All the focus and bad press about some of the huge pay-outs to corporate execs has tarnished America's reputation, according to a report from HR consultancy Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

Still, the study also points to significant, if thoroughly predictable, differences between directors and institutional investors.

For example, only 22 per cent of institutional investors believed the US pay system had improved corporate performance, well below the massive two thirds of the directors who thought the same.

But then, directors are the ones who are approving the generous remuneration packages. So they would say that, wouldn't they?

Might provide some context for the latest pay figures showing that chief execs of US corporations earned 262 times the pay of the average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in 40 years.

Not that this is causing too much unrest. At least for now.

As The Economist points out, Americans tend not to go for envy, at least when it come to the gap between rich and poor.

But as the magazine goes on to say, the gaps are getting bigger with the benefits of the productivity skewed towards the highest earners. But in the event of a bust, it could have massive political consequences.

"Privately, some policymakers admit that the recent trends have them worried, and not just because of the congressional Elections in November. The statistics suggest that the economic boom may fade. Americans still head to the shops with gusto, but it is falling savings rates and rising debts (made possible by high house prices), not real income growth, that keep their wallets open. A bust of some kind could lead to widespread political disaffection. Eventually, the country's social fabric could stretch. "If things carry on like this for long enough," muses one insider, "we are going to end up like Brazil" - a country notorious for the concentration of its income and wealth.
"What of the future? It is possible that the benign pattern of the late 1990s will return. The disappointing performance of the Bush era may simply reflect a job market that is weaker than it appears. Although unemployment is low, at 4.6%, other signals, such as the proportion of people working, seem inconsistent with a booming economy.
"More likely, the structural changes in America's job market that began in the 1990s are now being reinforced by big changes in the global economy. The integration of China's low-skilled millions and the increased offshoring of services to India and other countries has expanded the global supply of workers. This has reduced the relative price of labour and raised the returns to capital. That reinforces the income concentration at the top, since most stocks and shares are held by richer people. More important, globalisation may further fracture the traditional link between skills and wages.
"As Frank Levy of MIT points out, offshoring and technology work in tandem, since both dampen the demand for jobs that can be reduced to a set of rules or scripts, whether those jobs are for book-keepers or call-centre workers. Alan Blinder of Princeton, by contrast, says that the demand for skills depends on whether they must be used in person: X-rays taken in Boston may be read by Indians in Bangalore, but offices cannot be cleaned at long distance. So who will be squeezed and who will not is hard to predict.
"The number of American service jobs that have shifted offshore is small, some 1m at the most. And most of those demand few skills, such as operating telephones. Mr Levy points out that only 15 radiologists in India are now reading American X-rays. But nine out of ten Americans worry about offshoring. That fear may be enough to hold down the wages of college graduates in service industries.
"All in all, America's income distribution is likely to continue the trends of the recent past. While those at the top will go on drawing huge salaries, those in the broad middle of the middle class will see their incomes churned. The political consequences will depend on the pace of change and the economy's general health. With luck, the offshoring of services will happen gradually, allowing time for workers to adapt their skills while strong growth will keep employment high. But if the economy slows, Americans' scepticism of globalisation is sure to rise. And even their famous tolerance of inequality may reach a limit."