Say On Pay legislation is too little, too late. If a private company wishes to pay its executives a 100% of profits ( the public should not subsidize with tax writeoffs), who cares. If a company is public, what do we not understand about "public"? When did we begin to think that a "publicly owned" company should not be subject to a different set of regulations to protect the "public". The current crop of greedy executives feel entitled to use public (investor) money as their private fortune.

I am not a Democrat or Republican, so please understand my comment is not politically motivated.
Fair value to the customer (consumer) for a product (or service) is unfairly and grossly distorted by corporate manipulation accounting and the inherent operation, production and distribution economies of scale. These enormous savings are never passed on as a lower price but rather indiscriminately pocketed by the corporation at the whim of executive management to bolster their personal wealth, and share prices. The "invisible hand" is a rhetorical philosophical construct because the "real hand" can take anything it wishes, and balance (equilibrium) is not in the criteria. The corporate entity can never be self-regulating if the objective is fairness to shareholder, consumer, and the balance sheet liability of, and to, employees. Management must ensure it is unfair for operational control alone. Management's primary role is to take from employees and customers to justify management's best welfare to shareholders. To ensure fairness, prices must be allowed to go down as easily as they keep being artificially forced up. Mr. Schumer is only blowing smoke.

My reference to "public" companies may have been confusing. I meant "public" in the sense of "publicly traded" -- companies in which any member of the public can buy stock, as opposed to those that are privately held by a partnership or family. Most of the nation's largest companies are publicly-traded in this way. This is different than being publicly-owned in the sense of owned by the taxpayers/the government. Legislation passed by Congress has already instituted Say on Pay provisions for publicly-owned companies that received taxpayer bailouts -- although this provision was riddled with loopholes.

Be that as it may, it's still a legitimate point that Say on Pay doesn't go far enough in empowering shareholders or, as I point out, in protecting the interests of workers, consumers and other stakeholders. It's a reform step, not a cure-all.

In Britain, they use Say on Pay to curb excessive CEO compensation. In Japan, they use a maximum wage. In pre-1970s America, I don't know what they used - was it just the tax levels, or was there something else?

Good question, Alon. I've never seen a study on this topic. I wouldn't be surprised if tax levels played a role. Pressure from a more heavily unionized workforce may also have been a factor. It's difficult to quantify, but I also wouldn't discount the role of social norms -- paying executives so exorbitantly simply wasn't done. Of course, norms can change over time...

I should say that www.dmiblog.com has lots of interesting information. Looks like the author did a good job. I will be coming back to www.dmiblog.com for new information. Thank you.

I think this issue needs to be tackled from the Labor viewpoint. We the people need a strong check on business practice to promote the general welfare by protecting our jobs.