3 ms·
That's a lot of words to try and justify CEO/worker pay discrepancies of a factor of over 300. All that bullshit about statistical illusions doesn't change the
by danaris 4y ago
That's a lot of words to try and justify CEO/worker pay discrepancies of a factor of over 300.
All that bullshit about statistical illusions doesn't change the fact that the median worker in America has barely seen any real wage growth for 50 years, and all that extra wealth went straight to the wealthiest people in the country. Many of those are the CEOs we're discussing.
Income and wealth inequality of this level are genuinely harmful to the economy and to the political system, and every bit of effort you put into justifying them, rather than admitting that it is wrong and harmful, is effort being put into actively making the world a worse place.
- hackerlight 4y agoIt was a lot of words because you made a lot of factually false claims, so that's to be expected as per Brandolini's Law. I appreciate that you brought moral certainty into this discussion, but that doesn't make your understanding of reality or factual premise correct, even if your moral conclusion may be correct by accident. > doesn't change the fact that the median worker in America has barely seen any real wage growth for 50 years, and all that extra wealth went straight to the wealthiest people in the country. Fist in the air != explanation. Depressed wage growth has little to do with managerial compensation. If you want an explanation based in fact rather than anger, you have to look at the labor market economics of the situation, which you aren't.
- amrocha 4y agoIf you want an explanation based in fact rather than blind faith in market theory, you have to look at the capitalist labor relations side of it too, which you aren't.