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.
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
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.
It's nothing like a market. Who do you imagine the individuals are who set the CEOs pay, and how do you think their pay is decided?
Generally, but not always, the board will set a price range for CEOS. In smaller firms, the C-suite or President will, in some rarer cases the owner will have sole vote.
You seem to think CEOs dictate their own wages, which makes no sense. That's not how getting a job works.
Furthermore, the boards themselves typically include fellow C-Suite executives, leading to elite back-scratching as well as a never-ending upward spiral of executive compensation as companies compare their CEO salaries to others.
They're not incentivised to get the best value for money. They're setting the benchmarks by which their own pay is decided.
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.
10:1 wage ratio should be the law. Less if possible.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.