3 Comments

  1. rshannon
    March 2, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

    Well put. At this risk of nit-picking, however, the Paywatch source cited for the historical ratios mentioned in the final sentences states that the 1980 42:1 ratio comprised CEO pay vs. average employee pay, as reported above, but the 2012 343:1 ration was relative to median employee pay. Unfortunately, although the Paywatch source seems to clearly state the distinction, neither it nor this report informs us whether it’s significant.
    We should and do demand clarity and accuracy from mainstreet media (MSM), and rightly critique when it’s lacking. Let’s keep our own reporting standards high, before the opposition misrepresents and/or distorts the significance of unnecessary, avoidable imprecision.

    Reply

  2. rshannon
    March 2, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

    Oops! Ratio, not ration. Mainstream, not mainstreet. Obviously, I too should be more careful.

    Which reminds me that one of the few benefits of an advanced age is that one finally has a universal excuse (or at least a lame bluff) for almost everything. Even when you’re called on it, blaming one’s age remains a convenient way to acknowledge, indirectly, that you’re guilty of mere common carelessness, or really haven’t got a clue, etc., without actually having to say so. 😉

    Reply

  3. Chronicles of Inequality [March 4, 2013] » The Greanville Post —Vol. VII- 2013
    March 4, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

    […] […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply