Corporations in the Age of Inequality
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#2The faster we can reach a Star Trek like world, where people work because they want to rather than need to, the better.
Lets focus on the rights of the living and let automation eat the jobs that it is able to.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#3I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States."
However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up the data. For reference, in 1965 the ratio was 20-1.
Between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000%, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, typical workers in the U.S. saw a pay raise of just 11% during that same period. Hmm.
It's cute that the article lumps rent-seeking behaviour, political corruption, monopolistic practices, exploitation of the environment by a handful of massive companies, tax dodging and evasion etc. into one small paragraph that acknowledges there are other problems.
And it's hilarious that the article claims that "focus on education" and "focus on anti-trust" are "unique recommendations" born of looking at the issue this way.
But to me, it smells of a deliberate attempt to shift blame. There were only a handful of protesters angry at how much Google employees get paid (Bless their hearts). But this article will reach many people, and under the surface - it's bullshit.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#4I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
Ceos only make an average of 300x employee salary in a subset of the largest us firms. That statistic is often used imprecisely which i think can be confusing.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#5I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it.
Not at all. The "300x" statistic comes from an analysis of the 350 largest firms; these all have at least 10,000 employees, so even the outsized CEO compensation is at most a few percent of the total.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#6I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
Ceos only make an average of 300x employee salary in a subset of the largest us firms. That statistic is often used imprecisely which i think can be confusing.
The authors of the report anticipated your criticism:
"Critics of examining these trends suggest looking at the pay of the average CEO, not CEOs of the largest firms. However, the average firm is very small, employing just 20 workers, and does not represent a useful comparison to the pay of a typical worker who works in a firm with roughly 1,000 workers. Half (52 percent) of employment and 58 percent of total payroll are in firms with more than 500 or more employees. Firms with at least 10,000 workers provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll."
Also, you'd think they could have at least mentioned possible distortion of average wage figures, considering they base their entire article on the idea that top companies paying their employees well are somehow responsible for the insane levels of inequality.
It worries me that this turd of an article is getting attention (no disrespect OP). The 8 richest people who own the wealth of 3.5 billion people would probably find it real fucking funny that the 'esteemed' Harvard Business Review is blaming Google employees for the inequality we all face.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#7I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Not at all. The "300x" statistic comes from an analysis of the 350 largest firms ; these all have at least 10,000 employees, so even the outsized CEO compensation is at most a few percent of the total.
cjwilliams wrote pretty much the same thing. See my response to him.
Also, considering that TFA is expressly talking about the largest firms and blaming them for income inequality, the criticism holds even less water for me.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#8I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
How much of CEO pay prior to the Reagan tax reforms were cash, and how much were things like corporate apartments, golf club memberships, company cars, etc.?
Follow up question: When US CEO pay is compared to CEOs of European and Asian companies, how much of those same non-cash benefits are included?
Final question: How much of US CEO pay is cash (I.e. payed by the company) and how much is equities (I.e payed by shareholders)?
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#9I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States." However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up…
How much of CEO pay prior to the Reagan tax reforms were cash, and how much were things like corporate apartments, golf club memberships, company cars, etc.? Follow up question: When US CEO pay is compared to CEOs of European and Asian companies, how much of those same non-cash benefits are included? Final question: How much of US CEO pay is cash (I.e. payed by the company) and how much is equities (I.e payed by shar…
Yeah I'm sure CEOs had other perks in the past. This refutes precisely none of my criticism of the article.
As to your other two questions, I completely fail to see how they affect my argument, and I don't want to get off track.
To reiterate the criticism I was making - basing your entire article on the claim that the difference between average pay in companies is at fault for "the majority" of inequality, while making no attempt to account for or mention the fact that those firms average wages are likely grossly distorted by executive pay, is at best ignorant and more likely intentional.
We live in a world where the 8 richest people own the wealth of 3.5 billion of the poorest. This is insane, it's dangerous, and it's :not: the fault of Google employees' wage packets; no matter how much CEOs in the 60s or in Asia are paid. For the HBR to suggest this is grossly irresponsible, I find it ghoulish.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of CEO pay prior to the Reagan tax reforms were cash, and how much were things like corporate apartments, golf club memberships, company cars, etc.? Follow up question: When US CEO pay is compared to CEOs of European and Asian companies, how much of those same non-cash benefits are included? Final question: How much of US CEO pay is cash (I.e. payed by the company) and how much is equities (I.e payed by shar…
Yeah I'm sure CEOs had other perks in the past. This refutes precisely none of my criticism of the article. As to your other two questions, I completely fail to see how they affect my argument, and I don't want to get off track. To reiterate the criticism I was making - basing your entire article on the claim that the difference between average pay in companies is at fault for "the majority" of inequality, while maki…
In a global economy, workers have no leverage. If a group tries to form a union, the work goes elsewhere. Globalism exploits the fact that there are people willing to work for $1/hr, and leads to many of the problems of capitalism predicted by Marx and friends in the early 1900s. As long as globalization is allowed to continue, inequality within the US will just grow worse.