570
‘No defensible argument’: Anger boils over at CEO pay
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
570 points (98.8% liked)
News
23265 readers
3724 users here now
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
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.