5 ms·

I’m personally a bit tired of people complaining about executive pay. Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4

by cj 3y ago

I’m personally a bit tired of people complaining about executive pay. Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4 billion? It’s a drop in the bucket. It’s like blaming climate change on people who drive Lamborghinis. Yea, it’s a part of the problem, but is it really the problem we should be focused on fixing? How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth?

dnissley 3y ago
I'd like to see the amount that all healthcare workers were paid during this period, for comparison. If it's 400 billion, it seems like 4 billion wouldn't be out of line.
- speff 3y ago
  22mil healthcare workers according to [1] in 2021 ~$60k annual pay as of 2023 [2] Funny math ends up at $1.3T for healthcare workers. Looks like half an order magnitude higher than your estimate - even if we assume they were paid much less 2 years ago. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-h... [2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/health-care-worker-salary https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/health-care-w...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  That information does not advance the ragebait/clickbait agenda.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Healthcare workers is a much larger group compared to healthcare CEOs though. A few billions divided between a few CEOs is not the same as trillions diluted among tens of millions of workers.
s5300 3y ago
[dead]
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4 billion? The coast wouldn't be dotted with grotesque clown house mansions. YMMV
r00fus 3y ago
Your analogy doesn't hold (like most car analogies). Someone making 100x more than the average worker in their industry simply doesn't have the capability to see those workers (nor the consumer) as anything but ants. I somewhat agree that C-levels aren't the root of this problem. What's needed is to rein in hedge funds (who corrupt almost all industries) by closing things like the "carried interest" tax loophole.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Why restrict to industry? Do you see the global poor as ants?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    That analogy doesn't hold. The reason they see those below them as ants is because there are so few like them. If there are only 2,640 billionaires in the entire world then that is very different from being middle class. Billionaires never have to take a commercial flight and never have to wait in line, and never have to wait for table, etc.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      There are literally millions of millionaires in America. Millionaires who always have fresh water, food, electricity, a home they own, etc. So what?
      - r00fus 3y ago
        There is a quantitative lifestyle difference between a millionaire and a billionaire. And between someone who is compelled to work for a living vs. someone who can subsist at the highest lifestyle on passive income alone.
ROTMetro 3y ago
I'm currently modifying a car. Each part is a drop in the bucket yet once I add up the price of them all...oh look I can't afford it and something has to give. Want to guess which 'something' has never been looked at to give for, well, at least my entire past middle age adult life?
digdugdirk 3y ago
On the other hand, Moderna's CEO made 400 million last year. Moderna has 4000 total employees. I would argue that ratio is skewed heavily in the wrong direction, and the company would be much better off if the vast majority of that money went nearly anywhere else. That said, I'd genuinely love to hear any legitimate arguments as to why that payout is in the shareholders best interest.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The Moderna shareholders can always dump their Moderna stock and invest in other companies if they want.
- Aunche 3y ago
  He made $400 million from stock sales. He got paid 20 million by Moderna. If the first employees agreed to sacrifice their salaries for more equity, they would be similarly well paid.
  - lacrimacida 3y ago
    The more you get the more you can sacrifice.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > why that payout is in the shareholders best interest. The shareholders agreed to give their employer a certain number of shares as compensation, before the shares were worth $400M. Notice that you do not read articles about executives who receive lower compensation because the share price didn’t do much.
WalterBright 3y ago
> How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? It's been tried in places like Cambodia and the Soviet Union. The result is a lot of dead people, and the rest were worse off.
- mxkopy 3y ago
  I’m not sure that letting people generally do what they want and limiting egregious amounts of power and wealth are mutually exclusive
- Cyph0n 3y ago
  That’s quite an.. extreme example. Almost sounds like something you’d read on one of those Cold War era red scare posters.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Do you think I'm joking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor There are many countries, and lots of history. Maybe you could point to an example of getting rid of wealthy people and the lot of everyone else improved?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > There are many countries, and lots of history. Maybe you could point to an example of getting rid of wealthy people and the lot of everyone else improved? I would argue that you are not talking about getting rid of wealthy people in the same context as those you replied to. This is not about 'class warfare' or 'revolution'. No one is going to the 'killing fields'. This is about changing policy via democratic process that changes incentives and structures that allow this to happen in the first place, not by chopping off the heads of rich people. However, I would argue against 'getting rid of billionaires'. The billionaires aren't the problem -- the inequality is the problem. If we put in place a system that had a 'bottom rung' which was high enough from poverty then it wouldn't matter.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
You are never going to be a billionaire. But you can conceive of being a landlord, surgeon, or FAANG engineer. Those are all wealthy people, you have a chance. But not billionaire. Do you see? They're like black holes. The laws of physics are speculative at the Billionaire Event Horizon. It seems reasonable that they play by different rules. No one is going to answer your questions, they're neither sincere, nor interesting, nor the gotchas that you think they are.
candiddevmike 3y ago
There should be a maximum wage/wealth, yes. Need a check on humanity's need to hoard.
morby 3y ago
I think this is inaccurate. Complaints about CEO wages are made from positions that perceive their pay has stagnated and is therefore not compensatory. The facts about wage growth bare this out to be true. When you have executives and C suites making money have over foot but you have no movement in common employee wages you will see comparisons being drawn. Those comparisons will then lead to derision.
abhayhegde 3y ago
This whole comment is an unhealthy take. > Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4 billion? Definitely! You're asking if worsening wealth inequality hurts anything. This greed and unfair compensation is the entire reason why vasts of people suffer through life while ridiculously few get to have control over theirs. I mean that on one hand you have people who can't afford housing and food, and the other can't meaningfully spend whatever they are bestowed with. > How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >> How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? >Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? Basically no. This is the misconception about wealth inequality in general. Living standards are more about goods and services produced, not numbers in a bank account. The wealthy consume more, but not proportional to their wealth. most of their wealth isn't used for consumption at all. Elon Musk must doesn't eat 100 cattle a day, have 1,000 personal doctors, or live in 1 million different houses. If you took all of Elon's wealth, sold it off and redistributed it (assuming this is even possible), you would just see more expensive burgers, more expensive doctors, and higher cost of rent. This is because Elon isn't using up all the resources. He just has a higher number in a computer somewhere.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? No. > I mean on one hand you have people who can't afford housing and food, and the other can't meaningfully spend whatever they are bestowed with. The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption. You're mistaking wealth and captial for money.
  - OGWhales 3y ago
    > > Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? > No. Why not? > The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption. Naturally not, that would be impractical. However, their immense wealth affords them immense power in society and that is of concern. > You're mistaking wealth and captial for money. I see this repeated very often by people defending the ultra rich and never understood why they think it was a good reply. Especially in this case, as their point was some people barely scrape by while others have so much money it’s more than they can reasonably spend. Nothing they said indicated they were confused about the difference between money and wealth.

