Should the fed cut interest rates?

Hawkedup

All-American
Jul 8, 2025
2,526
5,853
113
Facts:

Inflation 2024 was 2.9%
Inflation 2025 was 2.6%
Inflation Jan & Feb 2026 before the war was 2.4%

Current U.S. Inflation Rates: 2000-2026

Those are the numbers but somehow you interpret that to be Trump was sending inflation higher before the war. The data doesn't support that. I think you're the one being political.

I don't want lower rates to help Trump. I think it would be good to lower rates by .5% because it would help the economy (housing & autos) and help reduce the interest expense paid by the government. I think the only risk is that lower interest rates will weaken the dollar a bit which helps exports but could make imports a bit more expensive.

You actually are making a few good points here but I still disagree with cutting rates due to 1) 2.4% was still higher than the 2% target and 2) There is still plenty Of room for car and home prices to come down right now. While the housing market was down considerably last year there does seem to be a healthy equilibrium right now.

Hold rates through the summer and if core inflation comes down more I would fully support a cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL and bdgan

Finance85

All-Conference
Dec 16, 2022
1,194
2,181
113
Using monetary policy to offset bad fiscal policy can only be partially effective in the long run, and is really only treating the symptoms. The answer must come from Congress, both in drastically cutting spending, and in holding Trump and future Presidents accountable for military actions. Voters need to hold Congress, especially the House, accountable for spending and corruption. It's apparent that House members sponsor spending legislation funding NGOs, and a portion of that money flows back to Members and their families in various ways. Until we start seeing some indictments and convictions we'll keep seeing the cycle.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
For the average investor the economy is performing well,.. If you're not invested and living paycheck to paycheck then your life probably sucks slightly more than normal, but not as much as it did with 9.0% Biden inflation...

You know that wages haven't been keeping up with inflation and that things are actually worse for people than under Biden at the end of his presidency, right?
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
You know that wages haven't been keeping up with inflation and that things are actually worse for people than under Biden at the end of his presidency, right?
Inflation > wage growth under Biden

Wage growth > inflation under Trump until the war.

You probably wouldn't be correct even if inflation stays at 3.8%. At least now people are paying less in tax (tips, OT, SS, higher standard deduction, higher child credits, etc.)
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
I say that inflation is high and it's difficult to get new jobs but we're clearly not in a recession; I'm not f'ing blind.
Sorry if I confused you with the crowd who has been claiming the economy has been in a steep decline.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
Inflation > wage growth under Biden

Wage growth > inflation under Trump until the war.

You probably wouldn't be correct even if inflation stays at 3.8%. At least now people are paying less in tax (tips, OT, SS, higher standard deduction, higher child credits, etc.)

But now inflation is greater than wage growth. Why ignore the problem that is entirely Trump's fault? It's wild. The Biden inflation was very largely not his fault and the Trump inflation is all Trump's. But Biden was somehow bad for the economy.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
But now inflation is greater than wage growth. Why ignore the problem that is entirely Trump's fault? It's wild. The Biden inflation was very largely not his fault and the Trump inflation is all Trump's. But Biden was somehow bad for the economy.
  1. I'm somewhat stunned that anybody can claim that ~ 6% average inflation wasn't his fault but ~ 2.6% inflation under Trump is all his fault.
  2. I've been opposed to the war from the beginning because of the cost and because I don't think the U.S. can afford to be the world's protector. I'm just not as opposed as you because I recognize Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terror and I do believe they are a global threat.
 

Billanole.

Junior
May 9, 2026
244
351
43
Inflation > wage growth under Biden

Wage growth > inflation under Trump until the war.

You probably wouldn't be correct even if inflation stays at 3.8%. At least now people are paying less in tax (tips, OT, SS, higher standard deduction, higher child credits, etc.)
You have posted several times about inflation under Trump “until the war” like that gives him a pass.
Self inflicted wounds should be blamed on the inflicter.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
  1. I'm somewhat stunned that anybody can claim that ~ 6% average inflation wasn't his fault but ~ 2.6% inflation under Trump is all his fault.
  2. I've been opposed to the war from the beginning because of the cost and because I don't think the U.S. can afford to be the world's protector. I'm just not as opposed as you because I recognize Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terror and I do believe they are a global threat.

It's not actually complicated at all. The United States experienced inflation similar to the rest of the world, which would suggest that Biden didn't do anything special to generate inflation.

