Comments
Silicon Valley's 1%: Stinginess Is Not The Problem
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
2/7/2014 | 11:14:27 AM
Re: Just scratching the surface
At a recent HCM conference in Las Vegas, Ellison said a little about the work he's supporting on the Hawaiian island of Lanai, which he bought last year for $500 million. As my colleague Doug Henschen reports: Ellison spent more than five minutes detailing his plans for experiments in green energy, smart agriculture, and improved schools and public facilities on the island. "There are things we're doing as far as logistics, power generation, power distribution, irrigation, desalinization that can be a model for a next generation of technology," Ellison said.
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
2/5/2014 | 9:13:56 AM
Re: Just scratching the surface
...I'm also not arguing that a 300:1 salary ratio is healthy for a company. If corporate boards want to manage to the 20:1 ratio that Peter Drucker recommends, I'm all for that. But companies shouldn't be held to ratios by some outside regulatory body or other overseer.
David F. Carr
50%
50%
David F. Carr,
User Rank: Author
2/5/2014 | 9:11:11 AM
Re: Just scratching the surface
Maybe more of silicon valley's charitable giving should flow toward boosting the salaries of teachers, nurses, and others do social good.
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
2/5/2014 | 8:30:00 AM
Re: Just scratching the surface
The law of supply and demand doesn't necessarily produce perfect decisions. Yahoo paid what it did for its previous CEOs because that was the pay the market was dictating. In retrospect, Yahoo overpaid its previous CEOs because they didn't produce -- so it fired them. If Yahoo's shareholders don't think the board is doing a good enough job of finding good CEOs or acting fast enough to rectify hiring mistakes or paying too much for the CEOs it brings in, then they can take their money out of Yahoo and invest it in some other company that they think is better run and has more transparent governance. I'm sure a lot of shareholders did just that before Marissa Mayer was hired--thus why Yahoo's stock price took a beating at that time.

If pay was about fairness or the importance of the job, nurses and teachers and power plant technicians would command among the highest salaries. But the market sets the rate -- there's a huge supply of teachers in my local area and not a lot of demand. Is it unfair that teachers make 1/354the of what a top investment banker might make? It's not a matter of fairness. 
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
2/4/2014 | 6:50:21 PM
Re: Just scratching the surface
But does the law of supply and demand really apply to the way boards appoint CEOs? The process is closed and secretive. The selection criteria are biased in that the qualifications are subjective. (I suspect I could have run Yahoo into the ground at least as effectively as the ineffective executives who preceded Marissa Mayer, at a much lower cost, but the Yahoo board never called.) And accountability is limited through the corporate governance structure. Shareholders have to move mountains to get their motions acted on. What's more, such high pay tends not to be tied to performance. 

If CEO selection and salary determination were done through some public process with accountability and transparency, I would not have an issue with huge pay ratios. It would truly be up to the market. To flip the question around, is there a salary multiple that's unconscionable? 

There's an interesting Washington Post article from last year discussing this issue. In it, Peter Drucker suggests 20-to-1 is the right CEO/employee salary ratio to prevent resentment and low morale.

Meanwhile, we just saw Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley companies conspiring to depress employee wages through non-competition agreements. We have a two-tiered system and management plays by a very different set of rules than employees.

I too hope a booming economy will raise all boats, but technology tends to create winner-take-all markets, making the problem worse rather than better.

Rather than wealth caps, we should be looking at where we have regulations that create exorbitant wealth for a few at the expense of the many. Take our intellectual property system, for example. Is there a point when the exclusive monopoly granted by a patent or copyright becomes anticompetitive and ends up blocking thousands of entrpreneurs in order to enrich one? That point varies by industry (biotech being more deserving of a long patent franchise than software, for example), but I do think it exists and should be given some serious thought.
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
2/4/2014 | 5:16:49 PM
Re: Just scratching the surface
I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but do we really think that spreading a CEO's pay around to the rank and file will make for better-run companies or happier employees? "No single person deserves to be paid 354x what the average worker at a company makes." So what's the right multiple? 100? 77? 10? 7? The law of supply and demand determines executive salaries, not some pretermined pay schedule of what's fair. I may not think a certain CEO is worth getting paid 354x what his/her average employee is paid (and I don't think most CEOs are worth the multiple), but not every CEO brings the same value...and what I think is fair doesn't matter in a capitalist economy.

If a CEO isn't earning his keep, bounce him--without the parachute. If employees don't like that the big boss is making a ton more money than they are, go work elsewhere. The disparity multiple isn't a number that can or should be managed to, unless we're going to institute arbitrary caps on executive pay. Are we then going to put caps on wealth as well?
 
The median American household income has fallen. The answer isn't to redistribute the pay of top execs. The math won't work. The answer is to get the economy booming again so that we create more opportunities and more competition for more people. 
 
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
2/4/2014 | 4:48:22 PM
Re: Just scratching the surface
As much as diversity is an important issue to address, Silicon Valley and Wall Street need to mind the gap between executive and employee pay. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, the average pay gap between CEOS and workers grew from 195-to-1 in 1993 to 354-to-1 in 2012. That's an average pay increase of 82% over a decade.

No single person deserves to be paid 354x what the average worker at a company makes (in terms of salary...when it comes to equity, I think that company founders deserve rewards for the risk they take, but that's a different issue). And that's an average. At some companies, the CEO makes over 1,000 times more than the average worker. 

Meanwhile, the median American household income has fallen from $54,932 in 1999 to $50,054 in 2012. And for the first time since the Great Depression, more than half the total income in the US went to the top 10% of Americans (The Second Machine Age, p.129).

This is not the way to run a sustainable, stable society. It's the road to strife. 
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/4/2014 | 4:45:03 PM
Re: Just scratching the surface
Ginning up "class warfare" seems to be a growth industry. No doubt there's a problem around income inequality; it's a disturbing stat that 85 individuals own more wealth than half the world's population. However, I think there are much bigger villians than tech executives -- so why is it they get so much heat? Just visibility versus Wall Street, fossil fuel and military/industrial complex CEOs? Or perhaps they're seen as less likely to retailiate!
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
2/4/2014 | 2:57:39 PM
Just scratching the surface
None of what I wrote above, of course, factors in the wider-spread wealth and job creation (and thus inherent good) that comes from building growing, thriving technology businesses. 


The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek - September 2, 2014
Avoiding audits and vendor fines isn't enough. Take control of licensing to exact deeper software discounts and match purchasing to actual employee needs.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Howard Marks talks about steps to take in choosing the right cloud storage solutions for your IT problems
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.