[lph]

> ...getting exactly what the market could afford.

"afford" is an odd word choice. As if to suggest that employers simply don't have any money by which they could have increased worker salaries.

In this same period, average CEO compensation increased 25-50%, depending on how you measure it. So, apparently, there's lots of money, but its distribution is skewing increasingly to the very top.

So let's not say "afford".

[refurb]

A CEO getting an extra $5M leading a 100,000 employee company means each employee could have gotten an extra $50.

So i would argue it still about what the company can afford.

[viraptor]

Thats only the CEO though. Add a few board members and VPs and it gets more significant. But even with $50 per employee - why not do that instead if you're aware of recession impacting people? (Apart from the obvious - because you want more money)

[refurb]

CEO comp is typically mostly equity, not salary. So is it surpassing that CEO comp goes up when the markets go up? Probably not.

[PenguinCoder]

An extra $50 per what? Year? Paycheck? Month? That's key.