I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity.
If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval).
Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"...
Equity in a privately held company is certainly more complicated to deal with, but if -- as per my original post -- you offer someone a substantial raise in the form of equity I'm quite certain they won't turn it down.
> If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval).
I can't help but suspect you are ignoring the substantial raise part of my post at this point, as otherwise this comment seems like a non-sequitur.
> Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"...
This is condescending and not conducive to a polite discussion. I did not ask for and do not need an explanation of equity compensation.
Of course not. If I walked up to you at the roulette table and said "I'll put $100 on red and if I win, you keep the winnings, If I lose, my loss". No one would turn that down. However no one would make that offer either, including you.
Perhaps you are confused or misspoke, but equity is given in lieu of full monetary compensation, not given on top of full monetary compensation. Shareholders aren't a charity standing at the roulette table. Offer people to exchange 20% of their current compensation for equity, and suddenly you get a lot more cold feet.
> I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity.
Let me explain it to you as clearly as possible. You claimed that reducing CEO compensation would not result in more money for workers because the majority of CEO compensation is in equity[1]:
> To put it plainly - not paying the CEO wouldn't free up any meaningful amount of more money to pay the workers.
I then attempted to point out that if the company were to redistribute some or all of that equity to workers, they certainly would not turn it down.
Here is a simple example with nice, round numbers: Imagine a company in which the CEO's compensation package is $1m/yr cash and $10m/yr equity at current valuation, and there are 100 workers with a compensation package of $100k/yr cash and $0/yr equity. If you take $5m/yr in equity from the CEO's compensation and distribute it equally among the workers, you now have a company in which the CEO makes $1m/yr cash plus $5m/yr equity, and the workers make $100k/yr cash and $50k/yr equity. See? You can, in fact, reduce CEO pay to increase worker pay! Of course, we both know that money and equity are not interchangeable, which is why I justified my comment by pointing out that the workers would -- presumably -- not reject a compensation increase in the form of equity.
Clear?