New IP

The Pay's the Thing

CEOs make too much money... is an eternal complaint, regardless of what industry, market, company, country or time period that statement might bring to mind. So, it might come as a surprise that the SEC is finally trying to do something about it.

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a CEO pay ratio rule calling for public companies to disclose the ratio of their CEOs' pay relative to the median employee pay in their companies.

We'll leave you to the NYT story linked above as you consider whether this could actually lead to great fairness in CEO pay or is more of a well-meaning but toothless measure. In any case, the new rule makes it good timing to take a look at the most highly compensated CEOs across the Light Reading vendor community.

To read the Prime Reading feature, see Vendor CEO Comp: Cashing In, Cashing Out.

Did these vendors get what they paid for? The first one on the list, maybe not so much. But, while we're asking questions, did your employer get a fair return on what it paid you last year? No, really...

— Dan O'Shea, Managing Editor, Light Reading

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Ariella 9/7/2015 | 11:17:17 AM
Re: But then what? @kq4ym Do you really thing that 1/300th would solve all percpetions of inequity?
kq4ym 9/7/2015 | 9:59:55 AM
Re: But then what? Until those workers who get typically 1/300th of the salary and benefits of the top execs gain power through social actions or legal regulations, it's unlikely that anything will change. We all pretty much know the disparities of earnings already and the SEC rules will make no significant change in behavior I would certainly guess.
Joe Stanganelli 9/4/2015 | 5:55:55 AM
Re: But then what? @Ariella: Yes, that's a better way of putting it -- not that rationality doesn't matter, but that it's a different type of rationale at play.
Ariella 9/1/2015 | 3:48:41 PM
Re: But then what? @Joe, yes, that's Ariely's thesis: that our very assumption of rational behavior being the determining factor of what happens in the economy is off base.
Joe Stanganelli 9/1/2015 | 3:46:39 PM
Re: But then what? ...and there'd be even more stability if we allowed no public trading at all.  ;)  It seems to me that if you allow the one, you have to allow the other.

Further, several economists have advocated for the legalization of insider trading -- because of the efficiencies it brings to the market by helping to ensure that prices reflect actual value via trading actions of knowledgeable parties.
Joe Stanganelli 9/1/2015 | 3:43:04 PM
Re: But then what? Interesting.  For my own part, I always saw economics as the study of irrationality -- since the economy is moved by sufficient irrationality just as much as it is moved by rationality (if not more so).  It's why, for instance, in things like the Ultimatum Game, the rational choice is almost guaranteed to be the failing one.
MikeP688 9/1/2015 | 2:10:51 PM
Re: But then what? I remember a long time ago Robert Reich equate the stock market to a Las Vegas Roulette Table.    Today proved it ever so.    The good thing about tech is that there is always an eye towards the long-term.   Google has taught us that--hasn't it? 
Ariella 9/1/2015 | 2:06:57 PM
Re: But then what? Dismal, indeed, @Mike, especially in light of the stock market tumble of late. Crashes are nothing new, of course. It occurred to me that there would a lot more stability if there were no selling short, but that bit of financial fiction has been around for over a century.
MikeP688 9/1/2015 | 2:02:35 PM
Re: But then what? We must never be cynical.  We have to truly have an open mind--that's key.  It is not easy especially as Economics is known as the "Dismal Science".    
Ariella 9/1/2015 | 1:09:55 PM
Re: But then what? Does sanity usually prevail? I'm rather cynical about the answer. 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In