| FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | |||||
| Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | |||||
| Tyson Foods | 2019 | 2018 | 2018 | 2017 | 2017 | 2016 | 2016 | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||
| Top-Tier | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | ||||
| Executive | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | ||||
| $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | |||||
| Tyson Chairman | 10,322 | 9,997 | 9,997 | 10,454 | 10,454 | 9,616 | 9,616 | 8,753 | 8,753 | 8,698 | ||||
| White CEO | 10,398 | 5,737 | 5,737 | 5,986 | 5,986 | 6,021 | 6,021 | 8,526 | 8,526 | 6,285 | ||||
| Glendinning CFO | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Grimes | 4,140 | 3,986 | ||||||||||||
| Hayes CEO | 9,487 | 8,906 | 8,906 | 4,686 | ||||||||||
| Leatherby Former CFO | N/A | N/A | 3,969 | 4,314 | 4,314 | 4,477 | 4,477 | 4,693 | ||||||
| Smith Former CEO | 5,071 | 11,472 | 11,472 | 12,627 | 12,627 | 12,226 | ||||||||
| King | 7,993 | 7,827 | 7,827 | 6,755 | ||||||||||
| Totals | 24,860 | 19,720 | 25,221 | 25,346 | 34,386 | 36,109 | 39,416 | 42,210 | 42,210 | 38,657 | ||||
| Annual % Change vs Prior Year | 26.1% | -0.5% | -4.8% | -6.6% | 9.2% | |||||||||
| 5 Year Average Per Year % Change | 4.7% | |||||||||||||
| FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | FYE | |||||
| Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | Sept | |||||
| Tyson Foods | 2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2012 | 2011 | 2011 | 2010 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||
| Top-Tier | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | Total | ||||
| Executive | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | Comp | ||||
| $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | $ 000s | |||||
| Tyson Chairman | 8,698 | 7,833 | 7,998 | 4,217 | 4,217 | 3,334 | 3,334 | 1,748 | ||||||
| White CEO | 6,285 | 3,599 | 3,560 | 3,220 | 3,220 | 3,768 | 3,768 | 2,900 | ||||||
| Leatherby Former CFO | 4,693 | 3,574 | 3,574 | 2,579 | 2,579 | 2,656 | 2,656 | 2,622 | 2,560 | 739 | ||||
| Smith Former CEO | 12,226 | 9,874 | 9,872 | 7,845 | 7,845 | 7,673 | 7,673 | 9,013 | 8,862 | 1,176 | ||||
| King | 6,755 | 3,601 | 3,599 | 3,048 | 3,048 | 3,033 | 3,033 | 2,890 | ||||||
| Lochner COO | 11,836 | 9,139 | 9,139 | 7,801 | 7,801 | 7,683 | 7,683 | 8,355 | 8,204 | 1,466 | ||||
| Tollett Former CEO | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||
| Totals | 50,493 | 37,620 | 37,742 | 28,710 | 28,710 | 28,147 | 28,147 | 27,528 | 19,626 | 3,381 | ||||
| Annual % Change vs Prior Year | 34.2% | 31.5% | 2.0% | 2.2% | 480.5% | |||||||||
| 5 Year Average Per Year % Change | 110.1% | |||||||||||||
| 10 Year Average Per Year % Change | 57.4% |
As you can see in the above table, Tysons' Company Iowa non-executive workers really had the deck stacked against them versus what is going on with the sky-high annual percentage pay raises of Tysons Foods Inc's Top-Tier Executives.
So which 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate could best close this massive annual percentage pay raise gap between Tysons Top-Tier executives and Iowa non-executives employees?
More than anything needed to solve this thorny problem is to possess exceptionally strong financial and data science skills, coupled with a keen understanding of how businesses operate.
More than anything needed to solve this thorny problem is to possess exceptionally strong financial and data science skills, coupled with a keen understanding of how businesses operate.
Well, that should rule out any Presidential candidate who worked for the US Government in the past ten years when these comparative pay raise results were so horrendous, not just in Iowa Tysons' locations all over Iowa but also its locations in other US States.
That would rule out Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
That would rule out Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Of the Top Five Democratic Presidential candidates running in Iowa that would leave only Pete Buttigieg.
I think there is only one Democratic Presidential candidate who has both the requisite financial acumen and the economic fairness to turn the tide around on this massive, continuing US income inequality expansion caused mainly by the massive gap in annual percentage pay raises between executive and non-executive employees ..... Pete Buttigieg.
But let me go into more depth on my assessment of the main strengths and weaknesses of the other Top Four Candidates.
All four of them have a lot of Washington DC government experience and all four have very fine intentions.
My research has shown that both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are spot on when they assert that US Corporate Financial Corruption is rampant. But the problem is that neither of them have any clue on precisely the cause or how to effectively fix this huge problem which is the primary cause of the huge, continuing US income inequality expansion which has been occurring for decades. They don't understand precisely the mechanics of how large US Corps have expanded income inequality so dramatically in each year for decades. You can't fix something you don't sufficiently understand. It's insufficient to just grouchily complain about it all of the time without offering effective solutions.
Joe Biden is an extremely nice man but I think he is devoid of financial acumen. He is so naive on economic issues that he isn't even aware of the extent of this continuing huge US income inequality expansion or precisely its cause which has been occurring under his nose for the past forty plus years.
Nor is Biden aware of, or else has decided to ignore, just how huge the largest US tax shelters are which are located right under his nose in his home State of Delaware, mostly in one Wilmington, Delaware building. These Delaware tax shelters have substantially added to US income inequality each year.
Amy Klobuchar is also a very nice person but has very little financial acumen.