by cj 3y ago

dnissley 3y ago

I'd like to see the amount that all healthcare workers were paid during this period, for comparison. If it's 400 billion, it seems like 4 billion wouldn't be out of line.

speff 3y ago
22mil healthcare workers according to [1] in 2021 ~$60k annual pay as of 2023 [2] Funny math ends up at $1.3T for healthcare workers. Looks like half an order magnitude higher than your estimate - even if we assume they were paid much less 2 years ago. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-h... [2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/health-care-worker-salary https://www.salary.com/research/salary/posting/health-care-w...
lotsofpulp 3y ago
That information does not advance the ragebait/clickbait agenda.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Healthcare workers is a much larger group compared to healthcare CEOs though. A few billions divided between a few CEOs is not the same as trillions diluted among tens of millions of workers.

s5300 3y ago

[dead]

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4 billion? The coast wouldn't be dotted with grotesque clown house mansions. YMMV

r00fus 3y ago

Your analogy doesn't hold (like most car analogies). Someone making 100x more than the average worker in their industry simply doesn't have the capability to see those workers (nor the consumer) as anything but ants. I somewhat agree that C-levels aren't the root of this problem. What's needed is to rein in hedge funds (who corrupt almost all industries) by closing things like the "carried interest" tax loophole.

endisneigh 3y ago
Why restrict to industry? Do you see the global poor as ants?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  That analogy doesn't hold. The reason they see those below them as ants is because there are so few like them. If there are only 2,640 billionaires in the entire world then that is very different from being middle class. Billionaires never have to take a commercial flight and never have to wait in line, and never have to wait for table, etc.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    There are literally millions of millionaires in America. Millionaires who always have fresh water, food, electricity, a home they own, etc. So what?
    - r00fus 3y ago
      There is a quantitative lifestyle difference between a millionaire and a billionaire. And between someone who is compelled to work for a living vs. someone who can subsist at the highest lifestyle on passive income alone.

