[waheoo]

> What I am suggesting is that it is immoral to take more when others are given less.

You mean like how America takes more than the rest of the world?

I think the underlying problem here is that executive salaries and bonuses are at too higher multiples. Much higher than historical norms.

Not many would complain about an exec getting a bonus during this time if it was actually reasonable in the first place.

[jzb]

"Not many would complain about an exec getting a bonus during this time if it was actually reasonable in the first place."

This right here. If the CEO made, let's say, five times what I do - or some reasonable multiple during normal times, I wouldn't object to some retention bonus to maintain as much stability at the top as possible.

I acknowledge that 1) C-level and VP-level gigs come with responsibilities I would not want and 2) a good exec is hard to find. So I don't mind if company execs make much more than I do.

I do mind bullshit like this where they make in a year or two what I can expect to make over more than a decade, maybe even a lifetime, and then when times are hard get showered with more money while we get laid off or end up doing twice as much to cover for people laid off or hiring freezes.

Yep, being an exec of a company that's bankrupt probably sucks. Guess what? Being a average employee sucks then too. Everybody should have to suck it up, not just the run of the mill people.

[agensaequivocum]

> I do mind bullshit like this where they make in a year or two what I can expect to make over more than a decade, maybe even a lifetime

Why do you care?

[mjburgess]

Sure they would. These "time of crisis" instincts are very primitive, as are most emotional reactions of this kind. To makes sense of them just imagine an extended family operating, c. 100k years ago.

The idea is this: in a time of crisis (say, very low food) how immoral it would be for the father (, etc.) to take much more than the mother (etc.).

And these feels very plausible. It is in the nature of a family to expect sacrifce.

It is these small-scale familial impulses that ideologues often rationalise (on both left and right).

What economics as a (rough) science is meant to provide us with is a way of transcending these impulses. These microeconomic explanations should persuade us that they are being misapplied in this case, and "familial-crisis" thinking cannot plausibly apply to a buisness.

However most people cannot really critically relate to their own emotional instincts, and so often explaining the microeconomics is shouting into the wind.

[darkerside]

I think this is your point but helping spell it out. The father in this case is probably the best shot at obtaining more food for the starving family and needs energy to do so.

[clairity]

you've made a lot of assumptions to reach that conclusion.

for counterbalance, women burn less energy per mass on average and are less massive on average, which means they'd last longer in the search, raising the likelihood of finding food.

[darkerside]

I'm not educated on which sex would have truly had a better chance, and not totally concerned with it. Mostly concerned with illustrating more clearly the parent posters point.

My assumption is men did more hunting and women gathering, and that in a starvation scenario, known gathering food sources would have been exhausted.

Sorry for any Paleolithic women I may have offended with my post!

[clairity]

ah, ignorance is bliss, except when you're naturally selected away by implicit biases that lead to poor decisions.

no need to worry about paleolithic women, they were probably less fragile and better survivalists in comparison.

[darkerside]

Wouldn't doubt it!

[hatchnyc]

> You mean like how America takes more than the rest of the world?

It is interesting how these discussions about "inequality" play out within America. I've traveled a small amount outside of the US/EU and have many close friends from poor countries and it strikes me that a real move towards equality would likely result in a step downward for nearly all Americans, even those who consider themselves poor and disadvantaged by American standards.

I'm not saying this isn't something to pursue within a country on its own merit, but some of the absolutist moralistic rhetoric used in these discussions definitely betrays living in a bubble.

[Supermancho]

> You mean like how America takes more than the rest of the world?

"Like" in the most obtuse aspect. What about how little I pay my kids or dog? Thats not in context.

The issue is the morality within the system in place in the US (US firms, per the article title).

[lotsofpulp]

I don’t see how it’s obtuse. The morality of paying an executive disproportionately more is the same morality as paying a worker in the US disproportionately more than a worker in a poorer country.

At the end of the day, everyone is looking out for themselves and their immediate tribes first, and everyone takes what they can get. However, society is more harmonious when the delta is not too great. The US simply also had the luxury of having a delta of two oceans and huge amounts of space.