Even eyes in the US are starting to pop at the sheer extravagance of executive pay. Last week, the New York Times published its annual league table of chief executive pay at the US’ top 100 publicly quoted companies. The average has now climbed to US$13.9 million.
That is nearly twice the average of ￡4.4 million (US$7.41 million) for chief executives within Britain’s top 100. However, since the US’ top 100 companies are, on average, about three times larger in terms of turnover than our own, one could argue that executives are even better paid in Britain.
A growing number of US commentators are asking, as are some of the braver remuneration consultants, just why executives in the US need to be paid so much. The Los Angeles Times headlined one opinion piece “Obscenely high salaries are stark reminders of US wealth gap.”
Illustration: Mountain People
The New York Times talked about the dark side of executive pay driving US inequality. What do these men — and 91 of the 100 are men — actually do with so much money?
The rationale is that such pay is needed to drive “performance.”
One of the eye-catching examples was Oracle cofounder and chief executive Larry Ellison, already the world’s fifth-richest man, who collected US$78.4 million last year. Does he need so much cash to push Oracle’s performance, and if so, why does Google cofounder and chief executive Larry Page need only US$1 million?
It was true that 26 chief executives on the list saw their remuneration fall slightly, but that was more than offset by some astonishing and quirky rises. A fall in any one year is compensated by a vast increase later.
It is beginning to be obvious that performance has hardly anything to do with the rise in executive pay. Why should British chief executives in charge of smaller, generally less complex companies be paid proportionally more than their counterparts in the US? Does it make sense that 60 percent of pay comes in options to buy shares, so that executive focus is wholly on doing those things — cutting investment, avoiding risky innovation, using cash to buy company shares — that keep up the share price.
Chief executives’ pay has been sky high in the US for a decade and has doubled in Britain over the same period, but has economic and corporate performance been that stellar in either country?
Some economists argue that it is the direct cause of the collapse of business investment in both countries. Even the most eloquent apologists are increasingly mute.
The answer is that these “super-salaries” have almost nothing to do with performance and everything to do with chief executives keeping up with each other in a status race.
In my interim review on fair pay for the UK government three years ago, I noted that one of the best determinants of any chief executives’ pay in the US was the size of their social network. The more examples of highly paid members in one’s network, the more generous a remuneration committee felt it had to be.
Ellison will doubtless point not to other chief executives of publicly quoted companies to justify his pay, but to Leon Black, chair of the private equity group Apollo, who pocketed US$546 million last year.
In Conspicuous Consumption, a book published in 1899, when inequalities in wealth and income matched those of today, economist Thorstein Veblen captured this social dynamic well. There is a logic to the very wealthy needing more wealth: They show it off to demonstrate where they are in the pecking order.
Veblen writes that while the livery worn by servants, the nature of pets and the grandness of parties may seem to be economically irrational, if not futile, to the very rich, these are subtle, socially honed indicators of standing.
For example, rich men’s wives at the end of the 19th century had a particularly important role, he said, as highly visible “ceremonial consumers of goods.”
The sophistication of the household they ran, the quality of its furnishings and the extravagance of their clothes indicated the standing of their husbands. They had transmuted from being male chattels, Veblen said, to becoming lead players in driving conspicuous consumption. Economically irrational, certainly, but in social terms, wholly comprehensible.
We now live in an era of “conspicuous executive pay” — only understandable as a social phenomenon because its extravagance has ceased to have economic logic.
In the 1890s, Veblen observed that one of the reasons sports such as shooting and yachting were so attractive for conspicuous consumption was that they were the best ways of acting on predatory, aggressive, “aristocratic” behavior — crucial to the very wealthy — but in a peaceful way.
So today the successful chief executive shows the predator instincts behind his success by doing something extravagantly, but peacefully competitive — taking part in the America’s Cup (Ellison), ballooning (Virgin Group founder Richard Branson) or racing at Le Mans. Owning an island in the Pacific (Ellison owns Lanai in Hawaii) or Caribbean shows your need for extreme privacy and luxury — the quintessential expression of a natural aristocrat.
Meanwhile, your exquisitely dressed partner runs a household in Manhattan or central London with an underground cinema and swimming pool and top private chef. The sexes may have grown more equal between the 1890s and the 2010s, yet it is still women — as wives — who are typically leaders in “ceremonial consumption.”
The problem is that these are no longer the harmless peccadilloes of the super-rich needed to provide incentives for performance. Rather, the US and British economies are increasingly being run to deliver these lifestyles, but with disappointing wider economic results.
What can be done?
Cornell University professor Lynn Stout proposes that all tax relief should be withdrawn on any chief executive pay that is 100 times the minimum wage.
The Brookings Institution’s Leonard Burman suggests that income tax brackets should be adjusted for inflation and for target levels of income inequality.
Financial Times money editor Merryn Somerset Webb says that all gifts of capital during life or as inheritances should be taxed as unearned income. You could add a twist and adjust the gift tax rate to achieve target levels of wealth inequality.
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
RSS