Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iuf7c25 wrote

[deleted]

16

PompiPompi t1_iuforer wrote

Taking a percentage of a percentage is kind of stupid.

This is not a 40% difference, it's a 400% difference.

2

chicagotim1 t1_iuftumc wrote

Since 1978 my investment has gone 10X while CEO pay has gone up 14X. A 40% difference.

4

PompiPompi t1_iuh554z wrote

Let's say your investment is 1.

Let's say your yearly salary is 1.

In 1 year, your investment increased by 10x, so now it's 10

In one year, your salary increased by 14x, so now it's 14.

Another year, your investment increased by 10x, so now it's 100.

The same year, CEO salary increased by 14x, so now it's 196.

−1

[deleted] t1_iuhl4zj wrote

[deleted]

2

PompiPompi t1_iuhlu0k wrote

Doesn't matter if it's a yearly growth or 10 years growth.

The point is, it's on a period of time.

I mean, what happens the next 10 years? Does the stock stay the exact same amount for ten years? Does that mean it is still 1000% up?

So in 10/20/whatever years, the stock raised by X percent. when happens in the next 10 years though? The increase in X percent is from the original amount or the amount after the X percent increase?

0

[deleted] t1_iufpj7v wrote

[deleted]

0

PompiPompi t1_iufqa7k wrote

You don't understand what you are talking about.

We are measuring growth.

Growth already measure rate.

What you are doing, is second order growth.

You are measuring the growth of the growth.

−2

[deleted] t1_iufqhci wrote

[deleted]

3

[deleted] t1_iufr3ev wrote

[deleted]

2

PompiPompi t1_iufrl8o wrote

You are measuring compensation, not salaries.

Most of the CEO's compensation probably come from stocks anyway.

Imagine the stocks also has dividends.

If the CEO's salary is so high, then he would get less compensation in stocks.

−2

[deleted] t1_iufrs2c wrote

[deleted]

3

PompiPompi t1_iuftht4 wrote

You are measuring the growth of the growth.

You make no sense.

You need to go back to school.

−1

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufdaa2 wrote

The price of a companies stock is most certainly impacted by the quality of its CEO. And where are you getting 40% from?

−4

[deleted] t1_iufelme wrote

[deleted]

2

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iuffq2e wrote

I mean.... It does contain the same information. If the CEO was bad, the stock price wouldn't go up. It at the very least implies how the CEO is currently doing.

And ok, your 40% was making up numbers, gotcha.

−4

[deleted] t1_iufmah1 wrote

[deleted]

2

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufnbzt wrote

Again, making up fictional numbers to illustrate your point. There is no 1000 nor 1400, you're rounding. You're also negating the DJIA and doing some sort of rounding between that and the S&P.

And 10%? Those others "90%" of factors impacting a stock price are also heavily influenced by the CEO.

Anyhow, have a great day with your made up numbers 👍🏻

−2

[deleted] t1_iufo08q wrote

[deleted]

1

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufss5v wrote

CEO is 48% greater than DJIA... I'll go ahead and use your method and say it's 50% greater. Because twisting statistics is apparently what YOU do in the real world.

50% greater growth sounds substantial to anyone that understands numbers.

0