which party is more likely to help the average person out economically?

Not irrelevant if CEO pay drives inflation. Basically everything can affect inflation. What’s important is what are the true drivers of inflation? That’s what we should be focused on and the minimum wage is NOT one of them.

"A significant majority of responding economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour...a majority (58%) of economists believe raising the federal minimum wage to $15 will contribute to inflation following the pandemic."

I'm noticing a suspicious lack of experts.

There is no market for CEO pay SubTeach. It’s a good ole boy club. They get millions even when they drive their company into bankruptcy, dummy

Because it wasn't raised.

That is a meaningless statement designed by think tanks on the payroll of Big Business to manipulate idiots like you into opposing increasing the minimum wage.

More bullshit. Economist have never said that rain, too much or too little, doesn’t drive inflation.

market price: "the price of a commodity when sold in a given market."

market: "an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted"

It's the price that the board of the company pays to the CEO. Whatever they are willing to pay is the market price by definition. The "market" being referred to here is the labor market—any occupation is considered a part of this market.

So a lack of experts, no?

It means that a significant majority of responding economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Hence, not meaningless.

Subby makes $100 a day. About $17/hour. That’s generous 

That is not a market. It’s a good ole boy club. You raise my pay and I’ll raise your pay. 

The board is elected by shareholders; often the CEO does not own a majority of shares. In economics, a market is simply an arena in which trade takes place. The CEO trades their labor or the services of their company for pay.

Do markets get distorted? Is the  CEO market distorted? Is a distorted market a true market or is it more like a monopoly?

As usual, incoherent. What’s my dog doing here? You are my dog SubTeach!

Perhaps, but I'm referring specifically to your claim that "There is no market for CEO pay." Market prices exist even in distorted markets.

If the (CEO)markets are distorted then the market prices are distorted and are not a true representation of value.

CEOs are responsible for making critical decisions, driving company performance, and should be rewarded accordingly. The market for top executive talent is competitive, and high wages are necessary to attract and retain talented individuals. executive pay is often structured to include performance-based elements, such as bonuses, stock options, and incentives tied to specific targets or metrics. These compensation structures provide incentives for CEOs to drive company performance and create value for shareholders. When CEOs are rewarded based on their ability to achieve predetermined goals, it ensures a direct link between pay and performance. the market for top executive talent is highly competitive. Offering competitive compensation packages is necessary to attract and retain talented individuals who can effectively lead and steer complex organizations. Without competitive pay, companies may struggle to attract the best candidates, potentially hindering overall company performance and growth. the high level of responsibility and the impact of these decisions warrant commensurate compensation. Without appropriate incentives, CEOs may not be motivated to take on the immense responsibilities that come with the position. Pay reflects the global nature of business and the need to compete on an international scale. CEOs of multinational corporations must navigate complex global markets, handle geopolitical risks, and manage diverse teams. The challenges and skills required for such roles justify the higher wages offered to CEOs compared to workers in other positions. CEO compensation is typically determined by boards of directors and subject to shareholder approval.  these governance mechanisms ensure a level of oversight and accountability. if shareholders believe that CEO wages are excessive or not justified, they have the power to voice their concerns and vote against such compensation packages.

Value is subjective. If something is exclusive, it is more valuable, simply because it is perceived as such. Even if I grant that you are right, we're getting off track from the initial point I was making, which is that a CEO's salary can be classified as a "market price."

The CEO of Budweiser makes 12 million a year. 

The company recently lost 5 billion dollars. The equivilent of over 400 CEOs. Seems like the board tried to skimp and go with a cheap CEO...

What is an average person?

One would assume that the average person copes.

And that the below average are more likely to need social assistance. 

One would further suggest that if the previously average person can no longer cope then they have dropped below average.

What is an average government?

One would assume an average government copes.

For sure.

Is any Government ever a good Government?

Which is one of the reasons why I never vote.

Of course, some people vote for the same party that their Dads and Mums did....Which is a bit mindless really.

Though, for as long as the moderates retain the casting vote, you should be OK.

But just remember, you've got all those lovely guns should democracy ever get too tyrannical.

But also, don't forget that everyone else has got them too.

MAD.............A bit like the debt limit.....Which is sort of limitless really.

There are only 5 nations that do not have a National debt, so who do we borrow it all from?

Some reportedly borrow it from China, but oddly China isn't one of the 5.

How can you be in debt and lend money?

MAD......Mutually Assured Debt.

"which party is more likely to help the average person out economically?" 

I would say neither, both are spending the country into oblivion. All they do is argue about what to spend us into oblivion on. Both parties don't get there is no more money and the country is bankrupt. Raising the debt ceiling shouldn't even be a topic of discussion  but rather freezing all current spending levels for at least 10 years.

Sadly, the government has taught the voters to borrow to be happy. Many voters do not have enough saved in the bank to cover the replacement of 4 tires. on a car.

The 1920's were like that too.

When has the debt ever caused us a problem?

good point. maybe i should have focused on the dems being more likely to help those who are struggling. 

we already had this discussion. You think endless  growing national debt by trillions of dollars every year  that will never be repaid isn't a problem. I said you are right I am wrong.  My position on this thread is the same, neither party will address the debt and spend the country into oblivion. I will just assume your position is the same. Govt can incur endless debt because endless growing  debt is meaningless. And again you would be right and I am wrong.

I don't think the debt has caused us any problems 

"I don't think the debt has caused us any problems"  Ya, you already said that. No problems at all. We agree to disagree, but you are right and I am wrong.

Yet you can't name the problems