> I don't think it's a big secret that stamping out unions is a key part of modern management. If McKinsey and other consulting firms were management consultant

> I don't think it's a big secret that stamping out unions is a key part of modern management. If McKinsey and other consulting firms were management consultants, they should be even more aware of that strategy and would have been in a key position to effect that change over a large number of companies. This is revisionism. Stamping out unions has nothing to do with modern management and everything to do with the (eternal) conflict between management vs. unions. The reason why unions are more and more scarce is a complex one riddled with both positives (employers are more sensitive to employee needs, government has implemented legislature that protects workers) and negatives (unions are often rife with corruption and cronyism). McKinsey is a footnote at best. > CEO salaries are certainly relevant to the working middle class, since they are commonly seen as tremendously too high and the extra money could contribute to the middle class' wage. This has already been debunked ad nauseam in this thread. We should be talking about capital gains, offshore accounts, low-interest corporate bailouts, quantitative easing (!!!), etc. But CEO salary outrage gets clicks. > I think the point of that sentence is more like "the amount of effort it takes to become successful is significantly greater than it was when the system worked better." I'm not sure how you're reading that. If anything, he mentioned how most CEOs of old had worked on the company line for like 30 years prior and is lamenting that "all" executives need these days is a diploma from an elite school and a McKinsey badge.