The historic UAW strike puts an exclamation point on more than a decade of efforts by Washington lawmakers to narrow the pay gap between top executives and workers.
And between 1978 and 2021, executive compensation at large American companies increased by more than 1,400 percent, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute said.
This is really the problem. No one can convince me that being a CEO is 1400% more difficult now.
deleted by creator
Have to make sure you let people know that liberals are all socialists and hate capitalism
Presentation of that math does. I’d wager you could take one or two off years in that trend and say “look! No increase. Y’all are worried about nothing.”
deleted by creator
Believe me, I’m extremely fuckin’ aware. The guy above me said math isn’t political. And that’s true. But the presentation of the results is, however. The “left leaning” specification helps show who’s presenting the data, as opposed to a right, corporate, or other spin on the presentation.
Companies, hell whole industries, regularly misrepresent data to make a point and further that gap, or otherwise increase profits, etc.
Also it seems like the definition of “executive compensation” is ambiguous and could be calculated in different ways. So the data could differ too.
Had the shower-thought today: there are not enough reports of CEO suicides. Like, I assume the thing they’ll tell you about their job is that it’s hard to handle the stress of holding so many people’s livelihoods in your hands. But I don’t ever see CEOs getting fired for too many layoffs, and when they do get fired it kinda doesn’t matter because they’re so rich it doesn’t matter much. If it were true that it’s a difficult thing to handle, in any way that at all relates to the working class struggle, you think it’d have a high suicide rate. But it doesn’t…
Jobs aren’t paid based on how difficult or stressful they are
deleted by creator
Retail in a nutshell. Get treated like shit but if you dare say something that could possibly be considered even mildly offensive, let alone stand up for yourself then you’re the bad guy and get all the blame.
So glad I got out of that, everyone should have to work retail for at least half a year to develop a bit of empathy. The bullshit you have to put up with on a near daily basis for poverty wages is fucking abysmal.
Well they’re certainly not based on what value they bring, either, except maybe to themselves and the ever-useless shareholders.
If the people paying did not believe they were getting their money’s worth, they would stop paying that much. The problem is, the ceiling is set by whoever can realistically pay the most.
My entire point is that CEOs are obviously overvalued, due to the ability of extremely large firms to pay exorbitant salaries via stock. This creates a negative ripple downstream that hurts a lot of smaller businesses.
If the people paying did not believe they were getting their money’s worth, they would stop paying that much.
No they wouldn’t. They’re the same people as get paid that much elsewhere. They have no incentive to lower the bar.
You’re mixing up who is offering what
No, I’m not. Who do you imagine sets CEO pay?
Competing firms and to a lesser extent the CEOs themselves, all have input. It’s a market.
Is that why doctor are so under paid/s they aren’t based on skill or education?
Doctors are highly paid because they are scarce. You’ll note that surgeons in the UK, as an example, make about a third or less of what a US surgeon makes.
Our residency system, coincidentally, induces artificial scarcity of doctors
"I don’t want to hear whining from these companies that they can’t afford to pay workers what they’re worth,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on the Senate floor Thursday.
Senator Brown is the last thing I have to be proud of as an Ohioan. And he’s retiring, almost certainly to be replaced by a Republican.
Ngl, I read that he was the thing you were “least” (not “last”) proud of and I was gonna say, there’s a lot worse from Ohio lol
“The argument that firms would make is that the job of a CEO has gotten exponentially more difficult in terms of responsibilities, litigation risks and outside pressure,” Dambra added. “Stock-based compensation allows for an alignment of interests between shareholders and managers. These are market (i.e. competitive) prices, and CEOs that are underpaid relative to their peers would leave.”
This is actual relevant information from this article, and a spotlight shone on why CEO pay actually needs a cap.
The pay difference between a CEO and manufacturing laborer is irrelevant to any discussion about CEO pay. The externalities of poaching CEOs from underfunded competitors can and should be seen as anti-competitive practice.
