Fast forward to 2022, and CEOs were making 344 times the typical worker.

快進到 2022 年，首席執行官的收入是普通工人的 344 倍。

Congrats, fellas.

祝賀你們，夥計們

But also, how the f*** did that happen?

不過，這他媽是怎麼發生的？

As I embarked on reporting this dangerous story, I decided the first thing I had to do was take some precautions, because if I was going to publicly question whether the richest, most powerful people in the world actually deserve their paychecks, I was going to have to do it incognito.

當我開始報道這個危險的故事時，我決定首先要做的就是採取一些預防措施，因為如果我要公開質疑世界上最富有、最有權勢的人是否真的配得上他們的薪水，我就必須隱姓埋名。

Now that I was in disguise, it was time to do some investigative journalism.

現在我喬裝打扮，是時候做一些新聞調查了。

Why the f*** do CEOs make so much money now?

為什麼首席執行官現在能賺這麼多錢？

That's a really good question.

這真是個好問題。

And I don't think there's a super simple answer to it.

我不認為有一個超級簡單的答案。

Sorry, Dan Toomey only does simple.

抱歉，丹-圖米只會做簡單的事。

Next nerd, please.

下一個書呆子，謝謝。

Well, that's a great question.

這個問題問得好。

You've got two answers.

你有兩個答案。

That's what I'm talking about.

我說的就是這個意思。

One camp says it's rent-seeking.

一個陣營說這是尋租。

That's an economist's fancy term for they get paid a lot because they can get away with getting paid a lot.

這是經濟學家的花言巧語，意思是他們拿高薪是因為他們可以不拿高薪。

They essentially are extracting resources from the company.

他們實質上是在榨取公司的資源。

The other side says it's an efficient market for executive talent.

另一方則說，這是一個高效的高管人才市場。

There's competition to hire, you know, the best and the brightest, and it takes a lot of money to get the best of them.

你知道，要僱用最優秀、最聰明的人才，競爭是非常激烈的。

So it looks like what we have here is a classic, they're extracting resources from the company and getting away with it, versus it's an efficient market for executive talent situation.

由此看來，這是一個典型的從公司攫取資源並逍遙法外的案例，而不是一個高效的高管人才市場。

Don't panic, viewers.

別慌，觀眾們。

I've been in one or two of these scrapes before.

我以前也遇到過一兩次這樣的麻煩。

Daddy's got you.

爸爸抱著你

Now, Josh, I'll give you one more chance to talk straight.

喬希，我再給你一次直說的機會

If you look, you know, over the past 30 years, you know, the mathematical reason why CEO pay has risen so much is that the stock market has risen so much, and they have managed to just hook their pay to the wider stock market.

如果你看一下，你知道，在過去 30 年裡，首席執行官薪酬上漲如此之快的數學原因是股市上漲如此之快，他們設法將自己的薪酬與更廣泛的股市掛鉤。

See, that wasn't so hard.

瞧，這並不難。

A treat for you.

請您享用

These days, the top CEOs are making the vast majority of their money through stock-related pay.

如今，頂級首席執行官的絕大部分收入都來自股票薪酬。

This started back in the 90s when a rule implemented by the Clinton administration backfired.

這要追溯到上世紀 90 年代，當時克林頓政府實施的一項規定適得其反。

You see, kids, back in the day, America had a president named Bill Clinton, and he was the only president to have received fellatio in the Oval Office.

孩子們，你們看，在過去，美國有一位名叫比爾-克林頓的總統，他是唯一一位在橢圓形辦公室裡接受口交的總統。

That we know of.

據我們所知

Bill wanted to curb rising executive pay by declaring that any CEO salary over a million dollars was not a reasonable business expense worthy of a corporate tax deduction.

比爾希望通過宣佈任何超過一百萬美元的首席執行官薪酬都不屬於值得公司減稅的合理商業支出，來遏制高管薪酬的上漲。

That way, companies would be incentivized not to pay their CEO much more than a million dollars a year.

這樣，公司就會有動力，不會向其首席執行官支付超過百萬美元的年薪。

But there was a loophole.

但有一個漏洞。

Performance pay, which included stock options and bonuses, was exempted from the tax-deductible cap.

包括股票期權和獎金在內的績效工資不受免稅上限的限制。

Ever since, companies mostly pay their CEOs in performance rewards, like stocks or bonuses, while their actual salaries remain relatively low.

