5 ms·

> 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 ove

> 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 ago
So 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 ago
  If anything, getting rewarded in equity is better for CEOs because they can buy-borrow-die their way out of paying taxes altogether.
fehudakjf 1y ago
Or 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.
- jameslk 1y ago
  It matters where you direct your attention. Performance-based comp is a red herring. If you want to direct your rage at wealth inequality in the working class, perhaps start with the things that have eroded the supply-demand balance of labor, such as globalization and technology.
  - throwawayqqq11 1y ago
    Dont forget the monetary/banking system in opposition to labor value. Money is cheap for the rich, which is also a big factor of why stock markets (and compensations) behave like they do. All signs point down, public infrastructure and cost of living struggles under budget pressure while stocks are at an all time high. Simply saying, its earned compensation doesnt even tell half the story. I consider it deception.
    - jameslk 1y ago
      Yes, this is an underrated point and potentially a larger factor. It would be interesting to see data on it
  - diggan 1y ago
    > If you want to direct your rage at wealth inequality in the working class, perhaps start with the things that have eroded the supply-demand balance of labor, such as globalization and technology Not that I'm feeling any rage, I left that unproductive phase a long time ago. But even so, why cannot we talk about multiple unfair things at the same thing? Not sure how globalization and technology is even relevant when the explicit topic of this submission is about CEO/executive pay at US companies. Why try to take the discussion away from that?
    - jameslk 1y ago
      > Not that I'm feeling any rage, I left that unproductive phase a long time ago. I wasn’t referring directly to you, but in general. “You” in the royal sense. Anyway > But even so, why cannot we talk about multiple unfair things at the same thing? Because one of them is a red herring. If you plot median CEO comp of S&P 500 companies to the S&P 500 itself over time, you will find they follow almost the same trend, implying their comp package stays roughly the same each year but the value of their equity keeps growing. Where as the median worker pay has grown much less. In other words, when comparing median CEO comp to worker comp and noticing a divergence, what you’re witnessing is more so stagnant worker wage growth. To fix the gap, workers need to be paid more, but their wages are being weighed down
6stringmerc 1y ago
Okay, you've identified the factual component of the Why of the correlation, now Why is the S&P 500 completely detached from fundamentals like P/E and quarterly reporting? I mean you're technically correct but then again it's like saying "the skin on your thigh is extremely distended and painful but that's because of the infected boil on it" as if the context is reasonable. Unfortunately it is not. Disclosure: have financial positions based on collapse of US economy (see my Medium article for more)
ryandvm 1y ago
Those poor CEOs. If only they could figure out some way to not take so much equity while their workers suffer wage stagnation...
- simonsarris 1y ago
  it's contra the pointless rage narrative but real median wages stopped stagnating in the 1990s (after largely stagnating for ~2 decades) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
rainsford 1y ago
I don't think it's outrage bait. You're highlighting a distinction in forms of compensation that's relevant if you're experienced in or care about negotiating executive compensation packages but fairly irrelevant to the bottom line. Executives get compensated increasingly larger orders of magnitude more than the average workers at their companies. The exact form of this compensation doesn't really matter. Even if it's theoretically tied to performance, the same is arguably true of all workers, except their award mechanism is often whether the company continues to pay them or fires them. And either way the increasingly massive delta between CEO and worker pay is still notable. Are CEOs performing massively better in order to justify this massively increased performance based compensation compared to their average employee?
impish9208 1y ago
When Starbucks poached Brian Niccol from Chipotle, they opened a satellite office for him in California where he was based. Meanwhile, corporate managers were required to relocate within a year IIRC.

miltonlost 1y ago

So 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 ago
If anything, getting rewarded in equity is better for CEOs because they can buy-borrow-die their way out of paying taxes altogether.

fehudakjf 1y ago

Or 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.

jameslk 1y ago
It matters where you direct your attention. Performance-based comp is a red herring. If you want to direct your rage at wealth inequality in the working class, perhaps start with the things that have eroded the supply-demand balance of labor, such as globalization and technology.
- throwawayqqq11 1y ago
  Dont forget the monetary/banking system in opposition to labor value. Money is cheap for the rich, which is also a big factor of why stock markets (and compensations) behave like they do. All signs point down, public infrastructure and cost of living struggles under budget pressure while stocks are at an all time high. Simply saying, its earned compensation doesnt even tell half the story. I consider it deception.
  - jameslk 1y ago
    Yes, this is an underrated point and potentially a larger factor. It would be interesting to see data on it
- diggan 1y ago
  > If you want to direct your rage at wealth inequality in the working class, perhaps start with the things that have eroded the supply-demand balance of labor, such as globalization and technology Not that I'm feeling any rage, I left that unproductive phase a long time ago. But even so, why cannot we talk about multiple unfair things at the same thing? Not sure how globalization and technology is even relevant when the explicit topic of this submission is about CEO/executive pay at US companies. Why try to take the discussion away from that?
  - jameslk 1y ago
    > Not that I'm feeling any rage, I left that unproductive phase a long time ago. I wasn’t referring directly to you, but in general. “You” in the royal sense. Anyway > But even so, why cannot we talk about multiple unfair things at the same thing? Because one of them is a red herring. If you plot median CEO comp of S&P 500 companies to the S&P 500 itself over time, you will find they follow almost the same trend, implying their comp package stays roughly the same each year but the value of their equity keeps growing. Where as the median worker pay has grown much less. In other words, when comparing median CEO comp to worker comp and noticing a divergence, what you’re witnessing is more so stagnant worker wage growth. To fix the gap, workers need to be paid more, but their wages are being weighed down

6stringmerc 1y ago

Okay, you've identified the factual component of the Why of the correlation, now Why is the S&P 500 completely detached from fundamentals like P/E and quarterly reporting? I mean you're technically correct but then again it's like saying "the skin on your thigh is extremely distended and painful but that's because of the infected boil on it" as if the context is reasonable. Unfortunately it is not. Disclosure: have financial positions based on collapse of US economy (see my Medium article for more)

ryandvm 1y ago

Those poor CEOs. If only they could figure out some way to not take so much equity while their workers suffer wage stagnation...

simonsarris 1y ago
it's contra the pointless rage narrative but real median wages stopped stagnating in the 1990s (after largely stagnating for ~2 decades) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

rainsford 1y ago

I don't think it's outrage bait. You're highlighting a distinction in forms of compensation that's relevant if you're experienced in or care about negotiating executive compensation packages but fairly irrelevant to the bottom line. Executives get compensated increasingly larger orders of magnitude more than the average workers at their companies. The exact form of this compensation doesn't really matter. Even if it's theoretically tied to performance, the same is arguably true of all workers, except their award mechanism is often whether the company continues to pay them or fires them. And either way the increasingly massive delta between CEO and worker pay is still notable. Are CEOs performing massively better in order to justify this massively increased performance based compensation compared to their average employee?

impish9208 1y ago

When Starbucks poached Brian Niccol from Chipotle, they opened a satellite office for him in California where he was based. Meanwhile, corporate managers were required to relocate within a year IIRC.