[Kalium]

OK. Let's assume that the rest of the C-suite combines to give that number a solid 5x multiplier. How accurate that is is left as an exercise to the reader, but be aware that the CEO is almost always the highest-paid member of a C-suite.

That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-changing money for hundreds of thousands of people, right?

The point here is not that spreading the money from the C-suite to the workers is in any way a bad idea. The point is that it doesn't go nearly as far as we might like to think. We might want to adjust our policy preferences and goals to reflect reality instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite.

Oh, and here's a reference for C-suite comp at JP Morgan Chase. Reliability unknown, but if accurate it means my assumption of a 5x multiplier is overly generous: https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Sala...

[hawk_]

> instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite.

I thought the issue with such high/concentrated C-suite compensation isn't the envy (though that may be the case for some). The issue is that just by squeezing $116 per employee such a CEO can pay herself. Like if removing armrests from all employee chairs nets you a few additional millions of dollars, the temptation to do so exists.

If there was no such C-suite, there would be less incentives for pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.

[Kalium]

If you look at sibling comments, you'll find a whole discussion where users talk about the major significance to many people of a different numerical estimate. With that in mind, I think that for many people the issue is indeed greater employee income instead of avoiding pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.