San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #42

WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees. Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world. Apple had a series of CEOs before Jobs that didn't. Essentially, the CEO decides which hill to climb. The right hill, the company makes $$$. The wrong hill, the company languishes. That's worth a h…

Many CEOs who aren't famous because they failed still got paid at that 200x rate.

Post by tchaffee » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #82

tchaffee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should probably get paid 0 that year. Most CEOs in the USA can demand contracts that give them a massive golden umbrella, fail or not. Why would any CEO accept less than that? But to answer the harder question, I don't think anyone should get paid at that rate. No one is worth that much once you take into account negative externalities. As an extreme example, Exxon executives might be worth a negative number to…

> No one is worth that much The shareholders disagree and the CEO compensation comes out of the shareholders' pockets. > who work just as hard It's not about working hard. It's about making the right decisions. > Other countries have already arrived. On the other hand, US companies are the most prosperous in the world, and contribute enormously to the US economy. All the FAANG companies are in the US, for example.

Post by tchaffee » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #84

tchaffee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholders do not all agree. Some of us want to see wage gaps narrowed. Some of us have been looking at how companies impact all stakeholders, including the local community. Sustainability is no longer a strange word. The average employee makes decisions all the time. And yes, the companies are prosperous. A few benefit. Society at large not so much. The US is behind by many measures.

> The shareholders do not all agree. They can sell their shares if they don't accept it. Presumably whoever buys it accepts it. > Society at large not so much Nobody has been able to connect high CEO pay with detriments to society at large.

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #85

WalterBright wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The shareholders do not all agree. They can sell their shares if they don't accept it. Presumably whoever buys it accepts it. > Society at large not so much Nobody has been able to connect high CEO pay with detriments to society at large.

Shareholders do not expect companies to be perfect. One of the reasons to be part owner is to push for improvements and to have influence. You are wrong about detriments to society, and a simple search would have saved you. Just as one example, large income gaps are highly correlated with higher crime rates [1]. This has been shown in many studies, and across cultures. There are other negative effects as well, includ…

Post by tchaffee » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:17 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #87

tchaffee wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders do not expect companies to be perfect. One of the reasons to be part owner is to push for improvements and to have influence. You are wrong about detriments to society, and a simple search would have saved you. Just as one example, large income gaps are highly correlated with higher crime rates [1]. This has been shown in many studies, and across cultures. There are other negative effects as well, includ…

There aren't enough CEOs to make any sort of difference.