It's an extraordinarily clever claim. It gets your attention. It's misleading. And of course, Old Media isn't questioning it.
I am referring to the following statement made by Barack Obama in radio ads currently running in Ohio and Texas:
Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year.
In the full context of the ad, I believe that what Obama wants listeners to take away is that "Quite a few CEOs typically, year after year, make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."
But let's limit things to the literal wording. Start with a full-time minimum-wage worker who earns (rounded) $12,000 annually ($5.85 per hour times 2,080 hours is a bit more than that). How much would a CEO have to make in a year to be earning over $12,000 every 10 minutes?
The answer: At least $187 million -- and, uh, "change":
So how many CEOs made that much in 2006? The answer in 2006, according to Forbes, was three:
How about 2005? Try one (per Forbes), maybe two (woopidoo.com has an additional name on its list):
One-year wonders are fine, but how many CEOs averaged $187.2 million or more in earnings over 5 years? As you can see above, the answer is "none in either year."
It's also worth noting that three of the four CEOs above (Jobs, Semel, and Diller) are in charge of high-tech businesses that are not exactly known for having high concentrations of minimum-wage workers.
If Obama's claim stands, it does so using the narrowest of definitions, and even then it only survives by the very thinnest of margins. An ordinary listener would clearly believe that Obama's ad refers to more than four people (or five, if you include the additional CEO listed at woopidoo.com) in a two-year period.
Obama's single-out of CEOs is also conveniently selective. If you wonder why he did not include certain entertainers in the list of those making more in 10 minutes than some workers, wonder no more:
Lee Cary at American Thinker adds this:
Sure, the gross disparity between CEO and average worker pay is a valid issue. And, for a relatively few CEOs and other mega-earners like Oprah Winfrey, top professional athletes, and major Hollywood movie stars, Obama's claim may be mathematically accurate. But as a blanket assertion, it's a level of derogatory rhetoric that only works when adulation kills critical thinking.
It's also appears to be a level of derogatory rhetoric Old Media doesn't mind letting go by unchallenged.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama TX add
February 25, 2008 - 09:55 ET by MaximusBraveheartI hear the add a lot here in TX on TV. It says "under this administration." So Bush is responsible for how much they make? I think the add may say Wall Street, not just CEOs. Are those guys on Wall Street? Think it may refer to traders, etc. So Clinton was somehow not guilty yet Bush is?
Under his administration
February 25, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Tom BlumerInteresting that you mention that, MB, because IIRC (and I do, I just don't remember the specific numbers), the multiple of CEO pay vs. a typical worker has gone down during Bush 43, while going through the stratosphere during the Clinton Admin.
"I hate maths cuz maths is hard!
February 25, 2008 - 17:21 ET by UndercoverConservativeThere's just too many numbers and stuff!"
-your average MSM reporter, English major with Philosophy minor.
who says ya can't get a well paying job even after taking puffpuff classes in College?
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Party of the Rich?
February 25, 2008 - 09:55 ET by owr084How about looking up the party affiliations of those folks. Any reason to to suspect that they aren't democrats? And they say the Republican party is the party of the rich....
Gore effect
February 25, 2008 - 22:59 ET by masslibertarianOh, it gets even better.
So Steve Jobs is #1, you say? Well maybe B. Hussein Obama should have a chat with Al Gore, who sits on Apple's Compensation Committee and effectively dictates Mr. Jobs' salary.
BTW, nothing against Steve Jobs - can't say the same for Gore.
Great...
February 25, 2008 - 23:25 ET by Tom BlumerPoint.
Does anyone know the
February 25, 2008 - 23:31 ET by balboaDoes anyone know the political affiliation of those listed above? I assume Jobs is a democrat. Couldn't find anything on Irani.
CEOs
February 25, 2008 - 23:45 ET by Tom BlumerDiller -- Democrat.
Irani the Occidental guy -- more than likely a Democrat, given longtime association with Al Gore's dad. No, he actually puts $ on both sides of the table.
So does Semel.
It is part of his smear on the evil evil evil corporations
February 25, 2008 - 09:57 ET by JWFHe (and other socialists running for President) needs to pick up a copy of Forbes 500. Most, overwhelmingly most, of the biggest companies in the U.S are publicly traded companies.
If you think they are making obscene profits, for Gawd's sake, buy the stock and shut up.
→ buy the stock and shut up.
February 25, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Cool ArrowDamn skippy JWF.
♣ a seal
People need to realize that
February 25, 2008 - 10:34 ET by motherbeltPeople need to realize that this is a basic part of who he is...a liberal through and through. He went from being the 16th most liberal Senator to #1 in just 3 years! I can certainly see him deciding how much is too much for anyone to earn.
Let us not forget that the largest stockholders
February 25, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Oscar Goldmanof the biggest corporations in America are institutions, not individuals, such as mutual funds, which in turn are held by not the uber-wealthy, but working Americans through their 401(k) plans, pensions plans (private and public), and IRAs. Liberals love to beat up on ExxonMobil and its profits. I believe over 86% of ExxonMobil is widely-held by the American public through institutional holdings.
Not that I find it a valid argument, this class-envy crap, but..
February 25, 2008 - 10:07 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltNext time some populist wants to decry the disparity between top management in business making multiple times the earnings of the lowest paid worker, we need to make sure they include Hollywood types in the blanket class-envy BS...like Jack Nicholson earning by some estimates, over sixty million dollars for his Joker role in Batman after salary, points, merchandise licensing, etc. How much did the cleaning staff make on that picture? And what did his several weeks of work end up being on an annualized or hourly basis???
How about
February 25, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Oscar Goldmanthe disparity in wages between the anchor and the make-up artist? Won't it be funny when the anchors find out their salaries have been capped by a socialist President? What will they report then?
Not that I find it a valid argument, this class-envy crap, but..
February 25, 2008 - 10:49 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltSorry...double-post. Twitchy finger...
I heard him say that, and I
February 25, 2008 - 11:48 ET by motherbeltI heard him say that, and I thought...no way. I also knew that it would go unchallenged.
I especially loved how he said (paraphrasing) we don't believe government should interfere.....BUT... when you have..... they have to do something.
I'm sure he could always find a way that in this instance (whatever that happened to be), government has to step in.
Even if the claim were
February 25, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Free ThinkerEven if the claim were true, so what? If someone has a unique set of skills and experience and can negotiate a pay deal that maximizes their earnings then good for them. Welcome to the American dream. No-one ever questions the disparity in pay between A-Rod and the bat boy or George Clooney and the set lighting guy.
It's more than just Oparah and Jerry - you can't assume a 55
February 25, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Dee Bunkhour work week with celebrities. They probably work half that at best averaged over the year and some years they don't even work at all and continue to draw royalties and things. They also get paid millions at a crack for endorsements that take a few hours out of their time.
We should be looking at celeb endorsements compared to what the CEO of that company makes. That's an easy comparison for how much two people are paid by the same company. I'm sure many celebrities have made more than $720,000 an hr and often make more per hour than the CEO of the company whose product they endorse.
Right Dee, and how about
February 25, 2008 - 11:47 ET by motherbeltRight Dee, and how about what Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal earned for being talented at bouncing a ball and throwing it?
I guess if the multi-million dollare CEO's were performing an act that people would pay big bucks to see, rather than running a company and earning money for hundreds of stockholders and fueling the economy, the critics wouldn't have a problem with it.
→ Making too much money
February 25, 2008 - 12:21 ET by Cool ArrowAnd what about all those people (Hillary Clinton) who turn a $2000 investment into $200,000 in cattle futures?
Or campaign managers (Terry McCauliffe) who invest $10,000 in Global Crossing and come up with $18 million.
♣ a seal
Yeah Cool - it takes 1 minute to make a trade so that's
February 25, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Dee Bunk$200,000 a minute and $18 million a minute respectively. Quite a bit more than the CEO's make per minute.
More Worried...
February 25, 2008 - 11:48 ET by neighb.....using your math, we should ALL be worried as hell if Obama gets a job makin' $25.65 every 10 minutes....
neighb
Obama...
February 25, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Prester John...should compare his wife's pay to those who work for her and tell us if he thinks the ratio is out of whack. And if it is he can have her return some of her pay or better yet contribute it to the U.S. Treasury.
bambi - another stupid
February 25, 2008 - 12:16 ET by jdhawkbambi - another stupid liberal making stupid comments that nobody in the drive by media will even bother to check much less call him out on.
Have you noticed every time that bambi can't mumble inane campaign slogans like "change" etc., he steps on "it?"
Hey, I know! Add up bambi's
February 25, 2008 - 12:19 ET by jdhawkHey, I know! Add up bambi's salary for his private and public life and that of his wife's and see if it equals his net worth. What'd you bet that his net worth is astoundingly higher?
But, once again, no one in the drive by media will do this much less ask him or call him out on it.
Why that would be racist!
liar
February 25, 2008 - 13:44 ET by seaniepobama is a liar, it is becoming more and more evident when he is away from a telepromter
heard of his conversation with the Army Captain who's platoon was split up and some sent to Iraq and others to Afghan . . . oh and they were forced to use taliban/al quaeda weapons because they had no ammo? none of that adds up at all!!!!!!! it makes no sense, it is obviously a fabrication and no one is picking it apart the way they should with this and that
Get used to it folks
February 25, 2008 - 14:01 ET by dlwoltmannThis is only the beginning.....
Obama will get to say anything before the election....
2 Weeks after the election...Those "New" taxes that will be needed.. Don't blame me... Bush took us to war and spent all the money......
