Perhaps you didn't read the comment you were responding to[0]: > I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity. Let me

Perhaps you didn't read the comment you were responding to[0]: > I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity. Let me explain it to you as clearly as possible. You claimed that reducing CEO compensation would not result in more money for workers because the majority of CEO compensation is in equity[1]: > To put it plainly - not paying the CEO wouldn't free up any meaningful amount of more money to pay the workers. I then attempted to point out that if the company were to redistribute some or all of that equity to workers, they certainly would not turn it down. Here is a simple example with nice, round numbers: Imagine a company in which the CEO's compensation package is $1m/yr cash and $10m/yr equity at current valuation, and there are 100 workers with a compensation package of $100k/yr cash and $0/yr equity. If you take $5m/yr in equity from the CEO's compensation and distribute it equally among the workers, you now have a company in which the CEO makes $1m/yr cash plus $5m/yr equity, and the workers make $100k/yr cash and $50k/yr equity. See? You can, in fact, reduce CEO pay to increase worker pay! Of course, we both know that money and equity are not interchangeable, which is why I justified my comment by pointing out that the workers would -- presumably -- not reject a compensation increase in the form of equity. Clear? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44663106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44663106 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44663077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44663077