Obama’s Very Shaky 10-Minute CEO Earnings Claim
Filed under: Business Moves, Economy, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:27 am
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 the candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” 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: Steven Jobs(Apple) Ray Irani (Occidental Petroleum), and Barry Diller(IAC-InterActive Corp)
How about 2005? Try one (per Forbes), maybe two (woopidoo.com has an additional name on its list):Terry S. Semel (Yahoo!)
One-year wonders are fine, but how many CEOs averaged $187.2 million or more in earnings over 5 years? As you can see above, the answer is “none in either year.”
It’s also worth noting that three of the four CEOs above (Jobs, Semel, and Diller) are in charge of high-tech businesses that are not exactly known for having high concentrations of minimum-wage workers.
If Obama’s claim stands, it does so using the narrowest of definitions, and even then it only survives by the very thinnest of margins. An ordinary listener would clearly believe that Obama’s ad refers to more than four people (or five, if you include the additional CEO listed at woopidoo.com) in a two-year period.
Obama’s single-out of CEOs is also conveniently selective. If you wonder why he did not include certain entertainers in the list of those making more in 10 minutes than some workers, wonder no more:
Rank Name Pay ($mil) Web Rank Press Rank TV Rank
1 Oprah Winfrey 260 1 7 1
2 Tiger Woods 100 16 3 3
3 Madonna 72 2 1 6
4 Rolling Stones 88 7 14 20
5 Brad Pitt 35 15 9 12
6 Johnny Depp 92 32 21 39
7 Elton John 53 18 18 35
8 Tom Cruise 31 8 10 7
9 Jay-Z 83 10 4 7 50
10 Steven Spielberg 110 45 33 51
11 Tom Hanks 74 34 42 55
13 Howard Stern 70 59 58 5
14 Angelina Jolie 20 13 13 13
15 David Beckham 33 25 6 42
16 Phil Mickelson 42 81 12 18
17 David Letterman 40 60 32 10
18 Bon Jovi 67 21 57 53
19 Donald Trump 32 28 27 8
20 Celine Dion 45 20 59 65
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.
********************************************************
Just LOOK at this list, and TELL ME that Liberal Culture hasn't SCREWED UP, and is on the way to DESTROYING.
Obama whines about how much CEO's make, but he says NOTHING about Tiger Woods hitting a LITTLE WHITE BALL, and making as much as THREE THOUSAND TEACHERS make. Or Oprah Winfrey, who makes as much as EIGHT-THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED Teachers. Or Stven Speilberg, who makes as much as THREE-THOUSAND THREE-HUNDRED Teachers.
WHY, do think that IS, that Mr. Obama, or ANY Democrat, are ALWAYS ATTACKING BUSINESS, CORPORATIONS, AND CEOS, who create JOBS, make PRODUCTS, FOR AMERICAN CONSUMPTION, WHICH HELPS THE ECONOMY,yet NEVER seem to have ANYTHING NEGATIVE TO SAY ABOUT "ENTERTAINMENT" PEOPLE, who do VERY LITTLE, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND ACTUALLY CAUSE HARM, LIKE THE RAPE-AND-MURDER MOVIES, THAT CHILDREN WATCH, GROW UP, AND IMITATE?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??
Could it BE, because Obama, and Democrats, in General, are.......................................HYPOCRITES???? Could THAT be the REASON, that they don't want to UPSET their Millionare Democrat Contributors, their Fat-Cat freinds in Hollywood, who invite them to their star-filled parties? Gee, is it POSSIBLE??? Hmmmmmmmmm??????
Filed under: Business Moves, Economy, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:27 am
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 the candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” 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: Steven Jobs(Apple) Ray Irani (Occidental Petroleum), and Barry Diller(IAC-InterActive Corp)
How about 2005? Try one (per Forbes), maybe two (woopidoo.com has an additional name on its list):Terry S. Semel (Yahoo!)
One-year wonders are fine, but how many CEOs averaged $187.2 million or more in earnings over 5 years? As you can see above, the answer is “none in either year.”
It’s also worth noting that three of the four CEOs above (Jobs, Semel, and Diller) are in charge of high-tech businesses that are not exactly known for having high concentrations of minimum-wage workers.
If Obama’s claim stands, it does so using the narrowest of definitions, and even then it only survives by the very thinnest of margins. An ordinary listener would clearly believe that Obama’s ad refers to more than four people (or five, if you include the additional CEO listed at woopidoo.com) in a two-year period.
Obama’s single-out of CEOs is also conveniently selective. If you wonder why he did not include certain entertainers in the list of those making more in 10 minutes than some workers, wonder no more:
Rank Name Pay ($mil) Web Rank Press Rank TV Rank
1 Oprah Winfrey 260 1 7 1
2 Tiger Woods 100 16 3 3
3 Madonna 72 2 1 6
4 Rolling Stones 88 7 14 20
5 Brad Pitt 35 15 9 12
6 Johnny Depp 92 32 21 39
7 Elton John 53 18 18 35
8 Tom Cruise 31 8 10 7
9 Jay-Z 83 10 4 7 50
10 Steven Spielberg 110 45 33 51
11 Tom Hanks 74 34 42 55
13 Howard Stern 70 59 58 5
14 Angelina Jolie 20 13 13 13
15 David Beckham 33 25 6 42
16 Phil Mickelson 42 81 12 18
17 David Letterman 40 60 32 10
18 Bon Jovi 67 21 57 53
19 Donald Trump 32 28 27 8
20 Celine Dion 45 20 59 65
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.
********************************************************
Just LOOK at this list, and TELL ME that Liberal Culture hasn't SCREWED UP, and is on the way to DESTROYING.
Obama whines about how much CEO's make, but he says NOTHING about Tiger Woods hitting a LITTLE WHITE BALL, and making as much as THREE THOUSAND TEACHERS make. Or Oprah Winfrey, who makes as much as EIGHT-THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED Teachers. Or Stven Speilberg, who makes as much as THREE-THOUSAND THREE-HUNDRED Teachers.
WHY, do think that IS, that Mr. Obama, or ANY Democrat, are ALWAYS ATTACKING BUSINESS, CORPORATIONS, AND CEOS, who create JOBS, make PRODUCTS, FOR AMERICAN CONSUMPTION, WHICH HELPS THE ECONOMY,yet NEVER seem to have ANYTHING NEGATIVE TO SAY ABOUT "ENTERTAINMENT" PEOPLE, who do VERY LITTLE, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND ACTUALLY CAUSE HARM, LIKE THE RAPE-AND-MURDER MOVIES, THAT CHILDREN WATCH, GROW UP, AND IMITATE?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??
Could it BE, because Obama, and Democrats, in General, are.......................................HYPOCRITES???? Could THAT be the REASON, that they don't want to UPSET their Millionare Democrat Contributors, their Fat-Cat freinds in Hollywood, who invite them to their star-filled parties? Gee, is it POSSIBLE??? Hmmmmmmmmm??????
we have a problem that needs reform, period.
