6 ms·
CEO pay at top US companies accelerates at fastest pace in 4 years
- pessimizer 1y agoWhy wouldn't it? Prices and profit margins are both up!
- belter 1y agoDo you have a headline, "employee compensation at top US companies accelerates at fastest pace in 4 years" to match your comment? :-)
- at-fates-hands 1y agoDid you read the article? Total pay for the broader American workforce increased 3.6 per cent in the 12 months that ended December 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- bongodongobob 1y agoHow many points below inflation is that?
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoReal wages are up from 2020 [1]. The only blip we’re still catching up to is the pandemic. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
- bumby 1y agoNow do it comparing labor productivity and real wages.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Now do it comparing labor productivity and real wages You’re moving the goalposts. You asked “how many points below inflation” recent wage growth has been. The premise is flawed. Wages have risen faster than inflation, massively over the last 50 years.
- throwaway290 1y ago> over the last 50 years You mean 2 years? Here's a handy chart of average wage vs inflation in US https://www.epi.org/blog/average-wages-have-surpassed-inflation-for-12-straight-months/ https://www.epi.org/blog/average-wages-have-surpassed-inflat... It's kind of hovering above 0, too. Since this is just average wages, if you exclude CEOs who are earning 400x more than workers maybe it will not even be above inflation now
- bumby 1y agoI did not ask “how many points below inflation.” That was a different poster. I’m trying to nudge the conversation towards a larger and more relevant context. Standard of living is what we ultimately care about; everything else is just a proxy for measuring it. To that point, the premise is sound. We should expect real wages to increase faster than inflation because labor productivity has also increased faster than inflation. But productivity and wages have been decoupled for the last 50 years, meaning those productivity gains are disproportionately allocated. In other words, productivity gains haven’t led to a proportional increase in wage-earner standard of living.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI read the article and I guess we're supposed to be okay that CEO's averaged 7.7% since employees saw a 3.6% increase. (Never mind what inflation did to that 3.6% increase.)
- belter 1y agoDid you understand the article? "CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978" - https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/
- leptons 1y agoI guess this explains why I haven't had a raise in 4 years.
- Insanity 1y agoBut it also suggest an easy fix. Become CEO :)
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agohttps://archive.is/es4bc https://archive.is/es4bc
- bix6 1y agoHow much longer will people tolerate this? Veggies spiked 30% last month. At some point this has to fall apart as regular people just straight up cannot afford anything?
- toomuchtodo 1y agoWhen they are willing to take action to improve the governance outcome. If you don't like your representation, do something about it.
- pessimizer 1y agoThe suggestion that misgoverned people should decide not to be misgoverned, and accomplish this by doing "something" is certainly a suggestion.
- toomuchtodo 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/951719-power-concedes-nothing-without-a-demand-it-never-did-and https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/951719-power-concedes-nothi...
- mindslight 1y agoThe problem is that the mainstream American conception of liberty has come to mean liberty for corpos, inverting the thrust of the individualist/revolutionary spirit to effectively undermine individual liberty. And we're actually well into using those boxes - effectively at the jury box stage but with the president doing the legal nullification rather than juries. And the useful idiots are still clamoring to move on to the ammo box. The worse it gets, the harder they demand their self-defeating quack cures.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y agolook, i agree with not blaming each other, but at some point we are going to have to develop a sense of class solidarity like the ownership class has, and to wield it in order to effect material changes.
- glitchc 1y agoIt's time to bring in legislation that limits what percentage of total compensation can be comprised of equities. It will cap the TC package and somewhat disincentivize short-term stock price thinking that currently dominates the boards of large corporations.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> It's time to bring in legislation that limits what percentage of total compensation can be comprised of equities. It will cap the TC package Why? You’d just pay more cash. Or incentive bonds or whatnot. Just add a marginal tax tier at $10mm or whatever.
- glitchc 1y agoMore cash automatically means more taxes. It gets reported as salary. Payment in equities is essentially a tax dodge as the only time they're taxed is when they get sold (capital gains).