With Trump even you acknowledge the specific action that he took that drove up inflation.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
It's not actually complicated at all. The United States experienced inflation similar to the rest of the world, which would suggest that Biden didn't do anything special to generate inflation.

With Trump even you acknowledge the specific action that he took that drove up inflation.
Your first statement is ridiculous. Biden added $3.5 trillion to our already high spending. That's the definition of inflationary.

There's no doubt that the closing of the straits has driven oil and oil based prices higher worldwide. Other countries are feeling the impact of that too. It doesn't mean Trump's actions didn't set it off.
 
Last edited:

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
Your first statement is ridiculous. Biden added $3.5 trillion to our already high spending. That's the definition of inflationary.

There's no doubt that the closing of the straits has driven oil and oil based prices higher worldwide. Other countries are feeling the impact but that too. It doesn't mean Trump's actions didn't set it off.

And mysteriously, our inflation was about in line with everyone else's. Why let facts get in the way of theory, amirite?
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
Your first statement is ridiculous. Biden added $3.5 trillion to our already high spending. That's the definition of inflationary.

There's no doubt that the closing of the straits has driven oil and oil based prices higher worldwide. Other countries are feeling the impact but that too. It doesn't mean Trump's actions didn't set it off.

Here's What I'm Talking About. The USA had similar inflation and a much stronger economic recovery but yeah, Biden sucked at the economy.

Cumulative Impact and the "U.S. Exception"
By 2024 and heading into recent years, cumulative core inflation in the U.S. ultimately leveled out to be roughly equal to its major developed competitors (with the exception of Japan, which has historically struggled to generate any inflation at all).
However, the major differentiator was the broader economic backdrop.

The U.S. Economic Exception: While the U.S. endured higher price levels in the immediate years following the pandemic, it completely outpaced the rest of the developed world in economic recovery. The U.S. experienced exceptional gross domestic product (GDP) growth, massive domestic investment, and a remarkably resilient labor market, whereas many European economies stagnated or flirted with recessions while fighting the exact same inflationary pressures.
Ultimately, the U.S. ran "hotter" out of the gate due to massive economic stimulus, but that same heat allowed its economy to power through the global inflation crisis with far less economic scarring than its international pe ers.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
You do realize that it's a global economy, don't you?

So your argument is now that global inflation is Biden's fault but the USA's economic recovery he doesn't get credit for? I don't know what point you're making.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
So your argument is now that global inflation is Biden's fault but the USA's economic recovery he doesn't get credit for? I don't know what point you're making.
IMO the U.S. spent twice what it should have on Covid. 90% were working but we gave them stimulus checks anyway. Many of the 10% that weren't working were getting paid more not to work. A lot of big and small companies + government agencies took advantage of handouts. I blame both sides.

There was a lot of money with pent up demand. Then when Biden was elected he handed out another $3.5 trillion. Of course that sped up the economy. It also ran up the debt and kicked off inflation.

Unlike you I don't think more government handouts is the best path to prosperity. I think government caused the financial crisis and much of today's affordability problem.

I'm not a big Trump fan. I think Iran was a big mistake. But people like you think that 100% of everything he does is evil (racist, misogynist, pedophile, Nazi). I don't think that way about any president. Of course I have opinions but I try to focus on data and facts. So when you say that 9% inflation under Biden wasn't his fault but Trump is destroying the country with 3% inflation I have trouble taking you seriously.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
IMO the U.S. spent twice what it should have on Covid. 90% were working but we gave them stimulus checks anyway. Many of the 10% that weren't working were getting paid more not to work. A lot of big and small companies + government agencies took advantage of handouts. I blame both sides.

There was a lot of money with pent up demand. Then when Biden was elected he handed out another $3.5 trillion. Of course that sped up the economy. It also ran up the debt and kicked off inflation.

Unlike you I don't think more government handouts is the best path to prosperity. I think government caused the financial crisis and much of today's affordability problem.

I'm not a big Trump fan. I think Iran was a big mistake. But people like you think that 100% of everything he does is evil (racist, misogynist, pedophile, Nazi). I don't think that way about any president. Of course I have opinions but I try to focus on data and facts. So when you say that 9% inflation under Biden wasn't his fault but Trump is destroying the country with 3% inflation I have trouble taking you seriously.
I agree with you on Biden's unnecessary spending helping to fuel inflation...same with Trump's Iran war causing todays higher prices/inflation.