ROTMetro 3y ago

I'm currently modifying a car. Each part is a drop in the bucket yet once I add up the price of them all...oh look I can't afford it and something has to give. Want to guess which 'something' has never been looked at to give for, well, at least my entire past middle age adult life?

digdugdirk 3y ago

On the other hand, Moderna's CEO made 400 million last year. Moderna has 4000 total employees. I would argue that ratio is skewed heavily in the wrong direction, and the company would be much better off if the vast majority of that money went nearly anywhere else. That said, I'd genuinely love to hear any legitimate arguments as to why that payout is in the shareholders best interest.

WalterBright 3y ago
The Moderna shareholders can always dump their Moderna stock and invest in other companies if they want.
Aunche 3y ago
He made $400 million from stock sales. He got paid 20 million by Moderna. If the first employees agreed to sacrifice their salaries for more equity, they would be similarly well paid.
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  The more you get the more you can sacrifice.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
> why that payout is in the shareholders best interest. The shareholders agreed to give their employer a certain number of shares as compensation, before the shares were worth $400M. Notice that you do not read articles about executives who receive lower compensation because the share price didn’t do much.

WalterBright 3y ago

> How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? It's been tried in places like Cambodia and the Soviet Union. The result is a lot of dead people, and the rest were worse off.

mxkopy 3y ago
I’m not sure that letting people generally do what they want and limiting egregious amounts of power and wealth are mutually exclusive
Cyph0n 3y ago
That’s quite an.. extreme example. Almost sounds like something you’d read on one of those Cold War era red scare posters.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Do you think I'm joking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor There are many countries, and lots of history. Maybe you could point to an example of getting rid of wealthy people and the lot of everyone else improved?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > There are many countries, and lots of history. Maybe you could point to an example of getting rid of wealthy people and the lot of everyone else improved? I would argue that you are not talking about getting rid of wealthy people in the same context as those you replied to. This is not about 'class warfare' or 'revolution'. No one is going to the 'killing fields'. This is about changing policy via democratic process that changes incentives and structures that allow this to happen in the first place, not by chopping off the heads of rich people. However, I would argue against 'getting rid of billionaires'. The billionaires aren't the problem -- the inequality is the problem. If we put in place a system that had a 'bottom rung' which was high enough from poverty then it wouldn't matter.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

You are never going to be a billionaire. But you can conceive of being a landlord, surgeon, or FAANG engineer. Those are all wealthy people, you have a chance. But not billionaire. Do you see? They're like black holes. The laws of physics are speculative at the Billionaire Event Horizon. It seems reasonable that they play by different rules. No one is going to answer your questions, they're neither sincere, nor interesting, nor the gotchas that you think they are.

candiddevmike 3y ago

There should be a maximum wage/wealth, yes. Need a check on humanity's need to hoard.

morby 3y ago

I think this is inaccurate. Complaints about CEO wages are made from positions that perceive their pay has stagnated and is therefore not compensatory. The facts about wage growth bare this out to be true. When you have executives and C suites making money have over foot but you have no movement in common employee wages you will see comparisons being drawn. Those comparisons will then lead to derision.

abhayhegde 3y ago

This whole comment is an unhealthy take. > Would the world really be any different if executives were paid $4 million instead of $4 billion? Definitely! You're asking if worsening wealth inequality hurts anything. This greed and unfair compensation is the entire reason why vasts of people suffer through life while ridiculously few get to have control over theirs. I mean that on one hand you have people who can't afford housing and food, and the other can't meaningfully spend whatever they are bestowed with. > How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>> How would the world be a better place if we stripped executives of their wealth? >Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? Basically no. This is the misconception about wealth inequality in general. Living standards are more about goods and services produced, not numbers in a bank account. The wealthy consume more, but not proportional to their wealth. most of their wealth isn't used for consumption at all. Elon Musk must doesn't eat 100 cattle a day, have 1,000 personal doctors, or live in 1 million different houses. If you took all of Elon's wealth, sold it off and redistributed it (assuming this is even possible), you would just see more expensive burgers, more expensive doctors, and higher cost of rent. This is because Elon isn't using up all the resources. He just has a higher number in a computer somewhere.
andsoitis 3y ago
> Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? No. > I mean on one hand you have people who can't afford housing and food, and the other can't meaningfully spend whatever they are bestowed with. The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption. You're mistaking wealth and captial for money.
- OGWhales 3y ago
  > > Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone? > No. Why not? > The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption. Naturally not, that would be impractical. However, their immense wealth affords them immense power in society and that is of concern. > You're mistaking wealth and captial for money. I see this repeated very often by people defending the ultra rich and never understood why they think it was a good reply. Especially in this case, as their point was some people barely scrape by while others have so much money it’s more than they can reasonably spend. Nothing they said indicated they were confused about the difference between money and wealth.