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> More cash automatically means more taxes. It gets reported as salary. Pay more to cover the taxes. Or, as I suggested, pay in assets that aren't equity. Bonds, for instance. Or, like, buy the executive's side business once a year. Regulating compensation is a silly way to get around raising taxes on the rich.
- baq 1y agocapping CEO TC in any way whatsoever is impossible, they'll always find a loophole, not to mention it's a feature, not a bug, for the current administration (and probably for any administration). better incentivize companies to give CEOs more money if their employees get more money and also disincentivize short term stock price manipulation.
- jchw 1y agoI foresee a future with many more Luigi's.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> a future with many more Luigi's This is about actual CEOs, not mid-level executives who are CEOs of departments.
- lm28469 1y agoWe get told they get paid so much because they take all the responsibilities and risks, that's simply a new risk
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> that's simply a new risk But it’s not. The folks getting shot are mid-level executives.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- OgsyedIE 1y agoWry comments about injustice aside, the events are just the market correcting prolonged underinvestment in private security, surely?
- markus_zhang 1y agoI doubt. Whether what he did was right or not, it needed a lot of careful planning — not something everyone could do. The CEOs are safe.
- codybontecou 1y agoYou might be surprised. The CEO of Blackstone was just killed a few weeks ago.
- pupppet 1y agoHow much of this are the CEOs being rewarded for trimming down the workforce and replacing them with AI. Maybe their service/product will turn to shit but that’s the next CEO’s problem.
- diggan 1y ago> How much of this are the CEOs being rewarded Of the examples is the CEO of Starbucks, unless they started having robots as baristas, I feel like there are parts of the workforce they cannot just "replace with AI", compared to many technology companies.
- throwaway290 1y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/24/starbucks-corporate-employee-lay-offs https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/24/starbucks-c... Baristas are fine as you said but yes starbucks is firing 1 in 10 office workers this year. The LLMs trained on our work are replacing us while the ppl up top get higher pay, all is right with the world.
- bix6 1y agoAre they not going to do exactly that? I’ve seen robot baristas so surely it will come to Starbucks nationwide within the next few years?
- l1tany11 1y agoThe Starbucks example to me is a bad example, and seems very cherry picked. They mention the one time stock bonuses he got, most likely part of his recruitment. He’s a highly sought after fast food executive. They also got him to work in Seattle. Last time he switched companies (Taco Bell to Chipotle) they moved their headquarters to him in Newport Beach. Chipotle moved their headquarters from Colorado to California, and their stock went up ~5x during his tenure. That’s probably why he got a huge signing bonus. And Chipotle wasn’t paying him peanuts either, apparently he made $38M one year and was averaging around $20M. He stated his plan with Starbucks is focused on “theater” and in person service. Doesn’t sound like coffee bot to me.
- 1y ago
- at-fates-hands 1y agoThis is such a rage bait headline. If you actually read the article, you'll find: Total pay for the broader American workforce increased 3.6 per cent in the 12 months that ended December 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the highest paid S&P 500 CEO? A guy who runs a Taser company who's SAAS software segment has taken off: The highest paid S&P 500 CEO last year was Rick Smith of Taser maker Axon Enterprise, who raked in $164.5mn And why was he paid so much? mostly from stock awards after meeting targets over several years, according to data provided by MyLogIQ. So he was smart with this stock options and oh yeah, just happened to hit the company's revenue targets several years in a row. I'm supposed to be angry because the CEO actually did his job, hit his goals and returned a great profit to the shareholders? Axon's stock a year ago was at $354/share. This year at the same time? Its now $760/share. Over a five year period, the stock went from $83/share to where it is now at $760.
- bongodongobob 1y agoDepends on the compensation of the other employees that actually do the work. 4000 employees making 61k to 250k/yr. I don't know if they get stock or not, but people are pretty tired of this massive imbalance. Give him 10 million and give everyone else an extra 35k. He is still filthy rich and 4000 people get a potentially life changing raise.
