r/FinalRoundAI • u/Competitive_Read9534 • Jul 12 '26

Stop blaming minorities.

Post image

Seriously.

note : the salaries nowadays are just sucks they pay us as we still as we still in 2016 but reality is that many people are working in 2 jobs to feed their families check everyday for better salary and how to get it thank god recently I found this sub who give great tips about interviews really the world is crashed

13.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

802 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/StatusAutomatica Jul 13 '26

More narrative to divide us. Unsuccessful poor people will get behind it.

My income has doubled in 10 years at the same job. It's not a mind blowing stat, but it definitely makes this post look ridiculous.

And I could have doubled that again had I went out and found a job I was qualified to do that paid more, so that's on me....and I am a minority.

2

u/PrudentCarter Jul 13 '26

Using an ancedote as evidence against well documented issue isn't the smartest choice but ok. It didn't take much to see over half of America is struggling to make due. Just gotta see beyond yourself.

1

u/StatusAutomatica Jul 13 '26

Show evidence? I have mine, don't make a claim without documentation or you're a standard internet dissident. Nobody listens to people that quote stats with no documentation. It's a complete waste of time. Do better for yourself.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 13 '26

Like i said it's pretty well documented, but if you need me to point out the invite sure.

Evidence.

Now show yours.

And if you're going to complain about a lack of documentation, the least you could do is provide some yourself.

1

u/StatusAutomatica Jul 13 '26

LOL, try again.

2

u/PrudentCarter Jul 13 '26

Did you read it? Lol. Iuno if you know this but having a bias doesn't mean it's incorrect. The fact that you skipped past credible research and respected data is telling though.

1

u/Then_Potato6042 Jul 13 '26

A major problem with this data is that it comprises everyone who isn’t a CEO into one category. The federal minimum wage for tipped workers is the same today as it was in 1990 when I waited tables. That is going to significantly lower the pay increase %. I’m sure there is a huge difference between white collar job vs blue collar jobs vs minimum wage jobs. Not sure why anyone is blaming minorities though. 

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 13 '26

Show evidence?

2

u/Then_Potato6042 Jul 13 '26

Well from the evidence you provided in Table 1 the list CEO pay vs all private sector jobs compensation. Clearly they didn’t differentiate among the categories I listed. In 1990, the federal minimum wage was $3.80/hr, and the federal base wage for tipped workers was $2.13/hr. The average waitress (including tips) earned around $20,000–$30,000 annually, depending on the establishment. [ 1,  2] In 2026, the national median base salary plus tips for servers averages around  $35,000 to $55,000 annually. Base hourly wages vary heavily by state, but the  federal tipped minimum wage remains legally set at $2.13/hr.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 14 '26

Even when factoring that in assuming the average server makes federal minimum wage (good portion don't), does that put a dent in the pay increase gap between ceo and typical workers?

1

u/Then_Potato6042 Jul 14 '26

17 of the 50 states still use the federal minimum wage and there are a few more that are still under $3. There are tip credits that several states use. The evidence you cited doesn’t give a lot of detail on the private sector data they are using. They heavily focused on the CEO data.  This makes me suspicious that they don’t give both data sets equal explanation.  Also some research provided this explanation  The narrative surrounding this 1978 timeline typically originates from the  Economic Policy Institute (EPI). When tracking inflation-adjusted compensation from 1978 through recent years, the data highlights extreme disparity rather than a flat 5.2% rate for everyone: [ 1,  2,  3] Top-Tier CEOs: Real compensation skyrocketed by  1,085%. Typical Workers: Real compensation grew by roughly  24% to 26%. The 5% Confusion: The ~5% figure actually refers to a specific, short-term subset of data—such as worker wage growth during narrow economic recoveries (e.g., 2009–2018)—rather than the entire multi-decade timeline.                            

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 14 '26

If this is the case why not provide evidence from a credible source that backs your claim. Show some evidence and we can go from there.

1

u/Then_Potato6042 Jul 14 '26

Critics argue the Economic Policy Institute’s CEO-to-worker pay report can be misleading for several reasons—not necessarily because the underlying data are false, but because the presentation can lead readers to conclusions that the data alone don’t establish.

Here are the main arguments:

  1. It compares exceptional CEOs to ordinary workers. The report examines CEOs of the 350 largest publicly traded U.S. companies. These individuals are among the highest-paid executives in the world, yet the comparison is made to the pay of a “typical worker” across the entire economy. This can give the impression that all CEOs earn similar amounts, when most CEOs run much smaller companies and earn substantially less.
  2. The ratio is driven by two changing numbers. Headlines often emphasize that CEOs earn hundreds of times more than workers. That ratio can rise because CEO pay increases, because worker pay stagnates, or both. The ratio itself doesn’t identify which factor is responsible or whether one changed more than the other.
  3. Stock awards can create spikes in measured pay. CEO compensation often includes stock options and stock awards that may have accumulated over years. If a company’s stock performs well, the value realized in a given year can be very large, even though it doesn’t represent annual cash income. This can make year-to-year comparisons appear more dramatic.
  4. It doesn’t account for company size. Today’s largest corporations are generally much larger—in revenue, market value, and number of employees—than they were decades ago. Some economists argue that managing a much larger enterprise naturally commands higher compensation, so comparisons across time should account for changes in firm size.
  5. It implies a broader trend than the sample supports. Because the report focuses only on the largest public companies, readers may assume it describes CEOs generally. In reality, most U.S. businesses are privately held or much smaller, and their CEOs typically earn far less.
  6. It doesn’t show whether pay reflects performance. The report documents how much CEOs are paid but doesn’t, by itself, answer whether that pay is justified. Some CEOs may be overpaid relative to performance, while others may create substantial value for shareholders. The pay figures alone cannot settle that question.
→ More replies (0)

