3 ms·
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 employe
by 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 agoA 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 agoI 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.