In reality though, I don't think any President deserves 100% credit or blame for either starting inflation or ending it. Sure there are policies that impact both but none that would make economic conditions one single person's direct fault.

It's the same with deficits. There's simply too much budget overlaps to pin high deficits directly onto Obama, trump or Biden. They all had a role in getting us into this position...so did Congress...
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
IMO the U.S. spent twice what it should have on Covid. 90% were working but we gave them stimulus checks anyway. Many of the 10% that weren't working were getting paid more not to work. A lot of big and small companies + government agencies took advantage of handouts. I blame both sides.

There was a lot of money with pent up demand. Then when Biden was elected he handed out another $3.5 trillion. Of course that sped up the economy. It also ran up the debt and kicked off inflation.

Unlike you I don't think more government handouts is the best path to prosperity. I think government caused the financial crisis and much of today's affordability problem.

I'm not a big Trump fan. I think Iran was a big mistake. But people like you think that 100% of everything he does is evil (racist, misogynist, pedophile, Nazi). I don't think that way about any president. Of course I have opinions but I try to focus on data and facts. So when you say that 9% inflation under Biden wasn't his fault but Trump is destroying the country with 3% inflation I have trouble taking you seriously.

So was Biden responsible for inflation or is it a global thing? I cannot tell what you're claiming but it feels like you moved the goal posts.
 

Finance85

All-Conference
Dec 16, 2022
1,194
2,181
113
You know that wages haven't been keeping up with inflation and that things are actually worse for people than under Biden at the end of his presidency, right?
Inflation is cumulative, and the ending number doesn't reflect the entire timeline. This is true for everyone in office.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
So was Biden responsible for inflation or is it a global thing? I cannot tell what you're claiming but it feels like you moved the goal posts.
It it an either or question? I personally think that both Biden's policies contributed (but remember he didn't appropriate the money by himself..Congress voted for it... and a portion of funding was left in the system from Trump's policies and money appropriated) to our inflation. And since we are in somewhat of a global economy, it's likely that global issues, especially supply chain, also contributed.

That's why I often push back on efforts from either group - left or right - trying to assign blame to only one person - normally a person in the opposing party - for the nation's financial position...there's simply too many moving parts.

I make an exception to the current inflation. We are currently in a trump induced problem. However, this should be short term....but folks on the left will blame trump for the high prices, and folks on the right will credit trump when prices come back down. Amazing how this works
 

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,768
22,428
113
So was Biden responsible for inflation or is it a global thing? I cannot tell what you're claiming but it feels like you moved the goal posts.

I think some level of inflation was inevitable, but Biden exacerbated it with unnecessary handouts. And if the democrats got their way with BBB, it would have been even worse. Thankfully that was blocked.
 

Finance85

All-Conference
Dec 16, 2022
1,194
2,181
113
It's not actually complicated at all. The United States experienced inflation similar to the rest of the world, which would suggest that Biden didn't do anything special to generate inflation.

With Trump even you acknowledge the specific action that he took that drove up inflation.
The rest of the world is connected to the US. Comparing inflation in the US to the rest of the world is laughable.

Deficit federal spending drives up inflation no matter who is POTUS. Once a new baseline is established, there's no going back and each successor becomes part of the cycle unless they cut spending, which has never happened.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
I think some level of inflation was inevitable, but Biden exacerbated it with unnecessary handouts. And if the democrats got their way with BBB, it would have been even worse. Thankfully that was blocked.

My only point here is that these claims that Biden was somehow bad at economy aren't really based in evidence. BBB is an interesting counter factual but it didn't happen.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
The rest of the world is connected to the US. Comparing inflation in the US to the rest of the world is laughable.

Deficit federal spending drives up inflation no matter who is POTUS. Once a new baseline is established, there's no going back and each successor becomes part of the cycle unless they cut spending, which has never happened.

