Yes, We Actually Can Do Something About CEO Pay
A new report highlights effective policies to narrow CEO-worker gaps and marks progress to date.
CEOs did not cause the pandemic. But they deserve a good deal of the blame for a model that shoveled profits up the corporate ladder, leaving lower-level employees financially insecure. When Covid-19 struck, it didn’t take much to push millions of vulnerable workers over the edge.
If we want to not only survive the pandemic but emerge as a nation more resilient to future crises, we need to reverse these obscenely unfair pay practices.
San Francisco voters have just taken a significant step in that direction.
By a margin of 65-35, they voted to approve a ballot measure, Proposition L, to increase taxes on corporations with extreme gaps between CEO and worker pay. The measure required only a simple majority to pass.
Specifically, the proposal will increase tax rates on local business revenue, ranging from an additional 0.1 percent on corporations that pay their CEO more than 100 times their typical San Francisco worker pay to 0.6 percent for companies with pay ratios of 600 to 1 or more.
To get a sense of the potential impact on specific companies, consider McDonald’s. Last year, CEO Stephen Easterbrook made $17.4 million before stepping down in November. That’s about 522 times as much as one of the fast food giant’s crew members would make earning San Francisco’s $16.07 minimum wage on an annual, full-time basis.
Unless McDonald’s makes big changes to its pay practices, these numbers suggest the company will owe a tax increase on the higher end of the proposed range, as a percentage of sales from their 16 or so San Francisco restaurants.
The benefits of the ballot measure are twofold. It will encourage corporations to narrow their pay gaps while generating revenue for programs to reduce poverty and inequality. City officials estimate the tax will raise $140 million per year.
San Francisco will be the second city in the nation to adopt a tax on large CEO-worker pay gaps. The first was Portland, Oregon.
For the tax design nerds out there, let me point out some differences between the San Francisco proposal and the Portland tax:
All these technicalities aside, both models advance the movement to reverse inequality in ways that should give a strong boost to other efforts. Lawmakers have introduced similar bills in at least eight state legislatures, including California, as well as in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
In the midst of the pandemic crisis, the argument for such taxes is even stronger.
“We believe that big corporations that can afford to pay their executives million-dollar salaries every year can afford to pay their fair share in taxes to help us recover,” wrote San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney in a statement supporting Proposition L.
Of course Proposition L also had its detractors. Republican Richie Greenberg, who ran an unsuccessful race for San Francisco mayor in 2018, issued a statement before the vote claiming the tax would serve no purpose because “Employees’ salaries are based on experience and value to a company.”
That tired argument should’ve been dead after the 2008 financial crisis, when financial executives chasing massive bonuses drove our economy off a cliff.
It should be even deader now, as CEOs continue to pocket fat paychecks in a recession while essential frontlines workers show us every day just how undervalued they’ve long been.
After the election, Supervisor Haney tweeted that the revenue from the tax will be used to “support our health and public health systems, which are deeply strained from the consequences of inequality. We will hire nurses, social workers and emergency responders, and expand access and treatment.”
Pointing out that the measure won in nearly every precinct, Haney added that “Voters are demanding we take action on inequality.”
Note: An earlier version of this article appeared on October 5, 2020.
by Sarah Anderson
A new report highlights effective policies to narrow CEO-worker gaps and marks progress to date.
by Sarah Anderson
The administration is using semiconductor subsidies as a lever for discouraging CEO pay-inflating stock buybacks in that industry. All companies receiving federal funds should face the same restrictions.
by Sarah Anderson
President Biden is cracking down on hidden fees that cost American consumers tens of billions of dollars a year.
Inequality.org
→ In Your Inbox
Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.
You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.
Click to close
Inequality.org
→ In Your Inbox
Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.
You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.
Click to close
Inequality.org
→ In Your Inbox
Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.
You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.
Click to close
Inequality.org
→ In Your Inbox
Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.
You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.
Click to close
Inequality.org
→ In Your Inbox
Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.
You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.
Click to close