41–50 of 157 posts
If that pay didn't go to the CEO, who would get it? The shareholders. And who are the shareholders? The wealthiest 10% own almost 90% of stocks.
Source? Whenever I spot check this, the majority of individual company stocks are owned by index and mutual funds, and there’s no clear way to break down who holds those funds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Populists have so far been able to focus all that anger at immigrants and LGBT people.
You got it the other way round. After the 1% protests, media started publishing social justice articles to divide & conquer the population. The percentage of woke words like “racist”, “sexist” and “gender” rose rapidly!
> This escalation of CEO compensation and of executive compensation more generally has fueled the growth of top 1% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving fewer of the gains of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. I ignore every article that separates the top 1% from ordinary workers. In the UK, to be in the top 1% of earners you need to earn 120K GBP gross a y…
There would be significantly more profit (and tax revenue) if it was possible to build more housing in London.
Although artificially constraining supply and reducing competition has contributed significantly to the problem of there being a few big winners vs a broad set. So it's still relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could go to the people who produce the value in the first place: the workers.
At what point should someone's creation be confiscated and given to employees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could go to the people who produce the value in the first place: the workers.
At what point should someone's creation be confiscated and given to employees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could go to the people who produce the value in the first place: the workers.
At what point should someone's creation be confiscated and given to employees?
> This escalation of CEO compensation and of executive compensation more generally has fueled the growth of top 1% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving fewer of the gains of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. I ignore every article that separates the top 1% from ordinary workers. In the UK, to be in the top 1% of earners you need to earn 120K GBP gross a y…
> CEOs are getting ever-higher pay over time because of their power to set pay and because so much of their pay (more than 80%) is stock-relate This is the key to their high compensations, and in some ways it has to be like that because how else are you going to incentivize a CEO to raise the value of the company? Say a CEO was paid exactly what the engineers at a company were paid, it doesn't matter to him if the st…
How about you fire them if they don't perform and only hire people who perform well. Even with this incentive most CEOs don't perform well and many gut their companies to raise the stock price and leave.
Ultimately the question comes down to your ethics around money, but it is interesting to get a peek behind the psychological veil. People who worship CEOs for being able to pull big buxxx do so because they assume that more money in existence is better, period, without thinking about where that money goes and what it funds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well we have 10m people living under poverty, even armed with forks and spoons they'd take the Elysee in a day. Even the 42 000 homeless children living in France could take care of it
Poverty definition is a relative definition. Hence you're measuring inequalities, not wealth