The theory is that deficit spending drives up inflation no matter what. And yet we've had defecit spending since Reagan and inflation is seldom a problem. You can point to a few bad years under Biden, sure, and can point out that there were big defecits during that time. AND YET our country had comparable inflation and a better recovery than the average developed nation. So I just don't buy this Biden talking point, sorry.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
The theory is that deficit spending drives up inflation no matter what. And yet we've had defecit spending since Reagan and inflation is seldom a problem. You can point to a few bad years under Biden, sure, and can point out that there were big defecits during that time. AND YET our country had comparable inflation and a better recovery than the average developed nation. So I just don't buy this Biden talking point, sorry.
hey @FLaw47....speaking of interest rates, inflation and such....I was just reading an article in the WSJ (likely behind paywall) that report that the new Chairman of FED is looking at how the inflation is calculated. If you can get it, you might find it interesting..or Google "trimmed mean" inflation rate
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,613
4,148
113
hey @FLaw47....speaking of interest rates, inflation and such....I was just reading an article in the WSJ (likely behind paywall) that report that the new Chairman of FED is looking at how the inflation is calculated. If you can get it, you might find it interesting..or Google "trimmed mean" inflation rate

I don't have WSJ, unfortunately. Some may call this TDS but when I hear a thing like this, I hear "Trump doesn't like the numbers and wants to make up new ones". Inflation and unemployment is conveniently actually way higher than reported under Democratic administrations and vice versa for him. His impact on our country's ability to have an actual shared reality is amongst the most frightening things he's done.
 

Hawkedup

All-American
Jul 8, 2025
2,526
5,853
113
hey @FLaw47....speaking of interest rates, inflation and such....I was just reading an article in the WSJ (likely behind paywall) that report that the new Chairman of FED is looking at how the inflation is calculated. If you can get it, you might find it interesting..or Google "trimmed mean" inflation rate

Geez, just what we need. Trump appointed fed chair redefining and changing how we calculate inflation. Entirely unnecessary.

I love the political bias in threads like these. All finger pointing to Biden/trump yet very little mention of the federal reserve. Both Biden and trump shoulder some of the blame for the inflation we saw in 21/22 but a bulk of it is on the federal reserve. Their balance sheet more than doubled in 2 years. 2021 was not Jerome Powell best year for job performance. Artificially keeping those rates low for far too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
I don't have WSJ, unfortunately. Some may call this TDS but when I hear a thing like this, I hear "Trump doesn't like the numbers and wants to make up new ones". Inflation and unemployment is conveniently actually way higher than reported under Democratic administrations and vice versa for him. His impact on our country's ability to have an actual shared reality is amongst the most frightening things he's done.
well, I reserve judgement until I see the actual plan/goals etc. I do think that the current fed charter - employment, stable prices - might overlook the overall state of the economy...
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,708
3,882
113
I think so for two reasons:
  1. The Fed typically keeps rates high in order to slow an overheated economy (ie reduce inflation). I think any current inflation is largely due to the war/gas prices, not because the economy is overheating.
  2. The country needs lower rates in order to keep interest expense low. I realize that it wouldn't do much to lower longer term mortgage interest rates.
Restore the Trump and Bush tax cuts on the rich and then cut rates in half.

Should be a good trade off with maybe a little tweaking.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,708
3,882
113
Facts:

Inflation 2024 was 2.9%
Inflation 2025 was 2.6%
Inflation Jan & Feb 2026 before the war was 2.4%

Current U.S. Inflation Rates: 2000-2026

Those are the numbers but somehow you interpret that to be Trump was sending inflation higher before the war. The data doesn't support that. I think you're the one being political.

I don't want lower rates to help Trump. I think it would be good to lower rates by .5% because it would help the economy (housing & autos) and help reduce the interest expense paid by the government. I think the only risk is that lower interest rates will weaken the dollar a bit which helps exports but could make imports a bit more expensive.
The tariff impacts hadn't hit much before the war but they were coming.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,708
3,882
113
No they cannot cut. Bond yields are elevated. That is what buyers are willing to pay. If the fed diverges from actual bond yields they lose their credibility.
People used to say that printing a lot of money to balance the budget or pay down the debt would debauch the dollar and be highly inflationary.

Maybe we should have done that. Because we got the highly inflationary part without any of the benefits of paying down the debt.

We have seriously devalued the dollar. Not compared to other currencies, but in terms of purchasing power. And while we briefly saw wages increasing faster than inflation, the last I heard, that is no longer the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidmike41

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
AI is booming.
The markets are soaring into bubble territory.
The wealthy are raking it in.