Taking the CEOs entire paycheck and distributing it to workers gets the workers pennies, each. Worker pay and CEO pay are not linked at all.
Taking the CEOs entire paycheck and distributing it to workers gets the workers pennies, each. Worker pay and CEO pay are not linked at all.
This is mathematically true (ish) but it misses the point. Super-rich people don’t spend their money, they use it to outbid other rich people for control of existing assets, control media platforms, and schmooze politicians. So your rent and bills go up while your pay goes down.
You need much more than simple arithmetic to describe this problem.
By that logic, every front line worker should’ve received a 1400% increase during COVID.
You seem to think this money is given as a gift, or as some sort of recognition, and instead it is how they purchase talent.
Then those talented people will have to come up with a new way of doing things. Humans as a species are sensitive to relative wealth differences. It’s hardwired. Riding tide lifting all boats kind of thing
Rising tide lifting all boats kind of thing
That’s not what this means.
The argument “you have to make less money because I want you to” is not a very strong one.
That’s kind of a false equivalency though. Most laborers are not given any stock-based compensation, and those that are rarely given enough for it to make much of a difference in lives, if they’re even employed there long enough to accrue much. If motivation and alignment of interests between shareholders and employees is actually their argument, shouldn’t all employees be given similar stock-based compensation then? I don’t believe that businesses should be based on shareholder value at all (let alone the fact that the stock and debt markets seem to run our entire economy now), but based on actual, delivered value of services or products to customers. The argument that shareholder value is more important than employee pay and benefits (or human/environmental/legal rights, as it actually plays out) just creates more ways for people to be exploited and held down.
What do you see as a false equivalency? My point is the actual harm skyrocketing CEO pay does is result in a more difficult time for companies that get their C-suite poached away.
I’m not equating anything. Worker pay is independent from CEO pay in that capping CEO pay has no expected impact on employee wages. Companies are already paying the market rate - they’re unlikely to just raise wages forever because of this.
We can have our own opinions on the ethics of that, but if we’re not running companies, that doesn’t matter. If you wanna fight for fair wages, you’ve got to live in reality.
“Stock-based compensation allows for an alignment of interests between shareholders and managers.
And ignores the other stakeholders in the equation, such as employees, customers, and community. People forget that there are two (that I, at least, know of) kinds of Capitalism. We have gone the route of Shareholder Capitalism, and look where we’ve ended up. But Stakeholder Capitalism, which considers all stakeholders to be important, is a real thing and is, perhaps, a better model for society in general.
Sadly, that’s not what they’re teaching now, and it’s not how the CEOs, Boards, and markets think.
deleted by creator
10:1 wage ratio should be the law. Less if possible.
Money makes money
Thats your enemy if anyone wants to address income inequality
We need to look back to the New Deal to see how everyone can be uplifted. 90% marginal tax rates. Claw back our share of the prize for forty years of productivity gains without being paid our fair share.
Fuck the bankers and the monopolies and most especially fuck the hedges funds. Fuck ever-accelerating growth. Growth and investment are part of a successful system, but money isn’t god and the wealthy aren’t saints to be admired. Smash the oligarchs.
Of course that’s the enemy of anyone trying to address income inequality. What’s your point?
No ones really going after it. Anyone calling for stocks/corporations to be banned? Banks, landlords, publishers, basically anyone whose only “service” to society is having money.
A congresswoman is putting legislation forward to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act which would greatly impact the stock market. It would ban stock buybacks, limit what and how large financial institutions could invest in and plenty of other stuff that is proven to help keep the economy stable.
Plenty of people want ground-up reform, or total abolition of, corporations and stock markets. Look left of the US democratic party and you’ll find more than you could ever care to read on economics and markets. Same goes for banks, landlords, and publishers. You’re describing (in a very vague and roundabout way) socialism.
Michael Hudson calls it out fairly regularly.
