3 ms·

> and reward a few hundred thousands (or millions) of people who happen to be able to produce disproportionately more things that the rest of the population wil

> and reward a few hundred thousands (or millions) of people who happen to be able to produce disproportionately more things that the rest of the population will pay for and reward them for. To be accurate, these people don't produce anything themselves. The labor that goes into creating the products and services is what's producing things. These people move capitol around. The boards of directors of the corporations that employ them are populated by other people like them. They're all a group who primarily are in the same occupation, and have a vested interest in seeing coordinators of capitol be paid extremely generously. Compare this with CEO salaries in Scandinavia or Japan, which are significantly lower and yet their companies are highly competitive. My theory is that this country never got over its yearning for a stratified class system, with a full-blown landed aristocracy and monarchy. We have a little taste of class mobility, but as soon as people move up the ladder they frantically scramble to pull it up behind them.

gruez 3y ago
>Compare this with CEO salaries in Scandinavia or Japan, which are significantly lower and yet their companies are highly competitive. Are they? Those countries trail the US when it comes to labor productivity.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  Norway actually dominates the US in GDP per labor hour. Japan doesn't compare favorably, however they have a lot of other factors to consider in the equation beyond CEO salary. They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average. The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary?
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Norway actually dominates the US in GDP per labor hour That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive. >They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average. That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US? >The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary? By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? As other commenter shave mentioned in this thread, CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to rank and file compensation. Getting them to work for free will at best raise the rank and file compensation by a few percentage points.
    - mullingitover 3y ago
      > That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive. If fossil fuel reserves determined productivity, Venezuela should have some of the most productive workers in the world. I invite you to compare GDP per hour worked to oil reserves per capita and point out the correlation. Ireland actually also dominates the US in GPD per hour worked, and they're down around 87th in the world for oil reserves. > That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US? An even better question might be: Why does Japan outrank the US in standard of living even though they have markedly lower productivity? Seems like US workers are getting a terrible deal. > By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? I never said it would, I'm saying that we're well beyond the point of diminishing returns in CEO pay. Beyond a certain level, wealth isn't about being able to meet one's needs and it becomes a lever of power. This is well evidenced by the fact that the wishes of the voters have almost no correlation with policy outcomes in the US, but the wishes of the upper class are strongly correlated. This goes back to my earlier point, the purpose of stratospheric CEO pay isn't about compensation for value delivered, but rather a way for a class of people to entrench their dominance through an unchecked focus on their own interests.

gruez 3y ago

>Compare this with CEO salaries in Scandinavia or Japan, which are significantly lower and yet their companies are highly competitive. Are they? Those countries trail the US when it comes to labor productivity.

mullingitover 3y ago
Norway actually dominates the US in GDP per labor hour. Japan doesn't compare favorably, however they have a lot of other factors to consider in the equation beyond CEO salary. They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average. The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary?
- gruez 3y ago
  >Norway actually dominates the US in GDP per labor hour That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive. >They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average. That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US? >The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary? By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? As other commenter shave mentioned in this thread, CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to rank and file compensation. Getting them to work for free will at best raise the rank and file compensation by a few percentage points.
  - mullingitover 3y ago
    > That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive. If fossil fuel reserves determined productivity, Venezuela should have some of the most productive workers in the world. I invite you to compare GDP per hour worked to oil reserves per capita and point out the correlation. Ireland actually also dominates the US in GPD per hour worked, and they're down around 87th in the world for oil reserves. > That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US? An even better question might be: Why does Japan outrank the US in standard of living even though they have markedly lower productivity? Seems like US workers are getting a terrible deal. > By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? I never said it would, I'm saying that we're well beyond the point of diminishing returns in CEO pay. Beyond a certain level, wealth isn't about being able to meet one's needs and it becomes a lever of power. This is well evidenced by the fact that the wishes of the voters have almost no correlation with policy outcomes in the US, but the wishes of the upper class are strongly correlated. This goes back to my earlier point, the purpose of stratospheric CEO pay isn't about compensation for value delivered, but rather a way for a class of people to entrench their dominance through an unchecked focus on their own interests.