won't pay for that again. (AHL).

Easy. Don't go to pro sports. Don't watch hollywood movies (indie/euro stuff is better). Turn off the TV. I am serious, this is not a luddite response or some hippie back-to-the-hills movement. Just drop out man!

I went the fights last week and a hockey game broke out! I won't pay for that again. (AHL).
You have a good point. All this entertainment stuff is like heroin--it perpetuates the system.