A June newspaper article by Creators Syndicate writer Froma Harrop mentioned that since 1973 worker productivity has risen 80 percent, while inflation-adjusted compensation has gone up less then 11 percent. I.e. supposedly workers "are producing more in the same time but without appropriate rewards either in money or shortened hours."
She opined that "Senior executives and Wall Street grabbed most of the return from higher productivity."
A recent Rick Mirabito publication mentioned he has opposed a 1.7 billion tax break for Shell because profits increased 52 percent and the CEO's salary was doubled to $15 million.
This got me to thinking: Why do we taxpayers need to be subsidizing any company where the CEO makes over $500,000. Said another way, why could we not adopt a policy that says, "If your CEO gets paid over $500,000, your company will get NO tax breaks or taxpayer subsidies"? Said still another way, why should families surviving on $20,000 salaries, be forced to subsidize the salaries of CEOs making $15 million?
Of course, this idea is probably just wishful thinking. That's because, regardless of whether Obama or Romney is elected in November, the president is maybe getting to be more of a figurehead like the King of England, and Wall Street is really "pulling the strings"?
So Wall Street generally seems to be able to buy whatever policies it wants, regardless of who is President? Comments, anyone?
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom