In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for a restoration in the minimum wage and a change to make it keep pace with inflation:

"We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day's work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong. That's why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. We should be able to get that done.

This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. In fact, working folks shouldn't have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year -- let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on."

Should the minimum wage for workers be at least what it was in 1980, or should cuts to the minimum wage be allowed to continue? That’s the real question, and I don’t use the word “real” lightly. The problem with tracking the minimum wage at its “nominal” dollar value is that a dollar in 2012 didn’t buy as much as a dollar did in 1980. As a matter of fact, according to the Consumer Price Index a dollar in 2012 only buys what 36 cents would have bought in 1980. In the chart of minimum wage trends in the United States you see below, “real” wages adjust for this change by measuring wages according to what they’d be worth in 2012 dollars. As you can see, around 1980 the inflation-adjusted minimum wage was about $9, but has fallen since then.

Real and Nominal Minimum Wage Trend in the United States, 1956 to 2012

Some people in Congress, mostly Republicans, are arguing that our nation’s big corporations just can’t afford to pay full-time working people what they were paid in 1980.

Problem #1 with the Republican story: corporate profits hit a record high in 2012.

Problem #2 with the Republican story: corporations have found enough room to pay their executives. Here’s a graph of real and nominal CEO pay over the same period (data: EPI)

Real and Nominal Corporate CEO Pay, EPI Data, to 2011

Why are the little people so angry?

CEO-to-worker compensation ratio from 1965 to 2011

Source: The State of Working America Figure 4AH. See methodology here.

At 7:30 PM, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will take make an appearance as a spokesman for No Labels during a “conversation with America”, an event at which Schultz will take pre-selected questions and talk about what he describes as a commitment to create jobs.

Here’s the rub: In the depths of the last economic recession, Howard Schultz didn’t pitch in and create jobs. He fired 6,700 people with one stroke of his pen, eliminating their jobs forever. If Howard Schultz really believes that creating jobs is the correct response to an economic crisis, why did he destroy so many jobs last time around?

Given this history, what does No Labels really mean when it talks about creating jobs? Is No Labels merely using the phrase “job creation” as a code word for policies to give corporations bigger profits?

howard schultz creates low paying jobs that exploit workers

Furthermore, we need to ask what kind of jobs Howard Schultz and No Labels want to create. Corporate Paywatch reports that as CEO of Starbucks last year, Howard Schultz gave Starbucks workers a median income of only one fifteenth of one percent of the income that he took home for himself.

Given that stark income inequality established at Starbucks, at 6:54 PM tonight, I used the No Labels system to ask my own question to Howard Schultz: “Howard Schultz, you have the label of CEO, and with that label in 2010, you took in 654 times the median income for Starbucks employees. Why should we trust you & No Labels to represent us?”

I don’t expect No Labels to answer my question, or even to pose the question to Howard Schultz. The No Labels “Conversation With America” will be a one-way speech, with corporate CEOs doing what they’re used to doing – telling the rest of us what to do.

I want to know: If No Labels is promoting the kind of economic inequality represented by Howard Schultz, why do they expect working Americans to listen?

In a post made without fanfare or a press release on quiet-news Friday, Americans Elect introduced Kahlil Byrd as its new Chief Executive Officer. This is a big deal, considering the status of Americans Elect as the first-ever 501c4 corporation to try and elect its own candidate for President of the United States in a process that gives primacy to a self-appointed corporate Board of Directors. According to the Americans Elect corporate bylaws, the Americans Elect CEO is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the single person most in charge of the first corporate presidential nomination. Kahlil Byrd now appears to be that person.

Before its announcement two days ago, Americans Elect had not mentioned the existence of Kahlil Byrd on its website at all, but behind the scenes Byrd has been an active leader of Americans Elect for over a year. In that time, Byrd has been given several titles: Chief Operating Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, Custodian of Records, Party Coordinator, Director and Paid Consultant. But never until now has Byrd been named Chief Executive Officer.

It’s unclear whether Kahlil Byrd’s status as Chief Executive officer is an official status. Americans Elect is required under Florida Revised Statute Section 103.095 to notify the Florida state Elections Division of changes in its filing certificate within five days. Those changes include the names of officers and the bylaws, as Americans Elect’s July 5 letter to the state of Florida acknowledges. That July 5 letter updates the bylaws and informs the state of Florida of the most recent officer change, with Peter Ackerman as Chairman, Kahlil Byrd as Vice Chairman and Treasurer, and Wendy Drake as Secretary. Since Americans Elect’s incorporation, Peter Ackerman has been at the top. This would be a big change.

If Americans Elect appointed Kahlil Byrd as CEO and Chairman before last Friday, then it should have already informed the state of Florida of that change. But checking the Americans Elect disclosure page with the Florida Elections Division shows no such notification. If the change was made last Friday, then within the next week official notification should be received by Florida officials. Keep checking for official notice. If none appears, then either Americans Elect will be out of compliance with the law or Americans Elect will have fibbed to the American people about who’s in charge.

Watch for the news that comes out this week — or the news that doesn’t come out.

Why do details about legal compliance and honesty by Americans Elect matter? Because the corporation is trying to elect our president in a process it will be running all by itself. Technical competence and trustworthiness are essential in such a corporation. If Americans Elect comes through with legal disclosure in this matter, that’s a good sign. If Americans Elect can’t or won’t stay in compliance now, it will be hard to justify trust in the integrity of a corporate online election that’s just months away.

CEO Pay Cuts In Perspective

September 10th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Economy - (3 Comments)

Institute for Policy Studies Graph on CEO Pay through 2009
source: IPS

The poor dears.

Republicans in Congress like to put on a salt-of-the-earth act. They complain about “elitism.” They like to make speeches about how hard they fight for hard-working Americans who drive pickup trucks and don’t make much money but have big dreams. But don’t watch what they say. Watch what they do.

42 members of the House of Representatives have signed on in support of H.R. 5029. The bill:

* Altogether eliminates taxes on “capital gains” (money made off investment of money, not through work).
* Cuts the maximum tax rate paid by corporations to just 12.5 percent of income, far lower than the rate actual people pay.
* Eliminates restrictions on CEO pay for those banks that just took hundreds of billions in bailout money.
* Eliminates altogether any taxes on the inheritance of multimillion and multibillion dollar estates.

The above are all benefits for wealthy people and corporations. At the same time, H.R. 5029:

* Eliminates programs to cut health care premiums.
* Eliminates programs to extend broadband internet access to rural communities.
* Eliminates programs to make Medicare and Medicaid run more efficiently.
* Eliminates programs to help parents who have been laid off and cannot find a job.

In short, H.R. 5029 pads the wallets of trust fund kids and corporations while sapping efforts to help people who don’t have much. Every single politician who has signed on in support of H.R. 5029 is a Republican.

In 2009, two separate votes on two separate bills addressed the income of two very different sets of Americans. On March 12, 2009, there was a vote on the Mack Amendment, which would have slapped aside the usual rule for federally-funded projects that construction workers be paid at least the prevailing wage of the area in compensation for their labor. As Rep. Timothy Bishop points out in the Congressional Record, that prevailing wage standard is not very high, often leading to poverty-level compensation for full-time work. But for 140 members of the House of Representatives, poverty-level pay wasn’t low enough. In the middle of the worst economic recession in over a generation, the members of Congress who cast a vote for the Mack Amendment tried to slash the wages of working-class Americans. They tried to push workers’ wages further down.

On July 31, 2009, there was a vote on H.R. 3269, a bill to gives the shareholders who collectively own a corporation the right to cast at least an advisory vote on pay packages of the corporation’s executives. 185 members of Congress voted NO on H.R. 3269, rejecting the idea that the owners of a corporation should be able to reject overly high executive pay. These 185 members of Congress acted to keep corporate executives’ pay higher.