Nor is Biden aware of, or else has decided to ignore, just how huge the largest US tax shelters are which are located right under his nose in his home State of Delaware, mostly in one Wilmington, Delaware building. These Delaware tax shelters have substantially added to US income inequality each year.
Amy Klobuchar is also a very nice person but has very little financial acumen.
Similar to the way Republicans think, Amy successfully pushed strongly for tax breaks for the many Medical Companies in Minnesota but that has substantially expanded income inequality with no trickle down economic benefit to the middle and lower economic classes.
Also on the very negative side, both Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar voted for many years for the Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders which dramatically increased US income inequality expansion each year. On the positive side, voting for many years against these same Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
If you want four more years of huge US pay income inequality expansion like we have had in the past forty years, then Joe Biden is your man.
I also think Joe Biden would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump. At his advanced age, Biden has a very low energy level, whereas Trump, with his unbelievably high energy level, reminds me of the energizer bunny. US citizens want a highly energetic US President. Barack Obama clearly had it. Joe Biden at his advanced age clearly doesn't.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still both saddled with their pure Medicare For All positions which, because of its incredibly prohibitive cost and of its removal of existing health care coverage that many people really like, is highly unpopular to US general election Presidential voters at large.
Bernie and Elizabeth are also very nice people but still don't know how large the ten-year cost of their Medicare For All will be. You don't propose something so huge without having a CBO-scored cost of it. Some outside pundits estimate the cost will run to in excess of $30 trillion over ten years, which will compound to in excess of $80 trillion over twenty years. Thus there would be a substantial amount of US government deficit spending needed to get this legislation passed and that would probably result in a US stock market crash, coupled with at best a deep US recession and maybe even a US depression. And there will be no money available to pay a dime of social security benefits to the elderly. Suffice it to say that neither Bernie nor Elizabeth are financial whizzes.
If either of them won the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, she or he would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential general election.
A very recent Jan 20-23, 2020 NY Times/Siena College poll of Iowa general election voters in the 2020 US Presidential general election showed that despite the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 9% in 2016, Iowa is clearly in play in 2020 if Pete Buttigieg is the candidate against Trump, with Trump winning by only 1% ..... Trump 45% to Pete's 44%. On the other hand, if the candidate is Bernie Sanders, Trump wins by 6% ..... Trump 48% to Bernie's 42%. And Pete Buttigieg even fares better against Trump than Joe Biden does in this key Iowa poll. Also in this poll, Trump beats both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar by 5% and Trump also beats Michael Bloomberg by 8%.
I do think that Elizabeth Warren, with her consistently likable, charismatic, positive posture and fire in her belly, would stand a substantially better chance of beating Trump than Bernie would.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary but there are much better candidates to choose from in 2020 than in 2016 and also I feel that at his advanced age, Bernie now comes across too frequently as a grumpy old white guy. Further, the bulk of the US general election Presidential voters think that Bernie believes in Socialism more than he does US Capitalism.
On the other hand, Warren says she favors US capitalism but that it needs to work much fairer for the middle and lower US economic classes.
Also on the very negative side, both Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar voted for many years for the Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders which dramatically increased US income inequality expansion each year. On the positive side, voting for many years against these same Annual Income Tax Loophole Extenders were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
If you want four more years of huge US pay income inequality expansion like we have had in the past forty years, then Joe Biden is your man.
I also think Joe Biden would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump. At his advanced age, Biden has a very low energy level, whereas Trump, with his unbelievably high energy level, reminds me of the energizer bunny. US citizens want a highly energetic US President. Barack Obama clearly had it. Joe Biden at his advanced age clearly doesn't.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still both saddled with their pure Medicare For All positions which, because of its incredibly prohibitive cost and of its removal of existing health care coverage that many people really like, is highly unpopular to US general election Presidential voters at large.
Bernie and Elizabeth are also very nice people but still don't know how large the ten-year cost of their Medicare For All will be. You don't propose something so huge without having a CBO-scored cost of it. Some outside pundits estimate the cost will run to in excess of $30 trillion over ten years, which will compound to in excess of $80 trillion over twenty years. Thus there would be a substantial amount of US government deficit spending needed to get this legislation passed and that would probably result in a US stock market crash, coupled with at best a deep US recession and maybe even a US depression. And there will be no money available to pay a dime of social security benefits to the elderly. Suffice it to say that neither Bernie nor Elizabeth are financial whizzes.
If either of them won the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, she or he would have a very difficult time beating Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential general election.
A very recent Jan 20-23, 2020 NY Times/Siena College poll of Iowa general election voters in the 2020 US Presidential general election showed that despite the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 9% in 2016, Iowa is clearly in play in 2020 if Pete Buttigieg is the candidate against Trump, with Trump winning by only 1% ..... Trump 45% to Pete's 44%. On the other hand, if the candidate is Bernie Sanders, Trump wins by 6% ..... Trump 48% to Bernie's 42%. And Pete Buttigieg even fares better against Trump than Joe Biden does in this key Iowa poll. Also in this poll, Trump beats both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar by 5% and Trump also beats Michael Bloomberg by 8%.
I do think that Elizabeth Warren, with her consistently likable, charismatic, positive posture and fire in her belly, would stand a substantially better chance of beating Trump than Bernie would.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary but there are much better candidates to choose from in 2020 than in 2016 and also I feel that at his advanced age, Bernie now comes across too frequently as a grumpy old white guy. Further, the bulk of the US general election Presidential voters think that Bernie believes in Socialism more than he does US Capitalism.
On the other hand, Warren says she favors US capitalism but that it needs to work much fairer for the middle and lower US economic classes.
