5 ms·

TLDR: CEOs are wildly better paid nowadays, compared to decades ago, via mechanism X, as opposed to mechanism Y. Both X and Y ultimately deliver money.

missedthecue 6y ago
And the question is whether that's a problem or not, and if so, who is it a problem for. My comment illustrates that modern CEO pay does not hurt the average employee in any way, only the shareholders. Either you don't think modern CEO pay is a problem, or you think it's a problem because it makes shareholders poorer. It doesn't impact the rest of the employees or reduce their incomes.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  I find the notion that paying a CEO 321 times the salary of a worker in cash to be problematic for society while paying the CEO 321 the salary of a worker in stock options/grants is not not problematic to society to be completely unconvincing. Both illustrate to me the historic and increasing inequality in distribution of income and wealth. Asking me to ignore that divide and instead sympathize with someone like Carl Icahn is obscene in a humorous way.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Why is it a problem then? Your personal intuitions about how much any human should earn in a given year sounds less like a convincing argument to me and more like envy.
    - Florin_Andrei 6y ago
      > Why is it a problem then? I honestly think the Ayn Rand crowd are missing a few circuits. Well, that's a crude way of putting it, but let's just say it's like color blindness but for ethics. No amount of oratory will make a color-blind person see red. And that's just the way it is. Those "circuits" play an important role in regulating how groups behave. Lacking them, you open the door for extremely bad things to happen. This is why libertarianism and related ideologies should be treated with extreme caution at best.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago
  > Either you don't think modern CEO pay is a problem, or you think it's a problem because it makes shareholders poorer. The fact that you appear to be completely blind to the third option - the actual issue - is far more telling than any argument you've made so far.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    My argument eliminated the third option. It doesn't hold water.
    - Florin_Andrei 6y ago
      So, you're still missing the point. Or "missing" the point, not sure which. Interesting.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        No, you're ignoring where he answered the point. You're not answering his argument, you're trying to pretend that he never made it. I'll admit I had to look fairly hard to find where he did, but he did in fact answer that. (Not saying that I necessarily agree with his answer, but he gave it. Refute it rather than saying he's dodging answering.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

missedthecue 6y ago

And the question is whether that's a problem or not, and if so, who is it a problem for. My comment illustrates that modern CEO pay does not hurt the average employee in any way, only the shareholders. Either you don't think modern CEO pay is a problem, or you think it's a problem because it makes shareholders poorer. It doesn't impact the rest of the employees or reduce their incomes.

wavefunction 6y ago
I find the notion that paying a CEO 321 times the salary of a worker in cash to be problematic for society while paying the CEO 321 the salary of a worker in stock options/grants is not not problematic to society to be completely unconvincing. Both illustrate to me the historic and increasing inequality in distribution of income and wealth. Asking me to ignore that divide and instead sympathize with someone like Carl Icahn is obscene in a humorous way.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Why is it a problem then? Your personal intuitions about how much any human should earn in a given year sounds less like a convincing argument to me and more like envy.
  - Florin_Andrei 6y ago
    > Why is it a problem then? I honestly think the Ayn Rand crowd are missing a few circuits. Well, that's a crude way of putting it, but let's just say it's like color blindness but for ethics. No amount of oratory will make a color-blind person see red. And that's just the way it is. Those "circuits" play an important role in regulating how groups behave. Lacking them, you open the door for extremely bad things to happen. This is why libertarianism and related ideologies should be treated with extreme caution at best.
Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> Either you don't think modern CEO pay is a problem, or you think it's a problem because it makes shareholders poorer. The fact that you appear to be completely blind to the third option - the actual issue - is far more telling than any argument you've made so far.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  My argument eliminated the third option. It doesn't hold water.
  - Florin_Andrei 6y ago
    So, you're still missing the point. Or "missing" the point, not sure which. Interesting.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      No, you're ignoring where he answered the point. You're not answering his argument, you're trying to pretend that he never made it. I'll admit I had to look fairly hard to find where he did, but he did in fact answer that. (Not saying that I necessarily agree with his answer, but he gave it. Refute it rather than saying he's dodging answering.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]