- fehudakjf 1y ago> If you actually read the article, you'll find: If you actually form a cogent opinion of your own rather than shilling for monied interests you'll find: All equity given to any ceo could, and should, instead be divided amongst the entire org's staff.
- bumby 1y ago>Axon's stock a year ago was at $354/share. This year at the same time? Its now $760/share. This is a somewhat incomplete picture. PE ratio was also inflated by 50% in the last year. So the increase in stock price isn’t tracking real earnings. The larger point is that there may be a misalignment between what is good for a company/CEO and what is good for broader society. To that point, your example is a company that has effectively dodged duty/responsibility when their product kills somebody and pushed that responsibility onto peace officers.
- simianwords 1y agoCEO pay is not zero sum. Employee wages can increase with (and even because of) CEO wage increase.
- diggan 1y ago> Employee wages can increase with (and even because of) CEO wage increase Did they? Usually executive pay is increasing faster than typical employee's pay, is the article saying that they're increasing equally?
- simianwords 1y agoThey are increasing but not equally, nor did the article suggest it. I'm trying to suggest that CEO pay increasing is not necessarily a bad thing (which the article may have tried to imply).
- ddddang 1y ago[dead]
- miltonlost 1y agoOkay, I want to hear how CEOs wage goes up leads to employee wages going up without something like trickle-down coming out. That causal mechanism is completely unobvious in my mind.
- simianwords 1y agoCEO wages increasing are due to competition amongst a few candidates who have the experience and competency required to run a big organisation and this drives up the wages. If you have a company you want the best person to run it and if the best person costs a lot you might still want to hire them. Why do you think they are being paid that much? Its because the company gets back way more than they spent on the CEO wages. Profits increasing for the company is a good thing - you can use it to further improve your company by hiring more people or hiring better people by paying them more. Profits increasing is also good for the country - more taxes collected.
- ITB 1y agoI’m always surprised by how many people on HN have a distaste of free markets. I’ve always associated tech with capitalism-positive vibes.
- ddddang 1y ago[dead]
- miltonlost 1y agoTech? The one built on open source? Where people give away their code and time for free? That's the one that's capitalism-positive in your head? Maybe today once tech has become big money, but I wouldn't say traditionally.
- ultrarunner 1y agoAgreed, but I suspect that this is an intuitive reaction to the fact that the markets are largely rigged in favor of the well connected. Of course, to the well-connected, this situation can be described as a "free market", but it isn't free in the same way it should be for the vast majority of people. Even in popular tech-- the internet-- we're seeing a wave of regulation and surveillance that will certainly stifle future growth for the small guy. You still see a lot of positive sentiment with regard to the "old internet".
- losteric 1y ago“Free markets” are a conceptual tool. People don’t like how the tool is being used in America (and tbh globally). I’ve always associated HN with a more humane side of the tech industry, relatively more concerned about the wellbeing of society at large. Big tech is long past having a positive impact, and well into crony capitalism/oligopolies/regulatory capture/maximizing exploitation and rent seeking.
- lm28469 1y ago> free markets Where is this free market you're talking about ? Is it the ones with all the lobbies spending billions to get ahead ? Or the one where the government friends get the juicy contracts ?
- 1y ago
- jameslk 1y ago> The highest paid S&P 500 CEO last year was Rick Smith of Taser maker Axon Enterprise, who raked in $164.5mn mostly from stock awards after meeting targets over several years, according to data provided by MyLogIQ. > Brian Niccol, chief executive of Starbucks, was second with $95.8mn in total last year, mostly from stock awards. These articles are outrage bait. The reason for CEO comp to keep growing is because they’re largely compensated in equity (performance-based compensation), which keeps growing. This tracks with how the S&P 500 has performed over the past few years, partially due to inflation
- miltonlost 1y agoSo its ragebait because... they are rewarded with equity and not via cash? I guess I'm not sure where the outrage bait is when wealth is wealth compared to their workers who get comparatively nothing.
