SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
According to one report, Les Moonves of CBS was the second-highest paid CEO in America in 2016. (Photo: gotpap/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)
Top CEOs Make 271 Times More Than the Average American
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio has grown by an order of magnitude over the last half century.
Jul 23, 2017
In 2016, CEOs at America's largest firms made, on average, 271 times more than the average US worker. Fifty years ago, that ratio was 20-to-1.
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio, calculated annually by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, has narrowed slightly in recent years; in 2014, it was 299-to-1. But it has grown by an order of magnitude since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping data in the 1960s, and has even doubled many times over since the late 1980s, when it was 59-to-1.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
Part of this had to do with the increasing popularity of performance pay. The Clinton administration put in place a rule that barred corporations from deducting more than a million dollars of CEO compensation from their taxes, but that rule excluded performance pay and stock options. Corporate boards of directors took notice.
Reagan-era tax cuts for the rich also encouraged CEO pay to balloon throughout the 90s, as did a growing stock market.
None of these factors had the same impact on workers' wages, and while CEO pay skyrocketed, the earnings of the average American inched only slightly upward. "What we really have is a big increase in income going to a certain occupation, but it's not met by a corresponding growth in output for the nation and for the firms," said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute and one of the authors of the report. "These folks are getting income that otherwise would go to other people, the rest of the workforce."
"What it really means is that if you cut CEO pay there would be no reason to expect that the economy would be one iota smaller," said Mishel.
In their calculation, Mishel and co-author Jessica Schieder compared CEO compensation to that of the average American. But the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, passed to rein in Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis, would require companies to disclose a number that would be particularly useful to shareholders at these large corporations: the ratio between their CEO's compensation and the median compensation for the workers that that CEO employs. Making this data public would also allow anyone with a calculator to easily pinpoint the worst offenders -- the CEOs collecting the highest wages at the lowest-paying corporations.
Unsurprisingly, some corporations aren't pleased about this component of Dodd-Frank. The rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and lobbyists have been working hard to make sure it never does. Last winter, Michael Piwowar, a longtime opponent of the rule, took the helm of the Securities and Exchange Commission, serving as acting chair while Congress considered Trump's nominee, Jay Clayton. He quickly delayed the rule and encouraged corporations to tell him about any "unexpected challenges" they encountered in complying with it.
Piwowar's decision prompted an angry letter from Senate Democrats including Dick Durbin, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who pointed out that Piwowar had only asked for input from the corporations themselves, but not the corporation's investors.
"Pay ratio disclosure helps investors evaluate the relative value a CEO creates, which facilitates better checks and balances against insiders paying themselves runaway compensation," the senators wrote. "Similarly, when a CEO asks for a raise while giving other employees a pay cut, investors should have this information."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.
John Light
John Light is the Managing Editor at Talking Points Memo and former producer for the Bill Moyers team. His work has appeared at The Atlantic, Grist, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, Vox and Al Jazeera, and has been broadcast on Public Radio International. He's a graduate of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. You can follow him on Twitter at @LightTweeting.
al frankencorporate powerdodd-frankeconomic policy instituteelizabeth warreninequalitymediataxationworkers
In 2016, CEOs at America's largest firms made, on average, 271 times more than the average US worker. Fifty years ago, that ratio was 20-to-1.
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio, calculated annually by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, has narrowed slightly in recent years; in 2014, it was 299-to-1. But it has grown by an order of magnitude since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping data in the 1960s, and has even doubled many times over since the late 1980s, when it was 59-to-1.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
Part of this had to do with the increasing popularity of performance pay. The Clinton administration put in place a rule that barred corporations from deducting more than a million dollars of CEO compensation from their taxes, but that rule excluded performance pay and stock options. Corporate boards of directors took notice.
Reagan-era tax cuts for the rich also encouraged CEO pay to balloon throughout the 90s, as did a growing stock market.
None of these factors had the same impact on workers' wages, and while CEO pay skyrocketed, the earnings of the average American inched only slightly upward. "What we really have is a big increase in income going to a certain occupation, but it's not met by a corresponding growth in output for the nation and for the firms," said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute and one of the authors of the report. "These folks are getting income that otherwise would go to other people, the rest of the workforce."
"What it really means is that if you cut CEO pay there would be no reason to expect that the economy would be one iota smaller," said Mishel.
