I was replying to the person above me that specifically mentioned the results of Google CEO giving money to employees, so it was high relevance. As to the "sin

I was replying to the person above me that specifically mentioned the results of Google CEO giving money to employees, so it was high relevance. As to the "since the 1990s," all of those are quite oddly cherry picked. The actual facts on CEO pay in those stories forgets that actual CEO pay is the following: in May 2021, there were 200,480 CEOs, with mean annual wages of $213,020 [1]. Mean annual pay across all workers is $58,260 [2]. So, if you were honest about understanding >there are hundreds of thousands of companies serving consumers all these companies, then your claim is wrong. CEOs across these hundreds of thousands of companies make less than 4x the median wage, which I just demonstrated. To get the ridiculous numbers people rage over, that you're likely thinking apply to CEOs in general (and certainly not the "hundreds of thousands of companies" that you mention), you must only take a tiny handful of top paid CEOs (who change positions from year to year as pay bonuses and such vest, making it yet more bad stats, but good for headlines) and compare this tiny fraction to all workers (with annual mean pay of $58260[2]). Why not be fair and compare the top 0.01% (around 20 of them as is usual in the articles that you claim are "very well documented") of highest paid CEOs to the top 0.01% of highest paid workers? Because that won't generate enough outrage. Yet it's vastly a better metric, statistically defensible. If someone did this type of shoddy comparison on nearly any other topic people would rightfully call foul for bad statistics. As a good example, comparing the wages of all CEOs ($200K) to the top tiny fraction of workers (say, top silicon valley programmers for example, all well over $400k), would make the headline that "Workers earn over twice what CEOs do!". And of course you would (and should) call this dishonest. Because comparing outliers of one set to the median of another is dishonest. So why would you accept the same bad reasoning when it suits your world view? [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm