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

SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

brandonmenc wrote: post #51
zajd wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yawn, what percentage of total income in the US is earned by the top 20%?

The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes. How many of the taxes do you think they should be paying?

> The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes.

That may be about right if you mean "the top 25% of people in terms of income subject to income tax" and "of the taxes" you mean "of income taxes", which aren't even the only tax on labor income (or even the most significant tax on labor income for a large proportion of the workforce.)

OTOH, the top 25% of income-subject-to-income-tax earners aren't even approximately what most people mean when they say "the rich", and the issues raised with the fairness of the tax system aren't limited to income tax, but to the structure of the tax system and what taxes things are subject to at all.

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#82

Post by dbcfd »

austenallred wrote: post #73
dbcfd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It provides a proxy to whether the management is looking to increase worker morale and productivity for long term gains, or inflate stock prices for short term gains. It also provides a way to compare companies within an industry, to see which might be overpaying management, with stock returns varying accordingly.

By median pay of other employees? OK, so McDonalds is 10,000:25,000,000 Now what?

So Burger King has a ratio of 10,000:30,000,000, but it has a lower profit margin. Shareholders can then push for a change to compensation, since their CEO is likely overpaid, or their workers are underpaid.

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#83

Post by brandonmenc »

zajd wrote: post #79
brandonmenc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2000 people earn over $10M a year. Let's say you take $100M from each of them. That's $200B. The Federal budget is $3.8T. So you increased the budget by just 5%. It seems that the desire to tax the rich is simply to bleed them down to a normal level, not because we really need their money. I get that it's a desire to get back to 1950s level income equality, but that time seems to be an historical accident due to the…

2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m and 95% of earnings over $4m. Your comments are typical drivel that go on top of a meme. You should consider applying to work in Fox News' statistic department > Correct me if I'm wrong…

> it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US

We actually agree on this.

I just think we can do it by modifying the way we spend and distribute what we already collect, not necessarily by collecting more.

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#84

Post by true_religion »

drauh wrote: post #45
untog wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the level of CEO pay compared to average employee pay is at all time highs. It's gone from 20x the average employee in 1965 to 295x in 2013. Do you think CEOs are 10x more effective than they were in the 60s? http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/ And yes, you can easily counter saying that private companies are allowed to pay their CEOs whatever they want, which is absolutely true, but at…

Even without referring to wealth inequality, "capitalism" is supposed to be a sort of "economic meritocracy", i.e. those who get a lot of money did so by their abilities. (I hesitate to use the word "work".) Or, at least, that's what I understand modern capitalists to say. The crucial thing here is the stagnation of the middle class. There is no way 1 CEO can produce the output of 300 employees. Is it socialist to ex…

I don't know about, and probably can't defend the idea that CEOs can produce outsized benefits compared to rank-and-file employees.

However a poor CEO can easily waste more money than 300 salaries just by choosing the wrong product direction, or keeping a strategy going long after its not beneficial.

So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire.

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#85

Post by jogjayr »

true_religion wrote: post #84
drauh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without referring to wealth inequality, "capitalism" is supposed to be a sort of "economic meritocracy", i.e. those who get a lot of money did so by their abilities. (I hesitate to use the word "work".) Or, at least, that's what I understand modern capitalists to say. The crucial thing here is the stagnation of the middle class. There is no way 1 CEO can produce the output of 300 employees. Is it socialist to ex…

I don't know about, and probably can't defend the idea that CEOs can produce outsized benefits compared to rank-and-file employees. However a poor CEO can easily waste more money than 300 salaries just by choosing the wrong product direction, or keeping a strategy going long after its not beneficial. So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire.

> So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire.

There's some theories that posit that high CEO pay isn't to reward the CEO for their work directly but to motivate everyone under the CEO to work their ass off in hopes of one day becoming the CEO. Motivating the workforce in this manner makes the company sufficiently more productive as to make it worth paying those high salaries; even if the CEO doesn't actually produce anything themselves. I believe it's called a tournament-style system or something.

It's pretty bleak-sounding.

Re: SEC adopts rules mandating disclosure of CEO-worker pay ratios

#86

Post by paulhauggis »

untog wrote: post #66
paulhauggis wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you think CEOs are 10x more effective than they were in the 60s?" Why is that for you to decide? The world has become globally competitive since the 1960s, which means it takes a lot more work for a CEO to run a company successfully. "but at the same time many people are growing concerned about a wealth gap in the US - that the rich are getting subtantially richer, while the middle class haven't seen meaningful g…

Why is that for you to decide? It's for society to decide. I know the libertarian perspective is that society/government have no role in deciding how businesses operate, but that isn't actually the reality today. You might just as well ask what gives anyone the right to make companies pay tax. This will continue to happen when we put more and more restrictions on owning and starting a business I'm curious as to why y…

"It's for society to decide. "

If that's the case, then I should decide how my tax money is used, no? If we had universal healthcare, would I get to decide what you do with your body, since I, as a tax payer, would be paying for your risky behavior?

"I'm curious as to why you think economic prosperity can only be reached by starting your own business."

How do you propose economic prosperity if not through a business?

A job? Who pays the wages of the workers?? That's right, a business

The government? Where does the government get the money to pay someone? Taxes. Citizens pay taxes, but they get it through either 1) working for a business or 2) starting a business.

An alternative is that the government essentially runs all businesses, but a centrally planned government monopoly is not very efficient and certainly isn't associated with prosperity.

"What's the ideal end game here - every citizen of the US operates their own one-person business?"

No. But if we change the economic climate which makes it very difficult to start a company, the only things that will be left will be big business and government monopolies.

Post reply on HN