What about the average American?
based strictly on statistics the "average" American household should be doing OK...according to AI "The average U.S. household income is approximately $121,000, while the median U.S. household income is $83,730. The median is considered the more accurate benchmark of a typical household's earnings because it avoids being skewed by high-earning outliers"

Without question, there is a group of Americans that are having economic difficulties. Obviously, average won't/doesn't mean much in that discussion.

here's a breakdown of the "below average"
According to USAFacts data based on U.S. Census Bureau figures, household income groups are distributed as follows:
  • Less than \(\$35,000\): ~22% of households
  • \(\$35,000\) to \(\$49,999\): ~10% of households
  • \(\$50,000\) to \(\$99,999\): ~28% of households
  • \(\$100,000\) and over: ~41% of household
A household earning less than $35,000 - 22% of households - are in trouble
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,768
22,428
113
based strictly on statistics the "average" American household should be doing OK...according to AI "The average U.S. household income is approximately $121,000, while the median U.S. household income is $83,730. The median is considered the more accurate benchmark of a typical household's earnings because it avoids being skewed by high-earning outliers"

Without question, there is a group of Americans that are having economic difficulties. Obviously, average won't/doesn't mean much in that discussion.

here's a breakdown of the "below average"
According to USAFacts data based on U.S. Census Bureau figures, household income groups are distributed as follows:
  • Less than \(\$35,000\): ~22% of households
  • \(\$35,000\) to \(\$49,999\): ~10% of households
  • \(\$50,000\) to \(\$99,999\): ~28% of households
  • \(\$100,000\) and over: ~41% of household
A household earning less than $35,000 - 22% of households - are in trouble

Should probably come with reasons why a household makes less than $35K. $20/hr is $40k a year. 2 adult household at $20/hr is $80k a year. Fast food restaurants, landscaping crews, etc all with pay approaching or over $20/hr. We pay high school babysitters $20/hr.

In this cohort, how many issues stem from drug use, having kids out of wedlock, laziness, criminal activity, etc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,708
3,882
113
based strictly on statistics the "average" American household should be doing OK...according to AI "The average U.S. household income is approximately $121,000, while the median U.S. household income is $83,730. The median is considered the more accurate benchmark of a typical household's earnings because it avoids being skewed by high-earning outliers"

Without question, there is a group of Americans that are having economic difficulties. Obviously, average won't/doesn't mean much in that discussion.

here's a breakdown of the "below average"
According to USAFacts data based on U.S. Census Bureau figures, household income groups are distributed as follows:
  • Less than \(\$35,000\): ~22% of households
  • \(\$35,000\) to \(\$49,999\): ~10% of households
  • \(\$50,000\) to \(\$99,999\): ~28% of households
  • \(\$100,000\) and over: ~41% of household
A household earning less than $35,000 - 22% of households - are in trouble
Your answer embodies a point of view that I used to share. Namely "As long as I'm doing well, why should I have a problem with you doing even better?" But the discrepancies between the ordinary Joe and our plutocrats has become obscene. I asked Gemini a related question and got some interesting data.
.
.
.
The most consistent tracking of this data comes from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which measures the "realized compensation" (including salary, bonuses, and cashed-out stock options/awards) of CEOs at the 350 largest U.S. firms compared to a typical worker in their industry.
The baseline shifted over the last 60 to 75 years from a modest double-digit gap to a massive triple-digit chasm, peaking during stock market bubbles.

The Historical Timeline​

Era / YearCEO-to-Worker Pay RatioThe Context
1950s–1960s21 to 1 (In 1965)Executives were paid primarily in salary and bonuses. Corporate culture and high marginal tax rates discouraged extreme pay disparities.
1970s31 to 1 (In 1978)The ratio stayed relatively flat through the mid-70s before beginning a slow crawl upward as the economy shifted.
1980s61 to 1 (In 1989)Deregulation and the introduction of heavy stock-option packages began widening the gap in earnest.
1990s121 to 1 (In 1995)This matches the "factor of 10" growth you heard about (going from roughly 30-to-1 in the 70s to over 300-to-1 by the end of the 90s).
2000366 to 1The peak of the Dot-Com bubble. Because CEO pay became tied directly to the stock market via options, soaring stocks meant astronomical payouts.
2021408 to 1A historic high, driven by the massive stock market surge during the pandemic recovery.
Recent (2024)281 to 1While down from the 2021 peak due to shifting stock values and changes in corporate payouts, it remains vastly higher than any pre-1990s era.

