Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
I still want to see any evidence that workers' salaries are what they are because the CEO is paid too well. You can be unhappy about either of those phenomena, or both, but I still think it's fallacious to say that one caused the other. The market for top executive talent and the market for regular jobs are distinct markets. One can be roaring and the other stagnating without there being any necessary linear causal link between them.
|
What kind of evidence are you looking for short of a memo that says "Pay the CEO more, and take it out of the salaries of the grunts"? They could easily lie and say that it's coming from elsewhere and that it's just a coincidence that the lower salary workers happen to not get paid much.
It's not going to be linear. It's going to show priority. Let's say a corporation lands record profits one year (enough to invest more in the company AND pay people more) and the CEO and most of the upper management gets decent (4%+) raises and the bottom stays the same or decreases. What does that tell you? It tells you that the priority is to pay the upper management.