3 ms·

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment - parent didn't mention anything about sending somebody a portion of their paycheck each month. Maybe a differ

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment - parent didn't mention anything about sending somebody a portion of their paycheck each month. Maybe a different thread?

manjana 6y ago
>"There needs to be a redistribution of esteem as well as money, and more of it needs to go to the millions doing work that does not require a college degree." I could not agree more with this statement.< Money has to come from someone's paycheck, hence the redistribution of money mentioned.
- defterGoose 6y ago
  Sure, I'll bite. It should come from the paychecks of people like CEOs who have gone from making 30x the average worker to 900x in the past 70 years.
  - sul_tasto 6y ago
    I completely agree with you. My concern is that most of the super rich are effectively out of reach, because of their ability to shelter their wealth and income. If memory serves, most of the more recent progressive policy proposals involve raising taxes on the middle and upper middle classes, despite what the political candidates claimed.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    You also need to consider that 70 years ago there weren't giant global companies with 100K+ employees like Apple or Amazon. CEOs of companies with < 1K employees are probably still making 30x the average worker. Unfortunately most studies I see of these things are written by authors that seem to have a political point to make and are not unbiased. It would be interesting to see the comparison though.
    - doonesbury 6y ago
      A prof of econ stigler (Nobel laureate) made a decent argument that the discrepancy arose with the a movement somewhere in the 60-70s (US) I believe that corporations do the best good by increasing shareholder value measured by stocks and options on same. That's an important factor in real wage growth discrepancy.
    - defterGoose 6y ago
      I mean, that's simply not true. In 1955, GM had 576,000. US steel: 268,000. GE: 210,000. If the number of companies with huge amounts of employees has ballooned, well that could easily be a function simply of population growth. I think the argument you're trying to make is that CEO's of larger companies should make more money comparatively. That may be true (you want the best people in charge of the most people), but you would expect that wage growth to be more linear in number of employees, rather than exponential. The point is, no C level executive has squared their performance metric, at least not in an individually attributable way, and especially if you consider the negative externalities those "performance gains" have introduced.

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment - parent didn't mention anything about sending somebody a portion of their paycheck each month. Maybe a different thread?

manjana 6y ago

>"There needs to be a redistribution of esteem as well as money, and more of it needs to go to the millions doing work that does not require a college degree." I could not agree more with this statement.< Money has to come from someone's paycheck, hence the redistribution of money mentioned.

defterGoose 6y ago
Sure, I'll bite. It should come from the paychecks of people like CEOs who have gone from making 30x the average worker to 900x in the past 70 years.
- sul_tasto 6y ago
  I completely agree with you. My concern is that most of the super rich are effectively out of reach, because of their ability to shelter their wealth and income. If memory serves, most of the more recent progressive policy proposals involve raising taxes on the middle and upper middle classes, despite what the political candidates claimed.
- j_walter 6y ago
  You also need to consider that 70 years ago there weren't giant global companies with 100K+ employees like Apple or Amazon. CEOs of companies with < 1K employees are probably still making 30x the average worker. Unfortunately most studies I see of these things are written by authors that seem to have a political point to make and are not unbiased. It would be interesting to see the comparison though.
  - doonesbury 6y ago
    A prof of econ stigler (Nobel laureate) made a decent argument that the discrepancy arose with the a movement somewhere in the 60-70s (US) I believe that corporations do the best good by increasing shareholder value measured by stocks and options on same. That's an important factor in real wage growth discrepancy.
  - defterGoose 6y ago
    I mean, that's simply not true. In 1955, GM had 576,000. US steel: 268,000. GE: 210,000. If the number of companies with huge amounts of employees has ballooned, well that could easily be a function simply of population growth. I think the argument you're trying to make is that CEO's of larger companies should make more money comparatively. That may be true (you want the best people in charge of the most people), but you would expect that wage growth to be more linear in number of employees, rather than exponential. The point is, no C level executive has squared their performance metric, at least not in an individually attributable way, and especially if you consider the negative externalities those "performance gains" have introduced.