“Where More Women Are on Boards, Executive Pay Is Higher” (nytimes) says that public company CEOs can boost their pay (i.e., their stealing from shareholders) by putting women on their boards.
Certainly it seems likely that through a combination of pressure and demographic shifts there will be an increasing percentage of public company board members who identify as women. Should we expect this pay boost for in-house looters to be persistent?
[Separately, like other reports that count up men versus women, I’m not sure how this article makes sense in an age where cisgender-normative prejudice is frowned upon. How can anyone know what the gender composition of a corporate board is given that people might change their gender ID tomorrow morning and/or might have changed it some months ago but without changing names?]
Related:
- Economic Recovery Plan for the U.S. (November 2008 document suggesting shareholder-driven corporate governance)
The article is trying to goad executives into putting more women on boards so that they can raise their already exorbitant pay. Actually, it’s worse than that. The article is signalling to said executives that as long as they have enough women on the board, the elite fourth estate will given them a pass from criticism. Why do you think the article isn’t titled, “Where more Men on Boards, Income Inequality is Lower”?
Maybe they just pick more stable, higher paying corporations to be on the boards of. Qualcom & 20th Century Fox are perpetually betting the farm on the next project. Wells Fargo is guaranteed by the government. Proctor & Gamble is just going to be around forever. Macys & HP are strange ones for women interested in stability, but not as crazy as Twitter.
Well, they’re only getting uhhh 77 cents on the dollar so like shut up.