Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

burnshimself t1_j5mpl0f wrote

There is a fuck ton of sample bias here. Clearly the data was chosen to draw the desired conclusion.

First, they’re just picking the salaries of the 350 largest companies’ CEOs. So the CEO sample size is 350, which lacks statistical significance / rigor. Not only that, you’re picking probably 350 of the ~1,000 highest salaried most successful people in America. I don’t think that is a fair representation of overall CEO pay. It would be like looking at the salaries of NBA all-stars and claiming amateur basketball players are overpaid. There’s been a ton of corporate consolidation in the last 40 years, which means the largest 350 firms have gotten meaningfully larger. Also picking the top-350 means you’re only seeing CEOs who are tremendously successful, so likely to make more money on merit. Lastly a lot of CEO comp is options in company stock, which are worth more when the company performs well (as the top-350 would be expected to do) and benefit generally from mass stock market appreciation over the last 50 years.


TonsToDicusss t1_j5n8ey7 wrote

Good point. Also , this is again, a case of the classic supply and demand function of economics. There is a reason why these massive companies are willing to pay big bucks to attract and retain CEOs. There is a very limited talent pool vs a huge demand for experienced and reputable executives out there.

BTW, Your NBA example is just fantastic, it’s a different league the CEOs are in than the average workers, they should be paid as much. Instead of being disgruntled at the pay discrepancy, one should seek to work and study harder to climb the corporate chain in order to get paid more.


burnshimself t1_j5nink7 wrote

I mean people are welcome to be upset about how much top public company execs are paid. The data should simply be presented as such and clearly labeled. This is done to find the most extreme possible disparity without adequately highlighting the limitations of the data, all with the sole goal of outraging people rather than informing them. It’s incredibly misleading and unethical in my view.


Fausterion18 t1_j5pjubf wrote

This is EPI, manipulating data to generate public outrage is all they do.


gimmethelulz t1_j5qqrvc wrote

> study harder to climb the corporate chain

Except corporations are making it increasingly more difficult to do that as they "flatten the org". Not saying that it's right or wrong to be reducing middle management but less middle management roles means less opportunities to move up. Which is how you end up with people feeling increasingly stuck in their careers and salary progression.


Drill1 t1_j5ndv6f wrote

I made $6000 in 1978 and $154,000 last year. Doing better than the CEO’s - I am up 2,500% in the same timeframe.