136 Republicans cast a vote to slash construction workers’ pay and also cast a vote to elevate corporate executives’ pay, a pair of votes that speaks for itself. These Republicans are:

Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama
Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama
Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama
Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama
Rep. John Boozman of Arkansas
Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona
Rep. John B. Shadegg of Arizona
Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona
Rep. Wally Herger of California
Rep. Dan Lungren of California
Rep. Tom McClintock of California
Rep. Devin Nunes of California
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California
Rep. Elton Gallegly of California
Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon of California
Rep. David Dreier of California
Rep. Edward R. Royce of California
Rep. Ken Calvert of California
Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California
Rep. John Campbell of California
Rep. Darrell Issa of California
Rep. Brian Bilbray of California
Rep. Duncan D. Hunter of California
Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado
Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado
Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida
Rep. Ander Crenshaw of Florida
Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida
Rep. John L. Mica of Florida
Rep. Gus Michael Bilirakis of Florida
Rep. C. W. (Bill) Young of Florida
Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida
Rep. Vernon Gale Buchanan of Florida
Rep. Connie Mack of Florida
Rep. Bill Posey of Florida
Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida
Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia
Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia
Rep. Paul C. Broun of Georgia
Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia
Rep. Tom Latham of Iowa
Rep. Steve King of Iowa
Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo of Illinois
Rep. Mark Edward Souder of Indiana
Rep. Stephen E. Buyer of Indiana
Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana
Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas
Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas
Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas
Rep. Edward Whitfield of Kentucky
Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky
Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky
Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky
Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana
Rep. Joseph Quang Cao of Louisiana
Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana
Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. of Louisiana
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland
Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan
Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan
Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan
Rep. John Kline of Minnesota
Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota
Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri
Rep. Samuel B. Graves of Missouri
Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. of North Carolina
Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina
Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina
Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska
Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska
Rep. E. Scott Garrett of New Jersey
Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey
Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada
Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio
Rep. Robert E. Latta of Ohio
Rep. Steve Austria of Ohio
Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio
Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma
Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma
Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma
Rep. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma
Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon
Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania
Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania
Rep. Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania
Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania
Rep. Todd R. Platts of Pennsylvania
Rep. Henry E. Brown, Jr. of South Carolina
Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina
Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina
Rep. David (Phil) Roe of Tennessee
Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas
Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas
Rep. Ralph M. Hall of Texas
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas
Rep. John A. Culberson of Texas
Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas
Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas
Rep. Kay Granger of Texas
Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas
Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas
Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas
Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas
Rep. John Carter of Texas
Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas
Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah
Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah
Rep. Robert J. Wittman of Virginia
Rep. J. Randy Forbes of Virginia
Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
Rep. Eric I. Cantor of Virginia
Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia
Rep. Richard (Doc) Hastings of Washington
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin
Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming

Why haven’t I identified the Democrats who voted to push down construction workers’ wages and to push up executives’ wages? The reason is simple: there aren’t any.

Did you know that United States taxes are structured to reward corporations for paying big executive salaries? It’s true: under the current U.S. tax code, corporations get to deduct the cost of executive pay up to one million dollars for each corporate executive. This provides an incentive for corporate boards to award big-buck salaries to corporate honchos, since Uncle Sam agrees to cut the corporation’s tax bill proportionally.

Yesterday, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas introduced Senate Amendment 2905 to the health care reform bill currently before the Senate. Lincoln’s amendment would cut the executive pay tax deduction down to $400,000 a year for each executive in a health insurance company participating in the new national health care exchange system. Corporations could still pay their executives more than $400,000 — they’d just have to pay taxes on any amount above that. The change in the tax structure would provide incentives for corporations to cut executive costs, and because the tax change would be system-wide, any objection about executives fleeing to rival corporations would not apply. Any additional tax money coming in to the federal government would be dedicated to the Medicare Trust Fund.

In a vote yesterday, the Lincoln Amendment got majority support in a roll call vote, with 56 Senators voting in favor and 42 voting against. But the Amendment needed sixty votes to pass, and so it failed.

You’d expect Republicans to vote in favor of continuing corporate tax breaks for million-dollar executive pay packages, and that was the case with the notable exception of Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, who voted for the Lincoln Amendment.

You might expect Democrats to vote in favor of cutting back corporate tax breaks for exorbitant executive pay packages, and that was mostly the case, but there were a number of exceptions — exceptions that allowed the Lincoln Amendment to go down in failure. Senators Tom Carper (D-Money), Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Kent Conrad of North Dakota voted in favor of continued lush tax breaks for executive pay by health insurance corporations. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Self) joined these Democrats in keeping these executive pay loopholes open.