CEO pay and worker pay aren’t intrinsically linked. Paying a CEO less doesn’t mean workers will magically get paid more.
Workers are paid based on the market value of their labor cost.
CEO pay should be capped, but because the market is unhinged from reality and needs a check for overall business health, not because of anything to do with worker salaries.
If CEOs made $0 there is no reason to assume employee wages would increase.
Because one isnt a hundredmillionaire easily able to distance himself from accountability through the sheer power of wealth.
Wealth hoarding is bad.
Excessive manipulated pay scales are bad.
Everything about the current system is bad.
We fixed this shit once already with the New Deal. Time to do the same again.
Probably the best way to do this is to have a union with a strong enough position within the company, forcing the owners to distribute the companies profits more equitably.
They literally are not. That’s because labor markets are determined by the owners and not the workers. Whenever the workers say ‘no!’ you call in the federal dogs and scream NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANY MOOOOORERRE!!!
Ayn Rand was dead wrong. Free Marketers are dead wrong. None of what you said would work has worked. It has been an abysmal failure, and the sheer number of threads in which some asshole has to defend the so-called “free market” is proof of that. If any of it worked then we wouldnt be having this discussion. If any of it worked no one would be talking about housing shortages or labor shortages or shoplifting or lack of health care or the absurd price of work trucks etc etc etc. We were given every single problem that free marketers claimed socialism would cause.
The absurd rise in CEO pay is a RECENT phenomenon and is not in any way related to company performance or market share. It is pillaging, plain and simple.
I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic, I think I agree with you for the most part here.
But how can you have an interpretation of math? Isn’t math objective? Isn’t math the key to all rationalization?I don’t understand how there could be “neofeudalist” or capitalist or communist interpretations of math.
The patently absurd chasm between employee and CEO pay is something that has happened only since I was in high school. I have seen zero justification for it during all this time.
You’re the one who thinks that the CEO to worker pay ratio is literally only about the CEO. You also think that cash on hand can be freely distributed to workers if that’s what management wants. I’m not the idiot here. You are.
If you mean something other than CEO to worker pay, perhaps you should articulate that. You still have not made any sense whatsoever.
Cash on hand can absolutely be spent in a wide variety of ways, be it M&A, disaster scenarios, or sudden changes to business structure. That’s one of the most significant purposes of cash on hand.
Have you ever worked in a senior position at a company? Ever run your own business?
365x the average workers salary divided by 150,000 workers.
Like the math is written out.
The company can pay more for sure, but Reich should know enough to look at these publicly traded companies’ cash-on-hand.
As an example:
CEO pay needs a cap but not because workers are paid less. CEO pay is not that big a drain on these companies’ resources.
There is no situation anywhere in which the CEO is worth more than 40 times the labor’s pay. None. Anywhere. Ever.
This is neofuedalism, and any attempt to try to rationalize it with neofuedalist interpretations of laws and math are unacceptable.
Seems like a pretty arbitrary number you picked there.
It is. I think it should be no more than 20 times but I know somebody is gonna run in here and cry about it like a little girl so I doubled it.
Wanna make a million dollars? Pay your employees 1/20 of that.
CEO pay and worker pay aren’t intrinsically linked. Paying a CEO less doesn’t mean workers will magically get paid more.
Workers are paid based on the market value of their labor cost.
CEO pay should be capped, but because the market is unhinged from reality and needs a check for overall business health, not because of anything to do with worker salaries.
If CEOs made $0 there is no reason to assume employee wages would increase.
No, but it definitely changes the disconnect between workers and management.
Why do you think so?
Because one isnt a hundredmillionaire easily able to distance himself from accountability through the sheer power of wealth.
Wealth hoarding is bad. Excessive manipulated pay scales are bad. Everything about the current system is bad. We fixed this shit once already with the New Deal. Time to do the same again.
I’m not understanding how this ties into any sort of disconnect in regards to jobs.
You’re just ranting at me and not making any cogent points
Probably the best way to do this is to have a union with a strong enough position within the company, forcing the owners to distribute the companies profits more equitably.
Also, I am pretty real sure workers are NOT paid on the market value of their labor cost.
They literally are. That’s how labor markets work.
They literally are not. That’s because labor markets are determined by the owners and not the workers. Whenever the workers say ‘no!’ you call in the federal dogs and scream NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANY MOOOOORERRE!!!
Ayn Rand was dead wrong. Free Marketers are dead wrong. None of what you said would work has worked. It has been an abysmal failure, and the sheer number of threads in which some asshole has to defend the so-called “free market” is proof of that. If any of it worked then we wouldnt be having this discussion. If any of it worked no one would be talking about housing shortages or labor shortages or shoplifting or lack of health care or the absurd price of work trucks etc etc etc. We were given every single problem that free marketers claimed socialism would cause.
Take a breath big guy. You’re rambling.
This is you not liking the outcome of the existing labor market, not a denial of its reality.
Whats the actual worth of a competent CEO? Do you think you can calculate his value after reading two articles and some arbitrary numbers?
I know I am stupid but not that stupid to think I can judge a persons salary within minutes.
The absurd rise in CEO pay is a RECENT phenomenon and is not in any way related to company performance or market share. It is pillaging, plain and simple.
I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic, I think I agree with you for the most part here.
But how can you have an interpretation of math? Isn’t math objective? Isn’t math the key to all rationalization?I don’t understand how there could be “neofeudalist” or capitalist or communist interpretations of math.
What math are you referring to?
The patently absurd chasm between employee and CEO pay is something that has happened only since I was in high school. I have seen zero justification for it during all this time.
Looks like I replied to the wrong comment here. Apologies.
No worries
You’re right, it’s only the CEO that’s overpaid, no one else.
I didn’t specify that at all?
Do you understand what cash on hand is?
You say the math is written out, and then compare one overpaid person to the number of striking workers. Pretty dumb.
And you’re the one that doesn’t understand cash or shareholders.
#fuckyourdividends
I do exactly the opposite of that, actually.
You literally have as much time as you’d like to read and parse that post, and can even ask me questions if the words are too confusing.
Hint:
This is suggesting robbing the CEO to pay Paul is not the slam dunk win people (including NIMBY Robert Reich) think it is.
You don’t even understand your own words, amazing.
Are you actually illiterate?
You’re the one who thinks that the CEO to worker pay ratio is literally only about the CEO. You also think that cash on hand can be freely distributed to workers if that’s what management wants. I’m not the idiot here. You are.
If you mean something other than CEO to worker pay, perhaps you should articulate that. You still have not made any sense whatsoever.
Cash on hand can absolutely be spent in a wide variety of ways, be it M&A, disaster scenarios, or sudden changes to business structure. That’s one of the most significant purposes of cash on hand.
Have you ever worked in a senior position at a company? Ever run your own business?
#fuckyourdividends
You’re goddamn right, dividends and buybacks both.