[throwaway5959]

I’m curious what your reaction would be if he got a 40% pay increase.

Frankly it’s refreshing to see a CEO cut his own pay vs continuously increasing it regardless of how well the company performs.

[juve1996]

What does "refreshing" even mean?

What would be refreshing is an adequate social safety net. Not mega rich getting slightly less megarich.

[throwaway5959]

I don’t think those two are remotely related to each other. You could drain the wealth of the top 1000 people to zero and still not support a social safety net in perpetuity.

To put some numbers behind it, the 735 billionaires in the world are worth $4.7 trillion total. Spread evenly across only 300 million people that’s only $15.6k each. Then that money is all gone.

[juve1996]

You've created a strawman here.

First, a safety net wouldn't apply to 300 million people, only a small percentage of that who need it when it's necessary. Second, I'm not suggesting it is solely funded by taxing the megarich.

Other nations already offer healthcare. This isn't mathematically infeasible, it's been done elsewhere, and done for years.

[herendin]

>I’m curious what your reaction would be if he got a 40% pay increase.

It would be equally performative. This is morality theater. I'd only question his judgment about public relations.

I do understand the reasoning for this adjustment of his salary. I'm simply saying I wish it was not necessary. It's sad.

[jklinger410]

Apparently you think Tim Cook already has an infinite amount of money.

In that case, many leading CEOs are just taking symbolic salaries to do their jobs. I wonder why they even bother.