In their calculation, Mishel and co-author Jessica Schieder compared CEO compensation to that of the average American. But the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, passed to rein in Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis, would require companies to disclose a number that would be particularly useful to shareholders at these large corporations: the ratio between their CEO's compensation and the median compensation for the workers that that CEO employs. Making this data public would also allow anyone with a calculator to easily pinpoint the worst offenders -- the CEOs collecting the highest wages at the lowest-paying corporations.
Unsurprisingly, some corporations aren't pleased about this component of Dodd-Frank. The rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and lobbyists have been working hard to make sure it never does. Last winter, Michael Piwowar, a longtime opponent of the rule, took the helm of the Securities and Exchange Commission, serving as acting chair while Congress considered Trump's nominee, Jay Clayton. He quickly delayed the rule and encouraged corporations to tell him about any "unexpected challenges" they encountered in complying with it.
Piwowar's decision prompted an angry letter from Senate Democrats including Dick Durbin, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who pointed out that Piwowar had only asked for input from the corporations themselves, but not the corporation's investors.
"Pay ratio disclosure helps investors evaluate the relative value a CEO creates, which facilitates better checks and balances against insiders paying themselves runaway compensation," the senators wrote. "Similarly, when a CEO asks for a raise while giving other employees a pay cut, investors should have this information."
John Light
John Light is the Managing Editor at Talking Points Memo and former producer for the Bill Moyers team. His work has appeared at The Atlantic, Grist, Mother Jones, Salon, Slate, Vox and Al Jazeera, and has been broadcast on Public Radio International. He's a graduate of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. You can follow him on Twitter at @LightTweeting.
In 2016, CEOs at America's largest firms made, on average, 271 times more than the average US worker. Fifty years ago, that ratio was 20-to-1.
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio, calculated annually by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, has narrowed slightly in recent years; in 2014, it was 299-to-1. But it has grown by an order of magnitude since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping data in the 1960s, and has even doubled many times over since the late 1980s, when it was 59-to-1.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
In the early 1990s, CEO pay started climbing; CEOs began making hundreds of times what the average American worker made, and continue to do so today.
Part of this had to do with the increasing popularity of performance pay. The Clinton administration put in place a rule that barred corporations from deducting more than a million dollars of CEO compensation from their taxes, but that rule excluded performance pay and stock options. Corporate boards of directors took notice.
Reagan-era tax cuts for the rich also encouraged CEO pay to balloon throughout the 90s, as did a growing stock market.
None of these factors had the same impact on workers' wages, and while CEO pay skyrocketed, the earnings of the average American inched only slightly upward. "What we really have is a big increase in income going to a certain occupation, but it's not met by a corresponding growth in output for the nation and for the firms," said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute and one of the authors of the report. "These folks are getting income that otherwise would go to other people, the rest of the workforce."
"What it really means is that if you cut CEO pay there would be no reason to expect that the economy would be one iota smaller," said Mishel.
In their calculation, Mishel and co-author Jessica Schieder compared CEO compensation to that of the average American. But the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, passed to rein in Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis, would require companies to disclose a number that would be particularly useful to shareholders at these large corporations: the ratio between their CEO's compensation and the median compensation for the workers that that CEO employs. Making this data public would also allow anyone with a calculator to easily pinpoint the worst offenders -- the CEOs collecting the highest wages at the lowest-paying corporations.
Unsurprisingly, some corporations aren't pleased about this component of Dodd-Frank. The rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and lobbyists have been working hard to make sure it never does. Last winter, Michael Piwowar, a longtime opponent of the rule, took the helm of the Securities and Exchange Commission, serving as acting chair while Congress considered Trump's nominee, Jay Clayton. He quickly delayed the rule and encouraged corporations to tell him about any "unexpected challenges" they encountered in complying with it.
Piwowar's decision prompted an angry letter from Senate Democrats including Dick Durbin, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who pointed out that Piwowar had only asked for input from the corporations themselves, but not the corporation's investors.
"Pay ratio disclosure helps investors evaluate the relative value a CEO creates, which facilitates better checks and balances against insiders paying themselves runaway compensation," the senators wrote. "Similarly, when a CEO asks for a raise while giving other employees a pay cut, investors should have this information."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.