One of the greatest misnomers to come out of the 2008 Real Estate Debacle was that the CEOs’ large compensation packages and the massive spending by the general public were closely interrelated. The spending affected the extent of the salaries but it was separate from them. The bundling of mortgages caused the Real Estate Bubble. Going back to the last two decades of the 20th Century many individuals and families began to add their home equity to their incomes in order to enjoy all the comforts possible. With the continual rise of real estate values over a thirty plus year period this seemed infinitely possible. With the ever-growing demand for major and minor items by the general property owning public the country was in a period of immense profit for all types of retail concerns. People bought cars, boats, bigger houses in better neighborhoods. They frequented restaurants, bought new clothing, TVs, almost anything. As corporate profits increased CEOs demanded and got greater and greater bonuses and overall compensation packages. There was full employment; banks were earning greater and greater profits. The country, the world was living in a sort of fairyland that would presumably go on forever.
And then, at the tail end of 2008, the bubble burst and hard reality set in. Property values dropped, in many cases, well over fifty percent. Demand for products fell and there was massive unemployment. People could not meet their bills. Many owed far more on their homes than they were worth. Everyone, including the CEOs faced disaster. Then the government jumped in with $900 billion worth of loans and saved both the banking industry and the country from a massive depression.
The CEOs were very frustrated. They had gotten these phenomenal salaries and now they were gone or practically gone. For some bonuses had been cut in half. The CEO of Bank of America was very upset particularly after President Obama had insisted that no bailout money be used to pay bonuses.
In addition corporate profits dropped significantly at the end of 2008. The country was in unbelievable economic pain. By 2010 the economy was expanding again. This continued through 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. During 2011 Congress slowed growth with the Debt Ceiling crises. The next year the fiscal cliff held the economy hostage, again reducing job growth. By 2013 many workers had left the labor force, because of constant inability to find almost any kind of work, supposedly reducing the unemployment rate.
In 2008, with the crash, the Gross Domestic Product was $14,720.3 trillion. The GDP per capita was $48,951. The following year it dropped to $14,417.9 trillion with the per capita level at $47,041. In 2010 it slightly exceeded the 2008 level and in 2011 it was $15,533.8 trillion with the per capita rate at $48,282. By 2012 the country was in the $16 trillion level and by 2914 it has reached $17 trillion with the per capita level also rising.
The unemployment level increased significantly from the end of 2008 on rising to 9.9% of the workforce and then gradually dropping by 2013 to about 6.7%. Keep in mind that this percentage does not include those that are underemployed or who have given up looking for work. We can only guess at these numbers.
Of course the irony of all this is the level of the per capita income which would give a family of four if it existed in real life a little under two hundred thousand dollars a year. What exists is a wide distribution of incomes with the bulk of the $17 trillion going to a very small percentage of the population. For example a person working at Wal-Mart for $7.25 an hour with a family of four would have to apply for food stamps and other government aid in order to survive while the CEO of any giant corporation would be earning about a million dollars a month or more. If I remember correctly the CEO of Hewlett Packard received about $15 million in 2013. The general compensation for CEOs could be more or slightly less.
Interestingly in cases like that of Wal-Mart it is the taxpayer, who generally is earning a lot less than the per capita level of income, that pick up the difference needed for the Wal-Mart worker’s family to survive through the various entitlement programs the federal and state governments provide.
Wages, salaries, compensation packages vary greatly. Only a very small percentage would reach the actual level of the per capita income. And a much smaller percentage would be above it. And still a much smaller number, perhaps a hand-full, would have their income in the millions of dollars. There are even a few in the billion dollar category.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and again during World War II, stated that a person could only spend so much during a year or during a lifetime. There was no need for them to earn that much more. He wanted to tax excess profits. Congress in neither case would go completely along with him.
Currently the tax system is set up so that anyone earning over $140,000 a year pays a fixed rate on everything earned over this amount. The more he earns over this the smaller is the percentage of his income that he pays in taxes. This means that the average family earning under $140,000 a year, which is most of us, pays a greater percentage of their income in federal taxes. In essence the rich can store endless barrels of money for countless future generations or use some of the money to buy elections while everyone else can do without and just generally survive, with some people not even really surviving. In the case of corporate subsidies, this money can be used for lobbying and political campaigns to buy influence in the federal and state governments even though it is indirectly paid by the taxpayer.
Obviously there is something wrong with this system. Something in the way of reform has to be brought about or eventually tragedy will occur. People will accept a lot of inequities but eventually these inequities become so blatant and their misery so great that they will violently be objected to.
The rich seemingly have endless amounts of money. They are using some of it to influence the general public in elections. In essence they are buying influence in government which is being used for their own benefits.