This little remark from @nrmacdonald is a really, really, really good point. Take half a moment to get the context and mull it over.
https://mastodon.social/@nrmacdonald/111422360795544722
Properly quantifying this is of course murky far beyond my skills (and I’m not quite sure the math is correct: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/111422433783809200), but…
All that is missing the basic point: if we pay CEOs because they help companies succeed, then shouldn’t we expect a closer relationship between CEO pay growth and worker productivity growth? The way those two numbers diverge suggests instead this is a case of “those who control the money make off with the money.”
It's a great conceptual point, though I have very little understanding of how you'd usefully measure it.
@codefolio
I assume it’s taking the numbers from the screenshot at face value — although when I do the math myself, I get -89% CEO productivity growth, so…??
ceo_pay = (1,460 + 100) / 100 = 15.6 pay growth factor vs baseline
productivity = 1.646 pay growth factor vs baseline
productivity / ceo_pay = 0.1055 pay-per-productivity factor vs baseline
(1 − productivity / ceo_pay) × 100 = 89.45, i.e. -89% growth
@nrmacdonald, am I missing something?