What Were We Thinking?
commonwealmagazine.org
What Were We Thinking?
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#2Financial inequality is almost entirely due to housing constraints imposed since the 1970s: https://ideas.repec.org/p/spo/wpecon/infohdl2441-30nstiku669.... See my comment here: https://jakeseliger.com/2015/12/27/why-did-cities-freeze-in-....
There are other kinds of interesting inequalities, too, though we hear less about them: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/05/30/the-inequality-that-matte...
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#3Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens of millions like we sometimes see.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#4Give equal reward to everyone regardless of their contribution or success, and people lose motivation for work. After a while the nation as a whole collapses. We have seen it in the communist era.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#5Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens…
While $10M is probably peanuts compared to the shareholder outcome from having a good CEO, I doubt the hiring process is actually able to distinguish between candidates well enough for that to make sense.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#6Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens…
If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants?
Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky?
I don't know about anyone else here, but when I think about being CEO of my company, it does not look like an attractive job nor one I am qualified for. Now to do this for a giant org with tens of thousands of employees. I mean I could take the job to get a golden parachute as a "Fuck you, got mine" maneuver, but I would ruin the company and destroy many lives and careers in the process.
I find CEO pay to be up to the market, and I don't think the market is wrong.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#7>"Unless we have reached the end point of humankind’s moral development, it is pretty certain that the average educated human of the twenty-third century will look back at the average educated human of the twenty-first century and ask incredulously about a considerable number of our most cherished moral and political axiom"
While I generally sympathize with the article I think there's one issue where the ethics are going to be much more clearer than the economics being discussed. Animal rights. When this kind of thought experiment comes up that is the one thing I'm convinced people in a hundred years will consider us barbarians for, from experiments to factory farming. We hide it from ourselves already. Contentious current issues of inequality may be one thing but what we do to sentient life on the planet is what we're going to be judged for certainly. It's the one thing we never really go back on.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#8[dead]
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#9> "Unless we have reached the end point of humankind’s moral development, it is pretty certain that the average educated human of the twenty-third century will look back at the average educated human of the twenty-first century and ask incredulously about a considerable number of our most cherished moral and political axiom" While I generally sympathize with the article I think there's one issue where the ethics are…
I think there are a few that we can easily see right now if we try to step outside ourselves. The typical western toilet is one filled with drinking water which we then pay money to try to process and recover the drinking water. All while other humans go without drinking water.
Re: What Were We Thinking?
#10> "Unless we have reached the end point of humankind’s moral development, it is pretty certain that the average educated human of the twenty-third century will look back at the average educated human of the twenty-first century and ask incredulously about a considerable number of our most cherished moral and political axiom" While I generally sympathize with the article I think there's one issue where the ethics are…
I agree, and we luckily see trends in this direction