CEO pay and worker pay aren’t intrinsically linked. Paying a CEO less doesn’t mean workers will magically get paid more.
Workers are paid based on the market value of their labor cost.
CEO pay should be capped, but because the market is unhinged from reality and needs a check for overall business health, not because of anything to do with worker salaries.
If CEOs made $0 there is no reason to assume employee wages would increase.
Probably the best way to do this is to have a union with a strong enough position within the company, forcing the owners to distribute the companies profits more equitably.
I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic, I think I agree with you for the most part here.
But how can you have an interpretation of math? Isn’t math objective? Isn’t math the key to all rationalization?I don’t understand how there could be “neofeudalist” or capitalist or communist interpretations of math.
You’re the one who thinks that the CEO to worker pay ratio is literally only about the CEO. You also think that cash on hand can be freely distributed to workers if that’s what management wants. I’m not the idiot here. You are.
If you mean something other than CEO to worker pay, perhaps you should articulate that. You still have not made any sense whatsoever.
Cash on hand can absolutely be spent in a wide variety of ways, be it M&A, disaster scenarios, or sudden changes to business structure. That’s one of the most significant purposes of cash on hand.
Have you ever worked in a senior position at a company? Ever run your own business?
365x the average workers salary divided by 150,000 workers.
Like the math is written out.
The company can pay more for sure, but Reich should know enough to look at these publicly traded companies’ cash-on-hand.
As an example:
CEO pay needs a cap but not because workers are paid less. CEO pay is not that big a drain on these companies’ resources.
deleted by creator
Seems like a pretty arbitrary number you picked there.
deleted by creator
CEO pay and worker pay aren’t intrinsically linked. Paying a CEO less doesn’t mean workers will magically get paid more.
Workers are paid based on the market value of their labor cost.
CEO pay should be capped, but because the market is unhinged from reality and needs a check for overall business health, not because of anything to do with worker salaries.
If CEOs made $0 there is no reason to assume employee wages would increase.
deleted by creator
Why do you think so?
deleted by creator
I’m not understanding how this ties into any sort of disconnect in regards to jobs.
You’re just ranting at me and not making any cogent points
Probably the best way to do this is to have a union with a strong enough position within the company, forcing the owners to distribute the companies profits more equitably.
deleted by creator
They literally are. That’s how labor markets work.
deleted by creator
Take a breath big guy. You’re rambling.
This is you not liking the outcome of the existing labor market, not a denial of its reality.
Whats the actual worth of a competent CEO? Do you think you can calculate his value after reading two articles and some arbitrary numbers?
I know I am stupid but not that stupid to think I can judge a persons salary within minutes.
deleted by creator
I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic, I think I agree with you for the most part here.
But how can you have an interpretation of math? Isn’t math objective? Isn’t math the key to all rationalization?I don’t understand how there could be “neofeudalist” or capitalist or communist interpretations of math.
deleted by creator
Looks like I replied to the wrong comment here. Apologies.
deleted by creator
You’re right, it’s only the CEO that’s overpaid, no one else.
I didn’t specify that at all?
Do you understand what cash on hand is?
You say the math is written out, and then compare one overpaid person to the number of striking workers. Pretty dumb.
And you’re the one that doesn’t understand cash or shareholders.
deleted by creator
I do exactly the opposite of that, actually.
You literally have as much time as you’d like to read and parse that post, and can even ask me questions if the words are too confusing.
Hint:
This is suggesting robbing the CEO to pay Paul is not the slam dunk win people (including NIMBY Robert Reich) think it is.
You don’t even understand your own words, amazing.
Are you actually illiterate?
You’re the one who thinks that the CEO to worker pay ratio is literally only about the CEO. You also think that cash on hand can be freely distributed to workers if that’s what management wants. I’m not the idiot here. You are.
If you mean something other than CEO to worker pay, perhaps you should articulate that. You still have not made any sense whatsoever.
Cash on hand can absolutely be spent in a wide variety of ways, be it M&A, disaster scenarios, or sudden changes to business structure. That’s one of the most significant purposes of cash on hand.
Have you ever worked in a senior position at a company? Ever run your own business?
deleted by creator
You’re goddamn right, dividends and buybacks both.