[fanzhang]

I think looking at CEO-only pay is a red herring. The CEO of a company like Google might be paid a lot, but if you cut that pay to zero and redistributed to the rest of the company, the impact wouldn't be massive. To wit, the CEO of google was paid $100 million in 2015, and Google has about 50K employees, resulting in a $2K difference for everyone.

Do you believe that if all corporations just reduced the pay of the top 1% of the pay grade, that within-US inequality rises would be majority eliminated? What's the evidence either way?

[Sone7]

No I don't believe that. Never implied anything of the sort.

You made a fair point about the number of employees, but I was careful to also mention other senior executive pay. I mentioned a host of other factors such as political corruption and rent-seeking behaviours being likely far more important factors. Jumping to the conclusion implied in your question is unfair, and might point to a bias you're walking around with, I think.

Do you believe, as this article claims, that :the majority: of inequality in the US is due to how much Google and other top companies choose to pay their employees?

Regardless, do you believe that this article employed convincing analysis and evidence to back up such a belief?

[fanzhang]

I don't think that between firm inequality is the main driver of inequality within the US. (Internationally, inequality has decreased over the last 40 years). My personal belief is that the main causes are technology and globalization.

I think the article looks at it in a unique perspective that is missed. Between firm inequality is a result of technology, especially technology with natural monopoly characteristics (search, social network).

I don't think the article's recommendation of breaking up monopolies will reduce inequality at all. If you break Google or Facebook up, you'll get two companies with nearly isomorphic hiring and pay practices.