Sorting Out the "1,000 Times" Discrepancy​

When you hear a figure like "1,000 times difference" today, it usually stems from one of two specific scenarios rather than the broad macroeconomic average:
  • Individual Extremes: At specific massive corporations (like retail giants or tech firms with hundreds of thousands of low-wage part-time workers), the ratio frequently hits 1,000-to-1 or higher. For example, if a CEO pulls in $30 million mostly in stock and the median worker is a part-time retail employee making $30,000, the ratio is exactly 1,000-to-1.
  • The 1,000% Growth Stat: You might also be crossing wires with a frequently cited growth metric: between 1978 and recent years, top CEO compensation grew by roughly 1,094% (adjusted for inflation), while typical worker compensation grew by just 26%.
The trajectory shows that what was once a relatively tight relationship between executive and worker pay completely uncoupled once equity and stock grants became the primary vehicle for corporate leadership compensation.

Fresh data for 2025 and early 2026 has recently been compiled. Because companies report their executive pay for the previous year during spring proxy seasons, the figures for fiscal year 2025 have just crystallized, giving us a clear view of where things stand right now in 2026.
The numbers show that after a brief moderation in 2023 and 2024, CEO compensation experienced a massive surge in 2025, primarily driven by soaring stock awards linked to corporate investments in artificial intelligence and tech.
The gap has widened yet again, depending on which corporate index is measured.

1. The Broad S&P 500 Index (Associated Press/Equilar Study)​

This tracking covers the chief executives across the entire S&P 500.
  • Median CEO Pay (2025): $17.7 million, an increase of nearly 6% year-over-year.
  • Median Employee Pay (2025): $89,744, up 4.7% year-over-year.
  • The 2025 Pay Ratio: 200 to 1 > Note on this metric: This is a straight median-to-median comparison across the middle of the S&P 500. The analysts noted that across half of the companies surveyed, it would now take a typical employee 200 years to earn what their CEO makes in a single year.

2. The Mega-Cap Companies (The Equilar 100)​

When looking specifically at the early disclosures of the top 100 largest U.S. public companies by revenue (companies with at least $1 billion in revenue where executive pay is heavily stock-dependent), the spike was much more severe.
  • Median CEO Pay (2025): $29.4 million, which represents a massive 23.2% jump from the prior year.
  • Median Employee Pay (2025): $99,229, up roughly 10%.
  • The 2025 Pay Ratio: 341 to 1 (up from 300-to-1 the year before).

Key Drivers of the 2025/2026 Surge​

  • The Equity Spike: The median value of stock awards alone jumped 38.8% for mega-cap CEOs. Because boards heavily favor multi-year stock grants tied to performance milestones, the booming market valuation of these firms directly translated to larger realized packages.
  • An Rise in "Perks": Interestingly, executive perquisites (like security details and private travel) saw an unprecedented spike of 17.7% to 24% across various studies. Industry analysts attribute this sharp rise to boards heavily expanding corporate security budgets for top executives following high-profile security incidents late in the prior year.
While the broad macroeconomic numbers from groups like the Economic Policy Institute (which use a specific "realized compensation" formula for the top 350 firms) are still finalizing their long-term weighted averages for this exact moment, the corporate disclosures clear the air: the gap is aggressively expanding back toward its pandemic-era highs.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,383
4,722
113
Your answer embodies a point of view that I used to share. Namely "As long as I'm doing well, why should I have a problem with you doing even better?" But the discrepancies between the ordinary Joe and our plutocrats has become obscene. I asked Gemini a related question and got some interesting data.
.
.
.
The most consistent tracking of this data comes from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which measures the "realized compensation" (including salary, bonuses, and cashed-out stock options/awards) of CEOs at the 350 largest U.S. firms compared to a typical worker in their industry.
The baseline shifted over the last 60 to 75 years from a modest double-digit gap to a massive triple-digit chasm, peaking during stock market bubbles.

The Historical Timeline​

Era / YearCEO-to-Worker Pay RatioThe Context
1950s–1960s21 to 1 (In 1965)Executives were paid primarily in salary and bonuses. Corporate culture and high marginal tax rates discouraged extreme pay disparities.
1970s31 to 1 (In 1978)The ratio stayed relatively flat through the mid-70s before beginning a slow crawl upward as the economy shifted.
1980s61 to 1 (In 1989)Deregulation and the introduction of heavy stock-option packages began widening the gap in earnest.
1990s121 to 1 (In 1995)This matches the "factor of 10" growth you heard about (going from roughly 30-to-1 in the 70s to over 300-to-1 by the end of the 90s).
2000366 to 1The peak of the Dot-Com bubble. Because CEO pay became tied directly to the stock market via options, soaring stocks meant astronomical payouts.
2021408 to 1A historic high, driven by the massive stock market surge during the pandemic recovery.
Recent (2024)281 to 1While down from the 2021 peak due to shifting stock values and changes in corporate payouts, it remains vastly higher than any pre-1990s era.

