| |
| ▲ | twoodfin 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Last I looked at the most cited version of that ratio, it was comparing Fortune 500 CEO total compensation—including incentive-based stock appreciation—to economy-wide average hourly wages. That makes about as much sense as comparing top 500 Hollywood actor earnings (including residuals) with the day wages of the folks showing up in TV commercials and as film extras. The BLS keeps statistics on Chief Executives in general, and pegs their median wages around $200k: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes111011.htm | |
| ▲ | Aunche 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure why the left cares so much about CEO to work pay ratio these days, especially when Marx himself recognized that ownership was the true source inequality. A CEO is just a really well paid worker. Even CEOs who become billionaires do so from capital appreciation more than compensation. | | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality, and most people can plainly see it. How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds? | | |
| ▲ | derektank 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds? It’s working quite well for retirees. | |
| ▲ | Aunche 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality Sure, but ownership being the root of inequality was the one thing that he was actually correct about. CEO to worker pay ratio is something that is completely irrelevant. Companies spend orders of magnitude more money on its shareholders (dividends, buybacks, and reinvestment) than executive compensation. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Global societies were still mostly agrarian in his time. His analysis doesn't work well for the modern era with <5% engaged in farming. Central planning won't work. You need distributed decision making to be flexible for changing circumstances. You need capital for industrialization and you need a cadre of people who can take risks to invest surplus capital into new ventures. The large disparity in wealth is a problem, but some is necessary. | |
| ▲ | p_j_w 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe others see it differently than I do, but the actual spending isn't so much the issue. It's the fact that these people with so much money exist at all. That much money translates to a tremendous amount of power which allows them to bend the law to their will. | | |
| ▲ | wavemode 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Is there any large-scale economic or political system which does not contain a group of elites possessing "a tremendous amount of power which allows them to bend the law to their will"? Not a theoretical one, but one existing in real life. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | A CEO is a worker incentivized to maximize profits to maximize compensation. And nowadays they see other workers not as a profit center, but as a blockage to their next big payout. So yes, it is a problem when leadership doesn't have long term aspirations for the large company. |
|
|
