LogFAQs > #934987667

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	In 1965 CEOs in US earned 20x more than the average worker. In 2015 it was 300x
Frolex 02/28/20 8:34:39 AM #40:	Broseph_Stalin posted... 1. Companies are far bigger than they were in 1965 and running them is a lot more complicated. There is competition for good CEOs like any other worker. They are paid based on that competition. Work has grown harder and more complicated for everyone, not just CEOs since 1965. The share of demand in the labour market for post-secondary education has tripled since the 70s, and worker productivity has more than doubled. If it was level of responsibility that explained the growth of CEO pay, then why hasn't worker pay exploded as well? What has happened instead is something you so helpfully touched on in your post; a decrease in the total number of firms through mergers as well as decrease in the growth of new firms contributing to labor market monopsonies Broseph_Stalin posted... 2. The sudden rise in CEO compensation a couple decades ago is the result of a change in the tax code that Bill Clinton introduced which was meant to limit CEO compensation. Never underestimate the governments ability to accomplish the exact opposite of what they set out to do. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/06/22/622646316/episode-682-when-ceo-pay-exploded Seems like it makes a great argument not to compromise with conservative economic policy and pass tax code regulation thats as stringent as possible. Broseph_Stalin posted... 3. CEO compensation might be large compared to a single worker, but it is nothing compared to the companies total wage bill. What would happen if CEO compensation was instead divided among the workers? Disney employees would get about $300 extra a year. Walmart employees... $11. Turns out lower CEO pay wouldn't make your life any better and the entire premise of this topic is pretty dumb! We're talking about the level of growth in CEO wages contrasted with those of workers. If the real wages for the working class has massively increased in turn, that wouldnt be a problem. The issue isn't in just comparing the pay of a CEO to one worker. Broseph_Stalin posted... 4. Similarly, a person in 1965 did not have a better life because the CEO pay gap was smaller. In fact I have a far higher standard of living than they did, why would I want to trade places with them? No one's saying average standard of living is lower than it was 60 years ago. But they have gone up in spite of growing economic inequality. Extreme levels of inequality are tied with stifled GDP growth, lower economic mobility, higher levels of crime and a whole host of other issues that negatively impact standard of living. The "hurr dur even roockerfeller dint have a ifhone" meme is something i'd expect out of only the laziest conservatrolls --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:934987667] in In 1965 CE... [t:78437158]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted... </cite> <quote>1. Companies are far bigger than they were in 1965 and running them is a lot more complicated. There is competition for good CEOs like any other worker. They are paid based on that competition.</quote> Work has grown harder and more complicated for everyone, not just CEOs since 1965. The share of demand in the labour market for post-secondary education has tripled since the 70s, and worker productivity has more than doubled. If it was level of responsibility that explained the growth of CEO pay, then why hasn't worker pay exploded as well? What has happened instead is something you so helpfully touched on in your post; a decrease in the total number of firms through mergers as well as decrease in the growth of new firms contributing to labor market monopsonies Broseph_Stalin posted... </cite> <quote> 2. The sudden rise in CEO compensation a couple decades ago is the result of a change in the tax code that Bill Clinton introduced which was meant to limit CEO compensation. Never underestimate the governments ability to accomplish the exact opposite of what they set out to do. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/06/22/622646316/episode-682-when-ceo-pay-exploded</quote> Seems like it makes a great argument not to compromise with conservative economic policy and pass tax code regulation thats as stringent as possible. Broseph_Stalin posted... </cite> <quote> 3. CEO compensation might be large compared to a single worker, but it is nothing compared to the companies total wage bill. What would happen if CEO compensation was instead divided among the workers? Disney employees would get about $300 extra a year. Walmart employees... $11. Turns out lower CEO pay wouldn't make your life any better and the entire premise of this topic is pretty dumb!</quote> We're talking about the level of growth in CEO wages contrasted with those of workers. If the real wages for the working class has massively increased in turn, that wouldnt be a problem. The issue isn't in just comparing the pay of a CEO to one worker. Broseph_Stalin posted... </cite> <quote>4. Similarly, a person in 1965 did not have a better life because the CEO pay gap was smaller. In fact I have a far higher standard of living than they did, why would I want to trade places with them?</quote> No one's saying average standard of living is lower than it was 60 years ago. But they have gone up in spite of growing economic inequality. Extreme levels of inequality are tied with stifled GDP growth, lower economic mobility, higher levels of crime and a whole host of other issues that negatively impact standard of living. The "hurr dur even roockerfeller dint have a ifhone" meme is something i'd expect out of only the laziest conservatrolls --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1