I have flirted with GooAma AppMicroFace, and got a few interviews deep once, but after careful thought I stopped the process, and now I ignore the biggest tech companies. I simply don't want to be a cog in a giant machine, and therefore my talents will always go to start ups and small companies. Surely I can't be the only person who refuses to work for the top tech companies out of preference?
Corporations in the Age of Inequality
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#22Earlier 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…
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 w…
I am aware what that 3.5 billion number means, but others may not be, so thanks for that.
Only last year, the number was 62 people owning as much wealth as the poorest half the world, the year before that was around 87 I think. It's a good number to keep an eye on. In a discussion about inequality, the number is very relevant, and far from meaningless.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mean…
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.
You are completely misinterpreting me. I was not arguing against this claim at all.
The statistic you cite claims that a select set of CEOs make more than the average worker across all firms. I.e., the CEO of Goldman makes 300x more than the average worker at Goldman and Walmart combined.
It does not make any claims about inequality within forms - i.e., whether the CEO of Goldman makes 300x the average worker at Goldman.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#24This 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."
"For example, contract janitors no longer receive the benefits or pay premium tied to a job at a big company. Their wages have been squeezed as their employers routinely bid to retain outsourcing contracts, a process ensuring that labor costs remain low or go ever lower."
I think possibly the most effective change that could be done along these lines is to change the laws to where hiring as few actual employees as possible is the only responsible business decision. One big part of this would be decoupling health care and possibly other benefits from place of employment, if not universal health care then just put everybody into the individual market by law.
Or close the 'contractor' loophole entirely, but that could be messy.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I was only addressing the your comments regarding the study addressing certain criticisms. I didn't read the article, and I don't really care about it.
Yes, them using the mean wage at those companies is inaccurate. They should probably be using median instead.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mean…
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. You are completely misinterpreting me. I was not arguing against this claim at all. The statistic you cite claims that a select set of CEOs make more than the average worker across all firms . I.e., the CEO of Goldman makes 300x more than the average worker at Goldman and Walmart…
You are correct, thank you for the clarification.
I remain convinced that CEOs of Google and Goldman make hundreds of times more money than their average workers, and that if you're going to publish an article that makes such a large claim as this one, based almost entirely on average pay data, then that should be taken into account.
Did you know the CEO of Goldman made 54 million dollars in 2007? I don't know if you remember, but the next year there was a significant economic crash that caused immense hardship for a large portion of the world, and a huge amount of the blame for it was laid at Goldman's door. HBR had fuck all to say about that, or the massive global austerity protests. A few protesters yell at Google employees getting on the bus, and they're all over it drawing wild conclusions.
I point that out because it's ironic that you'd use Goldman to make that point, considering the effect they've had on inequality.
Let's be real - blaming the amount Google pays its employees for the extreme inequality in America is fucking absurd. It's misdirection, and apparently it works to an extent even on literate, mathematically educated populations, such as this one. This is deeply concerning to me.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The fact that living conditions improving for people in the 3rd world makes you feel better maybe doesn't do as much for "rich westerners" whose jobs have moved overseas.
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. You are completely misinterpreting me. I was not arguing against this claim at all. The statistic you cite claims that a select set of CEOs make more than the average worker across all firms . I.e., the CEO of Goldman makes 300x more than the average worker at Goldman and Walmart…
You are correct, thank you for the clarification. I remain convinced that CEOs of Google and Goldman make hundreds of times more money than their average workers, and that if you're going to publish an article that makes such a large claim as this one, based almost entirely on average pay data, then that should be taken into account. Did you know the CEO of Goldman made 54 million dollars in 2007? I don't know if you…
[deleted]
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#29I 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…
>under the surface - it's bullshit.
It's really not. Here's a great blogpost summarizing some research that points to the firm inequality theory.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/10/how...
Re: Corporations in the Age of Inequality
#30I 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…
>under the surface - it's bullshit. It's really not. Here's a great blogpost summarizing some research that points to the firm inequality theory. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/10/how...
I don't doubt that firm inequality is a factor worth looking at.
But, the article claims, with the flimsiest of evidence, that "the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States."
Really? Do you honestly believe it's more relevant than rent-seeking behaviour, political corruption, monopolistic practices, environmental pillage, tax dodging and evasion?
Again, I have no doubt that it might be a good idea to look at antitrust issues, invest in education, and somehow make business leaders look at the consequences of their actions on the economy as a whole. But claiming that these are "unique recommendations" that emerge from "shifting the focus from individuals to companies", while relegating the other factors I mentioned above to a minor sidenote against "the majority of the increase in income inequality" - Straight bullshit. Please.