In a recent op-ed, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman discussed his concern about the increasing divergence in pay between CEOs and workers. Krugman noted, "In the 1960's and 1970's, C.E.O.'s of the largest firms were paid, on average, about 40 times as much as the average worker," while more recently, "executive pay soared, rising to 367 times the average worker's pay by the early years of this decade."

While Krugman argues that executive compensation is one evidence of "the epidemic of corporate misgovernance revealed four years ago by the Enron and WorldCom scandals" that has yet to be dealt with, it is also a part of the explanation of why, as CEO pay increases, regular workers are falling behind even further.

Which brings us back to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart president Lee Scott was paid $19 million in 2005, while their average full-time worker was paid $10.11, a statistic they trumpet regularly in press releases and on their website. If you multiply this figure by the 34 hours a week that full time Associates put in on average, you see that full-time workers average $17,874 per year.

So Lee Scott's $19 million is not 40 times or even 367 times what his average employee makes. It's a whopping 1,062 times the salary of the average full-time Wal-Mart Associate. And that disconnect might help explain why Scott sees no problem with such vicious store policy changes like cutting hours, capping wages, and forcing the few Associates who can afford health care into high deductible plans, or why Scott has no idea "what specifically a living wage is."