As the charts you post indicate, US history shows this to be true.

And it is still true today. Countries with strong unions and progressive taxes have much greater income equality and a stronger middle class. And those countries with weak unions and regressive taxes (the US is the prime example) have terrible inequality and a declining middle class.

Thanks for posting the article and charts, eridani.

They’re the $10 million men and women.

Propelled by a soaring stock market, the median pay package for a CEO rose above eight figures for the first time last year. The head of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company earned a record $10.5 million, an increase of 8.8 percent from $9.6 million in 2012, according to an Associated Press/Equilar pay study.

Last year was the fourth straight that CEO compensation rose following a decline during the Great Recession. The median CEO pay package climbed more than 50 percent over that stretch. A chief executive now makes about 257 times the average worker’s salary, up sharply from 181 times in 2009.

The highest paid CEO last year was Anthony Petrello of oilfield-services company Nabors Industries, who made $68.3 million in 2013. Petrello’s pay ballooned as a result of a $60 million lump sum that the company paid him to buy out his old contract.

The highest paid female CEO was Carol Meyrowitz of discount retail giant TJX, owner of TJ Maxx and Marshall’s. And the head of Monster Beverage got a monster of a raise.

Over the last several years, companies’ boards of directors have tweaked executive compensation to answer critics’ calls for CEO pay to be more attuned to performance. They’ve cut back on stock options and cash bonuses, which were criticized for rewarding executives even when a company did poorly. Boards of directors have placed more emphasis on paying CEOs in stock instead of cash and stock options.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/latestnational/2214328-8/pay-gap-widens-between-ceos-average-workers

This HAS to be drummed in conversation over, and over. This is just sicking. and no one talks about it much. D*mn

Not a coincidence

TPP - For Wall Street!

Except that we did reduce (almost eliminate) it in the 1920's - thanks to repeated republican tariff hikes - and guess what? Inequality spiked so that by 1929 it was at a record level and union density fell to a level that we still have not equaled despite the weakness of unions in the US in the 21st century. Curtailing trade does nothing for the middle class or unions by itself.

And the example set by progressive countries today is that you build a strong middle class with strong unions (supported by national legislation - the exact opposite of Taft-Hartley), progressive taxation (the opposite of our regressive tax system) and plenty of international trade (trade is 60% of Sweden's economy; 50% in Canada; 20% in the US).

And don't try to tell Canada, Sweden or any other progressive country that you can't trade with the rest of the world and still have strong unions, progressive taxes and a strong middle class. They might have a hard time keeping a straight face.

Here in Detroit, most of my friends aren't doing so well. The ones who owned stock sold them long ago.

Things sure are strange these days. Weren't Republicans the ones who were supposed to stand for Wall Street?

what I posted? I did not mention the stock market in my post. Interesting that you took it in that direction.

I posted about the role of trade in creating a strong middle class. The only established link between international trade and a strong middle class is a positive correlation. The countries with the most trade are the same countries that have the strongest middle classes.

Of course, the reason for their strong middle classes is that they support strong unions, have high/progressive taxes and a strong safety net. Any country with these policies will have a fair society whether it trades a lot or a little. Similarly any country with weak unions, low/regressive taxes and a porous safety net will have a weak middle class whether that country trades a lot or a little. (The US tried that in the 1920's and the middle class collapsed.)

If progressive countries would have a strong middle class with or without a lot of trade, why do they trade so much? IMHO, either they see the economic benefits of trade and know these benefits will be shared equitably due to the nature of their societies or they simply view a liberal society as an open society and trade is a part of openness.

In 1930 auto workers were not 'doing so well' either. They could not blame that on trade with foreigners since republicans had pretty much eliminated that. Starting in 1933 FDR went about strengthening unions, improving the safety net, making taxes higher and more progressive and, yes, working out trade deals to increase trade. FDR would not have done this if he thought that increased trade was bad for American workers.

So I repeat: Yeah that's the problem - trade with foreigners. If we could just reduce that we would be fine.

TPP will be more of the same. That's what I said.

country - none of whom have anything to do with NAFTA. If you want to give NAFTA credit for Wall Street's performance go right ahead but I'm not sure you'll find much research to back you up.

And, of course, jobs and wages increased after NAFTA until - this will probably not surprise you - Bush can to power. Suddenly jobs and wages started declining. The fault of NAFTA? Perhaps, but perhaps you are letting George off the hook a little too easily for his tax cuts for the rich, union attacks and corporate deregulation.

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

That was Sept. 21, 2008.

No TPP. No Hillary. No Third Way. No more corporate vipers and thieves.

Of course we have the exact opposite here in NC- collective bargaining is actually illegal for all state and local government employees.

We mandate safety requirements. We mandate a minimum wage, even as absurdly low as it is. We mandate all kinds of rules and regulations in the work place.

There is absolutely no reason why we can't have mandated union representation in every workplace. It's just a logical extension of other laws we have to protect the health and safety of workers.