The historic UAW strike puts an exclamation point on more than a decade of efforts by Washington lawmakers to narrow the pay gap between top executives and workers.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    And between 1978 and 2021, executive compensation at large American companies increased by more than 1,400 percent, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute said.

    This is really the problem. No one can convince me that being a CEO is 1400% more difficult now.

      • Final Remix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Presentation of that math does. I’d wager you could take one or two off years in that trend and say “look! No increase. Y’all are worried about nothing.”

          • Final Remix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Believe me, I’m extremely fuckin’ aware. The guy above me said math isn’t political. And that’s true. But the presentation of the results is, however. The “left leaning” specification helps show who’s presenting the data, as opposed to a right, corporate, or other spin on the presentation.

            Companies, hell whole industries, regularly misrepresent data to make a point and further that gap, or otherwise increase profits, etc.

            • MountainReason@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Also it seems like the definition of “executive compensation” is ambiguous and could be calculated in different ways. So the data could differ too.

    • wavebeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Had the shower-thought today: there are not enough reports of CEO suicides. Like, I assume the thing they’ll tell you about their job is that it’s hard to handle the stress of holding so many people’s livelihoods in your hands. But I don’t ever see CEOs getting fired for too many layoffs, and when they do get fired it kinda doesn’t matter because they’re so rich it doesn’t matter much. If it were true that it’s a difficult thing to handle, in any way that at all relates to the working class struggle, you think it’d have a high suicide rate. But it doesn’t…

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      Jobs aren’t paid based on how difficult or stressful they are

        • AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Retail in a nutshell. Get treated like shit but if you dare say something that could possibly be considered even mildly offensive, let alone stand up for yourself then you’re the bad guy and get all the blame.

          So glad I got out of that, everyone should have to work retail for at least half a year to develop a bit of empathy. The bullshit you have to put up with on a near daily basis for poverty wages is fucking abysmal.

      • Final Remix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well they’re certainly not based on what value they bring, either, except maybe to themselves and the ever-useless shareholders.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If the people paying did not believe they were getting their money’s worth, they would stop paying that much. The problem is, the ceiling is set by whoever can realistically pay the most.

          My entire point is that CEOs are obviously overvalued, due to the ability of extremely large firms to pay exorbitant salaries via stock. This creates a negative ripple downstream that hurts a lot of smaller businesses.

          • JoBo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If the people paying did not believe they were getting their money’s worth, they would stop paying that much.

            No they wouldn’t. They’re the same people as get paid that much elsewhere. They have no incentive to lower the bar.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Competing firms and to a lesser extent the CEOs themselves, all have input. It’s a market.

                  • JoBo@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    It’s nothing like a market. Who do you imagine the individuals are who set the CEOs pay, and how do you think their pay is decided?

      • Evie @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Is that why doctor are so under paid/s they aren’t based on skill or education?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Doctors are highly paid because they are scarce. You’ll note that surgeons in the UK, as an example, make about a third or less of what a US surgeon makes.

          Our residency system, coincidentally, induces artificial scarcity of doctors