Vréfos

Recently this chart has been popping up in my feed again: Now, this has sparked some of the same debates as when I last saw it. I would say that, broadly, there are two camps that people fall into when it comes to CEO compensation. First, there are those that argue that this is morally wrong, and this growing inequality is a sign of moral bankruptcy in our society. The other argument that I see is that CEOs make, decisions with a much larger scale than the average worker. For example, a mistake that a worker makes could cost the company $10, while the mistake that a CEO makes could cost the company $10,000,000. This argument is usually also accompanied by the statement that since a good chunk of CEO compensation is in the form of stock and options, that this gives them an enormous incentive to align their decisions with the companies benefits. Now, I believe that there are several problems with that second argument. First, is the fact that many of the CEOs with the highest compensatio...

     One of the greatest threats facing society is the rise of inequality. I think that many people, however, don't quite have a good grasp on why  inequality is a serious problem for society. Many arguments against inequality seem to be made on a moral basis, not an economical one, which while important, is only half the story. I think that it is important to recognize both.     It is important to note that some degree of inequality isn't always  a bad thing. There are many times that equality is also inefficient. As I make the case for the inefficiency of excessive inequality, I will also make the case for the inefficiency of perfect equality . This may sound counterintuitive, so I want to make my position clear: there is an "ideal" amount of inequality, but the US is likely far beyond it. Source: MRIquestions.com     An analogy from chemistry will help to illustrate this idea. In physical chemistry, we learned about a phenomenon known as ...