- the_snooze 1y agoIf anything, getting rewarded in equity is better for CEOs because they can buy-borrow-die their way out of paying taxes altogether.
- fehudakjf 1y agoOr one, such as myself, could read the rage of the article as being about the consolidation of compensation of equity to the c-suite. All equity given to any ceo could, and should, instead be divided amongst the entire org's staff.
- diggan 1y ago> The reason for CEO comp to keep growing is because they’re largely compensated in equity (performance-based compensation), which keeps growing. Does it really matter why or how the inequality keeps growing? Shouldn't the focus be on that it is increasing, and potential ways of decreasing it instead? > Niccol’s pay package as an example of the widest pay gap between the top executive and median employee of one of the biggest US companies. Niccol’s annual pay was more than 6,666 times greater than the total pay for the median employee, a part-time barista, who earns about $15,000 a year, according to company filings. Niccol could be paid in cars, legos or flowers for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that the difference of compensation is 6,666 times.
- porridgeraisin 1y ago80% of all USD in circulation was printed between 2020 and 2022, poor bond performance ==> "there is no alternative", unhealthy amounts of gambling, central banks executing unhealthy amounts of QE. All of this causes money to run to the stock market, equity valuations to go crazy high, and also concentrate at the top. This is seen to be true today as the equal-weighted s&p lost to the cap-weighted s&p by the largest margin on record in 23-24, more than 10%. During relatively healthier times, it usually outperforms by 1%ish. Check the expanding gulf between returns of the S&P top 10 and S&P next 490. Execs get paid in equity more than employees, and so their TC accelerates faster. Gambling (whitewashed terms: speculation/trading) is always the original sin :) Has been since the bronze age. Most of what most participants in the stock market do today is just meaningless zero-value drivel. Due to the tragedy-of-the-commons effect, it is almost impossible to do disciplined, "charlie munger"-style investing in the market today. Historically, these conditions have always mean-reverted. But it has never been pretty :)
- throwawayqqq11 1y agoId call interest / base rate the original sin, since its at the very top.
- porridgeraisin 1y agoOther way around. Central bank stimulus is a response to divert the utter crisis the economy would go into if they don't do something. This situation in the first place is caused by gambling.
- throwawayqqq11 1y agoThese crises are caused by ever increasing profit expenctations, be it from mortage payments or bubbled up venture capital, because there are interest rates ticking on all of it. Gambling or what ever trading is just a superficial piece of the puzzle. Even if there were no irrational, egoistic gamblers, the system would still have a positive feedback loop.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoRelated: Employee – CEO pay gap historically wide https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44662542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44662542
- simianwords 1y agoLooking at CEO pay as the primary reason for inadequate living standards is an egregious mistake and a big pet peeve of mine. CEO's and companies _create_ wealth. It can be true that by taxing and redistributing you can increase living standards of poor people but it is not at all the case that they are the primary reason other people don't have money. There are two forces that are somewhat equally important: creating wealth that never existed before and distributing it if necessary to maintain some equitability. The redistribution part is only possible because the wealth was created to be redistributed later. Creating wealth (which is done by companies and CEO's are a big part of it) is strictly a positive increase - creating wealth doesn't mean you take it from others which is a very common misconception I keep noticing in many places. CEO's paid a lot of money is not money that is taken away from others - it is new money that didn't exist. Now to be fair this article doesn't say it out loud but I think the vibes are there and many people do believe this.
- miltonlost 1y agoAtlas Shrugged was not an economic textbook. CEOs create nothing. They make no widgets, they code no infrastructure, they build nothing real.
- simianwords 1y agoWhy are they paid so high by the board then? Surely they would have realised what you realised and hired a random person and paid them minimal wages and kept the remaining to themselves.
- ryandvm 1y agoAnd let's be real, as far as actual work output is concerned, I think there are few jobs in this economy that are better suited to replacement by an AI. If only they made an AI that could schmooze at the country club.
- amai 1y agoIf CEOs would at least pay taxes, e.g. wealth taxes.