Yes. I don't see that a person is being treated more fairly working in a 1,000 employee company where the CEO earns $1m than working in a 10,000 employee compa

Yes. I don't see that a person is being treated more fairly working in a 1,000 employee company where the CEO earns $1m than working in a 10,000 employee company where the CEO earns $10m. The arithmetic says there's no difference - the "CEO tax" is the same for workers in each. The average size of companies in the US has increased dramatically and there has always been a very strong correlation between CEO compensation and the size of the company they lead. By ignoring this obvious confounding variable, the article undermines - maybe deliberately - the reader's ability to interpret the data. But then I believe the author's purpose is to generate heat/outrage rather than light. I mean it seems to me that an obvious question raised by this trend is why are companies getting bigger on average? And why are companies bigger in developed economies than developing ones[1]? Is there a natural limit to this growth in average company size? Or are we heading towards the entire economy being dominated by a few super-massive corporations? [1] https://markus-poschke.research.mcgill.ca/papers/mposchke_skillbias.pdf https://markus-poschke.research.mcgill.ca/papers/mposchke_sk...