As you may know, recently General Motors hired a new CEO, one of what is still the precious few women to achieve such a status especially in a corporation that large. Though I believe I have read it is being somewhat rectified there was much note made of how her compensation package was quite a bit less than that of her male predecessor. I do not know what other variables there might be such as experience that maybe should be accounted for. However, I’m interested in what progressives make of this and what side you fall on. Are you upset that a woman is making less than the most recent man in the same position, or are you happy that for once a CEO’s package is maybe not quite so obnoxious? Honestly, I am personally leaning the latter though I understand arguments for the former.
I always think it’s a mistake when we wander into issues about individuals. Even on the question of Elizabeth Warren running the consumer financial protection agency — was she really the best qualified person? I’m not comfortable with the reverse logic — like John Bolton proposes some surveillance agency and then gets to run it.
The CEO is one person, with one job. She likely has a lot of incentives. She makes too much. The last guy made too much twice over.
We do better to focus on big picture stuff, in my view. Women’s starting salaries, for example.
I would be happy if her pay package is lower because of a general movement toward lower CEO compensation. I am not happy if the only reason her pay package is lower is that she’s a woman (not saying that’s the case, I know nothing about it).
I’m for lower CEO pay, but as long as CEO pay is what it is, I’m not for discrimination on the basis of sex in awarding it. I agree with JimC that we need to focus more on what the millions at the bottom are making. CEO pay is obscene but there are relatively few CEOs.
…because I think the implication is that if only companies paid their CEOs less, there would be plenty of money to distribute among the rest of the employees of said company.
It’s relevant largely as a symbol and symptom of a culture that disdains labor, worships the wealthy and powerful, and has a tremendous wealth disparity. The actual dollars, spread out over thousands of workers, generally wouldn’t add much to each worker’s salary. The bigger issue is the speculation game on Wall Street and the preferential treatment of investment income that isn’t even productive for the general economy.