4 ms·
Can someone explain http://screencast.com/t/CFzp8f8Dx9 http://screencast.com/t/CFzp8f8Dx9 this section to me? I assume it was supposed to be "Typical 1965 CEO p
by boredguy8 15y ago
Can someone explain http://screencast.com/t/CFzp8f8Dx9 http://screencast.com/t/CFzp8f8Dx9 this section to me? I assume it was supposed to be "Typical 1965 CEO pay for the same period" on the left and "Typical 2007 CEO pay for the same period" on the right, but I also might just not be grasping the point.
- krogsgard 15y agoI imagine the comparison is supposed to be based on adjusted for inflation wages, 1965 to 2007. This article has similar numbers: http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html Also includes this quote. "As one source has put it, "in 2000 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than what the average worker earned in 52 weeks. In 1965, by contrast, it took a CEO two weeks to earn a worker's annual pay"."
- jacobolus 15y agoIt says “for the same period” because CEOs don’t get paid hourly wages (the figures for production workers are labeled “average hourly wages”), so this is presumably something like typical annual CEO compensation divided by typical number of hours a CEO works.