Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporations in the Age of Inequality

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#11

Post by bobwaycott »

dukeluke wrote: post #10
Sone7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Small nit: Marx worked and predicted these issues in the mid-1800s. He died in 1883.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#12

Post by Sone7 »

dukeluke wrote: post #10
Sone7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Globalization is not the enemy. Centralised globalization with a handful of megacorps dominating the global economy is fucking awful however.

Protectionism is at best a short term solution that comes with a host of other problems.

The major threats to our existence are global problems like climate change and nuclear arsenals. Fighting against all globalization will only divide us.

I believe that the best leverage workers of the world can have is the ability to live a decent life without the threat of starvation or extreme poverty. This dream is attainable, and worth planning for and building towards as a species.

We have near instant communication, the ability to translate between languages is developing rapidly, and automation can potentially, realistically, make it so that work is truly optional. Fighting against all globalization and protecting US interests above all others is, I would think, very much not what 'Marx and friends' would have had in mind.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#13

Post by pitaj »

Sone7 wrote: post #6
cjwilliams wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their anticipation doesn't cover the criticism.

If you want an average (average worker to CEO) pay ratio, then doing what they did is also inaccurate.

I think that you should pick the average firm size, select a sample of firms around that size, and then get the pay ratio from that set.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#14

Post by natoliniak »

Sone7 wrote: post #6
cjwilliams wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> blaming Google employees for the inequality we all face.

exactly. The employees riding that bus are ultimately in the same economic boat as the ones throwing the rocks. They might be slightly better off, but are still probably 3-5 paychecks away from being homeless and without health insurance. The ones who are responsible for this polarity and who have the power to do something about this, do not ride on the 7:30am employee shuttles.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#15

Post by Sone7 »

pitaj wrote: post #13
Sone7 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their anticipation doesn't cover the criticism. If you want an average (average worker to CEO) pay ratio, then doing what they did is also inaccurate. I think that you should pick the average firm size, select a sample of firms around that size, and then get the pay ratio from that set.

I think you've missed the point, a couple times.

First, the EPI weren't trying to find the "average worker to CEO" pay, they were examining trends to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent were doing in 2014.

Second, the article is blaming the largest and most successful companies and using their average wage to make their point - while making no attempt to account for or mention the CEO getting paid as much as 300 or more workers. This is a pretty gross mistake, and I find it disturbing that the HBR could spread bullshit like this.

Third, a study that looks at the top 350 firms' ratio of CEO to worker pay is in this case :more: relevant than the average of all companies, as the article is talking about :the largest companies:.

What I want to know is, why are so many people trying to make an issue of the EPI study I referenced, when the HBR article is riddled with basic, glaring errors and ludicrous claims?

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#16

Post by yummyfajitas »

Sone7 wrote: post #3

I 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 statistic you are citing doesn't say CEOs don't make 300x their workers. It says they make 300x the average worker.

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.

Did all CEOs see this raise, or just the CEOs of the top corporations (who's workers also saw raises)?

None of the statistics you cite remotely contradict the claim that between-firm inequality is the primary driver of inequality.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#17

Post by yummyfajitas »

dukeluke wrote: post #10
Sone7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meanwhile, global inequality has gone down, because desperately poor Indians and Chinese have grown significantly wealthier.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-...

I feel so bad for those rich westerners with a house, running water, 24/7 electricity, free schools, etc.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#18

Post by hyperpape »

Sone7 wrote: post #9
coredog64 wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

Please don't cite that 3.5 billion number, it's entirely based on total assets, which means that:

My 16 year old self with $3000 in the bank saved up from summer jobs was also wealthier than a few billion or so people combined, because they were counted as having $0 or negative net worth.

And if you don't think that's already a reductio, then bear in mind that you're also calling an 18 year old working minimum wage with a few dollars in their pocket richer than people making six figures who happen to have student debt.

The income and wealth concentration in the hands of the 1% and .01% are sufficiently extreme that any choice of numbers will show them. This one just happens to be nearly meaningless.

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#19

Post by MilnerRoute »

This was a long article, but I think it boils down to this:

"I believe that much of the rise of between-firm inequality, and therefore inequality in general, can be attributed to three factors: the rise of outsourcing, the adoption of IT, and the cumulative effects of winner-take-most competition."

Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality

#20

Post by Sone7 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16
Sone7 wrote: post #3

I 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 statistic you are citing doesn't say CEOs don't make 300x their workers. It says they make 300x the average worker. 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. Did all CEOs see this raise, or just the CEOs of the top corporations…

I doubt any one but you thought I meant that CEOs make more money than 300x ALL their workers, but er, thanks for the clarification anyway.

I didn't say the statistics refute the claim, I said the article's claim is mostly based on a graph that fails to take extreme executive pay into account when discussing average worker pay. The statistics I cite back that up.

And the word you're looking for is 'whose'. Who's means ' who is'. Apostrophes can be tricky, I know, but hey - you got pedantic on me first.

Post reply on HN