6 months later.... Don't blame the congress's tax increases er. new Investments for the job losses, high interest rates and mortgage failures... It was Bush's fault
2 Year later... Press will rerun the same arguments saying that President Obama's Health care and Income redistribuation.. er "Investment" plans just have not had time to work... He had too big of a mess left over from Bush...
And so on, and so on, and so on....
I hope I am worng, but I don't think so.
Solving the poverty problem by eliminating the rich
February 25, 2008 - 14:04 ET by szampHis idea is similar to Hugo Chavez's idea. You can solve the poverty problem by eliminating the rich. Everybody becomes poor together and anyone who disagrees is punished.
What people forget is that all those benefits are not really free. The rich people of this country pay for it. If you get rid of the rich, all those nice freebies are gone too.
eliminating the rich?
February 25, 2008 - 17:26 ET by UndercoverConservativeworked real well in Castro's Cuba too.
tho some idle rich, I could get behind their (Soros, et al) "elimination".
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Excellent job
February 25, 2008 - 14:44 ET by ammo johnGreat work, Tom! When I see Hussein Obama's and Hillary's ads, I KNOW I can't believe a word in them.
Obama needs a class in math
February 25, 2008 - 14:51 ET by well99I not giving CEO's a pass but that is another issue as you pointed out.Besides if there is a beef it should be from the shareholders of the company.Bottom line is the msm as usual doesnt do their research as you have.They still probably wouldnt challege his statement even if that had.
Just a note:HP was hiring about 2 years ago and wage was 6.85 thru temp agencies.MPC was paying 7 a hour thru temps.Not minimum wage.Dont expect to get rolled over quick.
CEO's Earings - Tom. But it was under Clinton.
February 25, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Gary HallCEO's Earings - Tom. But it was under Clinton.
Look, let them be pissed off - but they really need to be angry when it was out of control and the CEO's pay was running away from the workers:
If they really want to waste their time 'hating" over this, then they should have been hating Bill Clinton. Looks like Bush fixed the problem. (;~> gary
That's what I said
February 25, 2008 - 16:30 ET by Tom BlumerDown during bush 43; up a bunch during Clinton. Nice graph; I'm sure I'll steal it at some point. :-->
Tom...steal away.
February 25, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Gary HallAnd another really good one is to be found here: Rich getting richer - Not since the 20's.
The interesting story here is how the national MSM, with the leftist media and leftist blogs cheering the way, took off on this story as proof for the need for a war on Bush - David Kay's piece here became a rallying cry for the Democrats who longed for the good old days of the Clinton years. Really?
First of all, they didn't read or look closely at the big bold bad chart - and the description next to the chart:
Last time I checked, in 2000 Bill Clinton was still president. You know, in my view it is perfectly fine for folks to view the issue of wealth, one way or the other -- but for goodness sake, when the chart and the words are staring them in the face, and they are so full of themselves and their blind hatered that they continue to blame one President for what they consider the greed of the other, the one they praise, well, it's really time for the white padded cells.
Wow
February 25, 2008 - 16:43 ET by well99Look at 1980 and then 2000.What a jump.If I remember right in the 60s it was about 8 times the average worker.Anyhow good point on Clinton.
oh, it can work mathematically
February 25, 2008 - 17:16 ET by UndercoverConservativebecause some American workers don't work much, if at all. Just enough to satisfy the CalWorks (cash assistance/welfare) requirements.
Now when he says "American" does he mean "workers in American sovereign territory" which includes illegals exploited for slave wages, or American citizens only?
Or perhaps he means those house-wives I've heard about, that used to stay at home and clean, cook and care for the house while the "husband" worked to pay the bills. I saw a documentary about that once..seems the "domestic engineer" didn't get paid...maybe that's what Obamallama is referring to. I think the documentary was "Leave it to Beaver", or "Father Knows Best". Course they needed to explain that "father" term to the new generation and how it differentiates from "babydaddy" :(
As Samuel Clemens (IIRC) said, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Government wannabes apply all three.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
How Much Work?
February 25, 2008 - 17:45 ET by JoelCTOne thing I didn't notice anyone else mentioning is, generally, CEOs are workaholics who work roughly twice the hours that your average minimum-wage worker puts in. So if you multiply that $12K by 6 by 80 hours by 52 weeks, no one makes the list.
I like that part about Oprah. Hillary should mention that in one of her speeches, while crying about the people who clean Oprah's dressing room. Find out what they make yearly, and then calculate how many minutes it takes Oprah to make that much money sitting on her @$$ in a chair with the cameras rolling. Let's hear Obama spin THAT!
I'm really growing tired of
February 25, 2008 - 20:11 ET by mostlymoderateI'm really growing tired of this Obama "free pass" crap. The guy gets a "free pass" on everything. Nobody questions him about anything. What has he ever done? Is he a muslim? Why won't he put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance? Why is their communist paraphernalia in his campaign offices?
Also, SOMEBODY has to make "ceo-wages" in this country. Who else will pay astonishing amounts in taxes to benefit illegal aliens and welfare families?