[pitaj]

Their anticipation doesn't cover the criticism.

If you want an average (average worker to CEO) pay ratio, then doing what they did is also inaccurate.

I think that you should pick the average firm size, select a sample of firms around that size, and then get the pay ratio from that set.

[Sone7]

I think you've missed the point, a couple times.

First, the EPI weren't trying to find the "average worker to CEO" pay, they were examining trends to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent were doing in 2014.

Second, the article is blaming the largest and most successful companies and using their average wage to make their point - while making no attempt to account for or mention the CEO getting paid as much as 300 or more workers. This is a pretty gross mistake, and I find it disturbing that the HBR could spread bullshit like this.

Third, a study that looks at the top 350 firms' ratio of CEO to worker pay is in this case :more: relevant than the average of all companies, as the article is talking about :the largest companies:.

What I want to know is, why are so many people trying to make an issue of the EPI study I referenced, when the HBR article is riddled with basic, glaring errors and ludicrous claims?

[pitaj]

I was only addressing the your comments regarding the study addressing certain criticisms. I didn't read the article, and I don't really care about it.

Yes, them using the mean wage at those companies is inaccurate. They should probably be using median instead.