4 ms·
Most people don't become wealthy by getting a job as the CEO of a large company - they start companies, work in finance, inherit their wealth, etc. It's an ent
by cal5k 9y ago
Most people don't become wealthy by getting a job as the CEO of a large company - they start companies, work in finance, inherit their wealth, etc.
It's an entirely symbolic ratio. If you halved it tomorrow it would not make one whit of difference. It just sounds outrageous and makes for compelling headlines.
- mpweiher 9y ago> [Most people not CEOs → finance, inheritance, start COs] Hmmm...I actually mentioned finance and inheritance. Both are at current scales arguably worse. Finance has devolved into rent-seeking that leeches off the real economy and caused the 2008 crisis, with virtually no consequences. Unlimited inheritance creates oligarchies with wealth and power that hasn't actually contributed to society. > entirely symbolic ratio. Er, no. Please read up on behavioral economics. If rewards are too lopsided, the game too obviously unfair, people stop playing. That's a really, really, really bad outcome. One we want to avoid at nearly any cost.
- cal5k 9y agoI'd be interested to read more on the topic if you have some recommendations? My suspicion (hypothesis, really) is that CEO compensation is too abstract a concept to actually impact behaviour all that much. It might spark outrage when people think about it intensively, but most people would be more focused on specific, tangible barriers to their economic wellbeing. Examples might include applying for jobs, networking, performance reviews, salary compared to industry average for their role (higher or lower?). I would imagine that behavioural economics in academia is probably very specific and attempts to be predictive, whereas behavioural economics in popular journalism is more philosophical and hand-wavy.