241–250 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now do this exercise only for the workwers of each of those companies. If they're generating billions value, they should get a fairer share of the profits.
Around $2000 per year.
I did an exercise here: the average CEO salary of S&P 500 is around $20M. That's around $10B totally. Assume there are three executives - so thats around $30B annually. Lets go much further, lets multiply this by 10 to account for top 5000 companies (in practice it would be more like top 20,000 because the lower companies have much lower CEO salaries). There are around 300 million people in USA. By redistributing the…
Look at China. The people were fine with whatever, as long as incomes were going up. America was the same. Give people the American dream, and you can do what you want at the top. Take it away and at the same time say 'yeah, of course your life is going to suck, you are a dumb worker who deserves nothing, have you tried not being that?' isn't a winning tagline for a company/a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If keeping worker wages as low as possible was the goal, they wouldn't award stock or healthcare benefits to part time workers in their kitchens. The point is that poaching a new CEO from another company (in this case, Chipotle), and awarding him a pile of stock options if he hits certain metrics is not pay, is not comparable to W2 income, does not hit his bank account, and does not make anyone else poorer, excep…
You realize minimum wage workers have to meet metrics, right? So he should be paid more for... doing the job like minimum wage workers do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Seems like calling something low effort is even lower effort. But hey, let’s chat. Is this not the opposite of trickle down, with clearly the transfer of wealth upward?
How? How is it a transfer of wealth upward? It's a net zero transaction from the standpoint of valuations.
It’s entirely possible that this is causal ABs deliberate, ie the reason why boards of these companies have approved large CEO pay packages is so that the CEO will align themselves with the shareholders paying them rather than the workers working for them and cut wages so the money can be returned to shareholders as buybacks.
Do you have an iPhone? Mine is constantly turning “and” into “ABs” when I type with swipe.
The iPhone swipe keyboard is crap. I have much better luck with GBoard, but then I have to install GBoard, and have all sorts of issues with app unresponsiveness or crashes whenever either GBoard or iPhone updates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's the opinion of the western world. "We hold these truths to be self evident" is the preamble. These truths are not self evident to other cultures. Like yours
What Western world? European countries have decent social safety nets administered by the government.
I'm not sure how to phrase this, so please be patient and try to understand what I intend to say. CEO pay relative to median employee pay has soared since the 1970s. That is, a CEO may be paid $10,000,000 vs the median employee at $70,000 (arbitrary numbers), where before 1970 the numbers may have been $150,000 and $20,000 Using only one set of numbers can be deceiving though. For instance, through mergers and acquis…
It's no longer a company it's an empire. Got it. But the executive layer didn’t shrink. You don’t just have one CEO now you have the CEO, presidents of divisions, business-unit heads, all pulling down compensation packages that in the 1970s would’ve looked like outliers even for the very top. Is revenue per employee the best metric? Productivity gains don’t automatically justify higher executive pay. Most of those ga…
Using only one metric is THE classic way to misunderstand a system.
> Society is broken for those at the bottom, and if their numbers grow too large, it will become broken for everyone.
It's difficult to capture my intention and perspective in a short comment. In my personal belief, if the future is going to be better than the present, we need to share resources more fairly.
However, money is an imperfect representation of resources. For instance, the extremely wealthy may eat more food or more quality food, but not anywhere near a proportionate excess. They may have a bit more housing, but generally not proportionate to their excess income. Etc etc etc for most things.
This is not excuse, or justification.
What I am saying is that focusing on the excess wealth can become a distraction.
I believe that the majority of harm relating to income inequality does not come from the inequality itself, or even excess resource (food, housing, etc) consumption.
I believe that the majority of harm comes from actions taken while attaining and defending wealth.
It's regulations bent and broken while growing a business.
It's not the housing per se, but the housing must retain value.
It's not the stock portfolio per se, it's the tax loopholes exploited.
----
Excess wealth is a correlation to harm. Beyond that, I feel that care must be taken.
Beware of easy narratives and blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say that. I responded directly to your own statement about not being a progressive and the fact that progressives are generally, implied by your words, economic illiterate. Those were your words, not mine. Whether you are a Democrat or any other party member is kind of irrelevant; although it certainly is amusing.
You made a lot of loaded assumptions, the most objectively wrong one being that I was conservative. "I'd likely be progressive if American progressivism wasn't so economically illiterate (as opposed to say Piketty)" means that I share similar values as progressives, but think that all of them in my home country are a joke.
Where? No one has stated anything. Everything has been a _direct_ response to your own words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's even a hint that a company is sacrificing the long term for the short term, the stockholders will run for the exits. Share prices can tank before anyone is able to make a trade. This is why professional investors spend awful lots of money on research into the companies they invest in. They're not stupid.
Stock buybacks is sacrificing the long term. It's artificially inflating the stock price with money that should have been used to grow the company. And speculators don't care about any of that while the line is going up. They're not stupid, they just don't care about the actual health of the company, since today it is almost completely decorellated from its share price. Look at Tesla and tell me why the investors hav…
Stock buybacks (and dividends issued) are done when the company does not have a better use for the money.
Are you also opposed to dividends?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is the self correction. Consider the various CEOs of Apple. Some drove it to near bankruptcy, Jobs drove it to the richest company in the world. Same company, same employees. The only difference was leadership. Consider also what happened to MSFT when Nadella took over. Same company, same employees, dramatically different results. As a shareholder of Microsoft and Apple, I am happy with their CEO compensat…
> The only difference was leadership. Not really. There are a lot of external factors that could explain the difference in the company's performance. Different time, different customers, different overall market strength, different availability in capital, different interest rates. You can't pin the company's success or failure entirely on the CEO, and there is not that much correlation between CEO compensation and c…
But without that guide, I would have destroyed Apple. I'm just not that good.