[Aunche]

Not sure why the left cares so much about CEO to work pay ratio these days, especially when Marx himself recognized that ownership was the true source inequality. A CEO is just a really well paid worker. Even CEOs who become billionaires do so from capital appreciation more than compensation.

[johnnyanmac]

A CEO is a worker incentivized to maximize profits to maximize compensation. And nowadays they see other workers not as a profit center, but as a blockage to their next big payout.

So yes, it is a problem when leadership doesn't have long term aspirations for the large company.

[dwb]

A CEO is not "just a really well paid worker", don't be ridiculous. If you have the power of hiring and firing, or have enough money to not have to work for your subsistence, you are not a worker in any leftist sense.

[marcosdumay]

Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality, and most people can plainly see it.

How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

[derektank]

>How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

It’s working quite well for retirees.

[lotsofpulp]

>How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

10% annual returns over previous 30 year returns for a fully liquid investment, 15% annual returns over previous 10 years.

Glorious for the beneficiaries of the retirement funds.

[Aunche]

> Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality

Sure, but ownership being the root of inequality was the one thing that he was actually correct about. CEO to worker pay ratio is something that is completely irrelevant. Companies spend orders of magnitude more money on its shareholders (dividends, buybacks, and reinvestment) than executive compensation.

[p_j_w]

Maybe others see it differently than I do, but the actual spending isn't so much the issue. It's the fact that these people with so much money exist at all. That much money translates to a tremendous amount of power which allows them to bend the law to their will.

[wavemode]

Is there any large-scale economic or political system which does not contain a group of elites possessing "a tremendous amount of power which allows them to bend the law to their will"? Not a theoretical one, but one existing in real life.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Global societies were still mostly agrarian in his time. His analysis doesn't work well for the modern era with <5% engaged in farming. Central planning won't work. You need distributed decision making to be flexible for changing circumstances. You need capital for industrialization and you need a cadre of people who can take risks to invest surplus capital into new ventures. The large disparity in wealth is a problem, but some is necessary.