3 ms·
> 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,
by 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