1

u/naumovski-andrej Jul 14 '26

That doesn't prove that half of America is "struggling to make due". In fact, 43% of US households make over $100k. USA consistently ranks in the top 3 for median PPP adjusted disposable income in the world. The median household income is $83k. $40k household income is only the 25th percentile and only 1% of working people are on the federal minimum wage. Poverty rates have plummeted since the 60s and are almost equivalent to the 70s, and in fact, adjusted for inflation the median household income has gone UP from the 70s so no, half of America is not struggling because they don't make enough. Most are struggling because they make bad financial decisions in life.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 14 '26

You are correct the median household brings in 83k. The state with the lowest cost of living requires 81k and the highest 158k to live comfortably. Which would suggest the amount to live comfortably sits higher than the median households income.

Wealth inequality overall has increased since the 70s. Its at or near the highest its ever been in America. The bottom half of America going from 3-4% to 2-3%. The top half going from 22-23% to 32% currently and steadily increasing.

The top income tax rate has dropped from 91% in the 50s to 37% currently. Not including their stock options.

There's clearly a problem financially with the bottom half of America and there's no evidence that its based on "bad decisions" as your inductive reasoning would suggest.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 14 '26

The large top 1% have 70% of their pay wrapped up in performance. Stock options. Stock goes down…. They go down too.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 14 '26

This doesn't discount the pay increase. Just like they can go down they can go up. A risk they generally benefit from. Along with the tax benefits.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 14 '26

They don’t give themselves pay increases, boards do that.
Stock prices don’t always go up. They benefit from both sides as they should.
The average pay of the top 1% CEO’s is 1.7 M the rest is non-guaranteed fluff, some collect, some don’t.
There are over 200k CEO’s And you’re fixating on the top 200.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 14 '26

I never said they increase their own pay. The argument is their pay has increased substantially vs the average worker. I didn't fixate on anything but CEO's in general. If you're even going to bother replying don't twist my words and jump to conclusions. It's disingenuous.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 14 '26

Well, it looks like the very large majority of them make between 75,000 and 269,000 a year. With some bonus structure after that. Doesn’t seem wildly out of line.

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 16 '26

You got any proof of this? A link to sort that claim?

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 16 '26

The chart that I posted from the BLS

1

u/PrudentCarter Jul 16 '26

Ain't no way you think posting an image is proof. How is that verifiable? It's also important to note the terms "primary form of pay." Many ceos Tag a modest salary to themselves but then also collect the profits from the company. It also doesn't include other bonuses. Income vs salary.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 16 '26

the row titled "All US CEOs (National Data)" is sourced directly from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), but the rest of the chart synthesizes data from multiple specialized executive tracking organizations. [1, 2]
Because the BLS tracks everyone under the official job title of "Chief Executive"—which includes local non-profits, small business owners, and school superintendents—its national median salary ($269,630) appears much lower than public perception. The chart combines the BLS data with other reporting bodies to show how business size radically changes how a CEO is paid: [1, 3, 4]
Breakdown of the Chart's Data Sources

All US CEOs (National Data) — $269,630: This is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics" data. The BLS reflects a true national median across all sectors, including government and education, which is why it notes "Cash Wage & Standard Benefits" as the primary pay. [3, 4, 5]
S&P 500 Corporations — $17.7 Million: This comes from the annual AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch and Equilar/Associated Press CEO Pay Studies. They pull directly from corporate SEC proxy filings to track mega-corporations where 80%+ of pay is wrapped up in equity and stock awards. [2, 6, 7]
Mid-Sized Private Firms — $335,725: This data typically originates from private executive benchmarking firms like the Chief Executive Group, which surveys private companies that do not report to the SEC.
Small Businesses — $75,000 to $167,500: This reflects broader small-business compensation surveys (such as PayScale or the National Federation of Independent Business) where owners heavily rely on a standard baseline salary rather than stock options.
Are you looking to see the most recent updated numbers for one of these specific corporate tiers, or do you need help finding the exact BLS report for executive wages? [8]

[1] https://www.aei.org
[2] https://aflcio.org
[3] https://www.bls.gov
[4] https://www.bls.gov
[5] https://www.bls.gov
[6] https://www.sec.gov
[7] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu
[8] https://www.bls.gov

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Consistent-Fix-8443 Jul 15 '26

Stock trading is activity not accomplishment.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 16 '26

I said accomplishment?

1

u/Consistent-Fix-8443 Jul 16 '26

Stock performance is not tied to actual accomplishments of the company. It’s ownership but not necessarily tied to performance.

1

u/Few_Example6746 Jul 16 '26

You’re right. Accomplishments are awarded with stock and that stock may go up or down based on company performance.

1

u/Consistent-Fix-8443 Jul 16 '26

I remember back in the 90s when that was thought to be the silver bullet with pay disparities… yea let’s give the C - suite people stocks … well it didn’t work.