Sorting Out the "1,000 Times" Discrepancy​

When you hear a figure like "1,000 times difference" today, it usually stems from one of two specific scenarios rather than the broad macroeconomic average:
  • Individual Extremes: At specific massive corporations (like retail giants or tech firms with hundreds of thousands of low-wage part-time workers), the ratio frequently hits 1,000-to-1 or higher. For example, if a CEO pulls in $30 million mostly in stock and the median worker is a part-time retail employee making $30,000, the ratio is exactly 1,000-to-1.
  • The 1,000% Growth Stat: You might also be crossing wires with a frequently cited growth metric: between 1978 and recent years, top CEO compensation grew by roughly 1,094% (adjusted for inflation), while typical worker compensation grew by just 26%.
The trajectory shows that what was once a relatively tight relationship between executive and worker pay completely uncoupled once equity and stock grants became the primary vehicle for corporate leadership compensation.

Fresh data for 2025 and early 2026 has recently been compiled. Because companies report their executive pay for the previous year during spring proxy seasons, the figures for fiscal year 2025 have just crystallized, giving us a clear view of where things stand right now in 2026.
The numbers show that after a brief moderation in 2023 and 2024, CEO compensation experienced a massive surge in 2025, primarily driven by soaring stock awards linked to corporate investments in artificial intelligence and tech.
The gap has widened yet again, depending on which corporate index is measured.

1. The Broad S&P 500 Index (Associated Press/Equilar Study)​

This tracking covers the chief executives across the entire S&P 500.
  • Median CEO Pay (2025): $17.7 million, an increase of nearly 6% year-over-year.
  • Median Employee Pay (2025): $89,744, up 4.7% year-over-year.
  • The 2025 Pay Ratio: 200 to 1 > Note on this metric: This is a straight median-to-median comparison across the middle of the S&P 500. The analysts noted that across half of the companies surveyed, it would now take a typical employee 200 years to earn what their CEO makes in a single year.

2. The Mega-Cap Companies (The Equilar 100)​

When looking specifically at the early disclosures of the top 100 largest U.S. public companies by revenue (companies with at least $1 billion in revenue where executive pay is heavily stock-dependent), the spike was much more severe.
  • Median CEO Pay (2025): $29.4 million, which represents a massive 23.2% jump from the prior year.
  • Median Employee Pay (2025): $99,229, up roughly 10%.
  • The 2025 Pay Ratio: 341 to 1 (up from 300-to-1 the year before).

Key Drivers of the 2025/2026 Surge​

  • The Equity Spike: The median value of stock awards alone jumped 38.8% for mega-cap CEOs. Because boards heavily favor multi-year stock grants tied to performance milestones, the booming market valuation of these firms directly translated to larger realized packages.
  • An Rise in "Perks": Interestingly, executive perquisites (like security details and private travel) saw an unprecedented spike of 17.7% to 24% across various studies. Industry analysts attribute this sharp rise to boards heavily expanding corporate security budgets for top executives following high-profile security incidents late in the prior year.
While the broad macroeconomic numbers from groups like the Economic Policy Institute (which use a specific "realized compensation" formula for the top 350 firms) are still finalizing their long-term weighted averages for this exact moment, the corporate disclosures clear the air: the gap is aggressively expanding back toward its pandemic-era highs.
based on this information, I don't know why everybody doesn't work to become a CEO...if they're interested in money.

I worked in industry for 20 years...negotiated for my salary and benefits...and you know, I never once worried about how much the CEO made. As long as he was doing his job, the company was growing, making money, and providing benefits to both employees and retirees, I was happy. Maybe I was wrong not to be concerned, but envy was not part of my makeup.

If you're making an assumption that if the CEO salary was reduced, those monies would be distributed to employees, I seriously doubt it.. A large portion of CEO pay is based on performance and a lot is paid in stock..a lot of it restricted.

The CEOs pay was based on meeting the company performance objectives and mine was based on my organization meeting the goals assigned to me.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,596
4,490
113
The tariff impacts hadn't hit much before the war but they were coming.
They waited a year to hit and that was coincidentally when the straits were closed?

Do you realize that core inflation (- food and energy) was up 2.8% year over year. And a lot of that is because diesel fuel isn't directly in the numbers but delivery costs drive up prices on virtually everything.