4 ms·

To paint the above in starker terms: Worker pay is set by the leadership, leadership pay is set by the leadership.

ripvanwinkle 3y ago
[flagged]
kangaroozach 3y ago
100% this. Leadership gets to decide how insanely hooked up they will be. Same as congress. Remember when they carved themselves out their own Health Insurance requirements? Same thing.
- astrange 3y ago
  That hasn't been true for ~13 years now, Congress's healthcare comes from ACA exchanges.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - r00fus 3y ago
    While this is true, they do get 72% of the premiums paid for by the USG, as well as numerous perks like free onsite visits from OAP etc. Not unlike some large employers.
    - astrange 3y ago
      I remember I was reading a subreddit for actually rich people (/r/fatFIRE) and there was a thread about concierge doctors; everything about the service sounded worse than FAANG health benefits I've used. (Which does include an onsite doctor's office.)
hellojesus 3y ago
Leadership is set by shareholders. There is still accountability. Public unions seem more undesirable. There we have the gov negotiating with itself with no external accountability, unlike your example.
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  institutional ownership has entered the chat.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  > Leadership is set by shareholders. Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. > Public unions seem more undesirable. There we have the gov negotiating with itself with no external accountability, unlike your example. The government is negotiating with unions, not itself. However, if we're going to take a crack at public sector unions, let's start with the police unions.
  - redox99 3y ago
    > Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. Because obviously what you call "vast" is actually a minuscule percentage of the company.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    > and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. None of them do the "say-on-pay" thing where stockholders get to vote on whether they're happy with the pay packages for named officers?
  - tpmoney 3y ago
    >Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. Really? I get shareholder meeting notices for voting on compensation packages all the time. I admit that the chances of me personally shutting down the pay package of AIG's executive team is pretty much nil, but that's also because I personally own pretty much nil in terms of voting stock, and most people like me probably either don't vote at all, or vote with the board recommendations. Still, it's always within my power to try to start a shareholder movement on this front.
mr_toad 3y ago
The board, elected by the shareholders, sets the compensation of executives.
WalterBright 3y ago
Worker pay is set by supply & demand. After all, the pay has to be enough to attract workers.

[flagged]

100% this. Leadership gets to decide how insanely hooked up they will be. Same as congress. Remember when they carved themselves out their own Health Insurance requirements? Same thing.

astrange 3y ago
That hasn't been true for ~13 years now, Congress's healthcare comes from ACA exchanges.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 3y ago
  While this is true, they do get 72% of the premiums paid for by the USG, as well as numerous perks like free onsite visits from OAP etc. Not unlike some large employers.
  - astrange 3y ago
    I remember I was reading a subreddit for actually rich people (/r/fatFIRE) and there was a thread about concierge doctors; everything about the service sounded worse than FAANG health benefits I've used. (Which does include an onsite doctor's office.)

hellojesus 3y ago

Leadership is set by shareholders. There is still accountability. Public unions seem more undesirable. There we have the gov negotiating with itself with no external accountability, unlike your example.

catchnear4321 3y ago
institutional ownership has entered the chat.
mullingitover 3y ago
> Leadership is set by shareholders. Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. > Public unions seem more undesirable. There we have the gov negotiating with itself with no external accountability, unlike your example. The government is negotiating with unions, not itself. However, if we're going to take a crack at public sector unions, let's start with the police unions.
- redox99 3y ago
  > Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. Because obviously what you call "vast" is actually a minuscule percentage of the company.
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  > and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. None of them do the "say-on-pay" thing where stockholders get to vote on whether they're happy with the pay packages for named officers?
- tpmoney 3y ago
  >Funny thing, I own a vast number of stocks through various means, either directly or via ETFs, and yet never in my life have I had an opportunity to weigh in on the salaries of anyone in the companies I hold equity in. Really? I get shareholder meeting notices for voting on compensation packages all the time. I admit that the chances of me personally shutting down the pay package of AIG's executive team is pretty much nil, but that's also because I personally own pretty much nil in terms of voting stock, and most people like me probably either don't vote at all, or vote with the board recommendations. Still, it's always within my power to try to start a shareholder movement on this front.

mr_toad 3y ago

The board, elected by the shareholders, sets the compensation of executives.

WalterBright 3y ago

Worker pay is set by supply & demand. After all, the pay has to be enough to attract workers.