自此以後，公司大多以股票或獎金等績效獎勵的形式向首席執行官支付薪酬，而他們的實際工資仍然相對較低。

Which is how you end up with pay packages like Sue Nobby's, CEO of Coty, a cosmetics company that owns shops like Gucci, Calvin Klein, and Tiffany.

這就是為什麼你會得到像蘇-諾比這樣的薪酬待遇，她是化妝品公司科蒂（Coty）的首席執行官，該公司旗下擁有古馳（Gucci）、卡爾文-克萊恩（Calvin Klein）和蒂芙尼（Tiffany）等品牌。

Sue, who's really catching strays this episode, took home about $150 million last year, with nearly $146 million of that coming from Coty stock she was awarded, which comes out to over 3,000 times the median Coty employees.

本期節目中真正的 "流浪者 "蘇去年的收入約為 1.5 億美元，其中近 1.46 億美元來自她獲得的科蒂股票，相當於科蒂員工中位數的 3000 多倍。

Now $150 million a year might seem bonkersville, but it also kind of makes sense to me.

現在，每年 1.5 億美元可能看起來很瘋狂，但在我看來也很合理。

I mean, shouldn't CEOs be rewarded if their company's stock is performing well?

我的意思是，如果公司股票表現良好，首席執行官難道不應該得到獎勵嗎？

However, wet towels like Josh are quick to ruin the fun and point out the problems with linking executives' pay to their company's stock prices.

然而，像喬希這樣的 "溼毛巾 "很快就破壞了這種樂趣，並指出了將高管薪酬與公司股價掛鉤的問題。

You know, there are many things that can make a company's share price go up, and many of those things are well outside the CEO's control.

要知道，能讓公司股價上漲的原因有很多，而其中很多原因遠非首席執行官所能控制。

The hater's argument here is that if a stock goes up, well, it doesn't necessarily mean the CEO is doing a uniquely good job.

仇敵的論點是，如果股票上漲，並不一定意味著首席執行官做得獨一無二的好。

It just means something happened that drove up the stock price.

這隻意味著發生了一些事情，導致股價上漲。

If you look at the CEO pay of oil companies, when the global price of oil rises, their pay rises, because that causes their share prices to go up.

如果你看看石油公司首席執行官的薪酬，當全球油價上漲時，他們的薪酬也會上漲，因為這會導致他們的股價上漲。

It's ridiculous to think the CEOs had much to do with the global price of oil going up, and yet they just get rewarded for that luck.

認為首席執行官們與全球油價上漲有很大關係，但他們卻因為這種運氣而得到了回報，這實在是太荒謬了。

So it was the stock market all along, huh?

原來一直都是股市在作怪，是吧？

Always is with these types, but I wasn't satisfied.

這些人總是這樣，但我並不滿意。

My investigative bone was itching, and I had to probe this story further.

我的調查骨子裡癢癢的，我必須進一步調查這個故事。

What were the fundamental systemic conditions that allowed these opulent, silk-stocking executives to successfully negotiate such favorable remuneration?

是什麼樣的基本制度條件讓這些富可敵國的絲襪高管能夠成功談判到如此優厚的報酬？

That's right, I know words.

沒錯，我懂文字。

If you talk to the people who are in the camp saying, hey, this is an efficient market competition for executive talent, they're going to say you only have so many people who are really capable of running companies this big.

如果你和那些認為 "嘿，這是一場高效的高管人才市場競爭 "的人交談，他們會說，真正有能力管理這麼大公司的人只有這麼多。

It really is a question that I think critics of executive pay often point to.

我認為，這確實是責備高管薪酬的人經常提到的一個問題。

The question is, could you find someone who could do about as good a job for a bit less money, and have we set up these labor markets in such a way that that kind of open competition happens?

問題是，你能不能找到一個花更少錢就能做同樣好工作的人，而我們建立的這些勞動力市場是否能讓這種公開競爭發生？

My guess is there are incredibly smart people out there who would have a real shot of doing about as good a job as Tim Cook.

我猜想，有一些聰明絕頂的人真的有可能做得和蒂姆-庫克一樣好。

What, this guy?

什麼，這傢伙？

Oh, no, no, no.

哦，不，不，不

There's no replacing this specimen.

這個標本無可替代。

Possibly the worst checkered flag waving in Formula 1 history by the Apple boss, Tim Cook.

這可能是蘋果公司老闆蒂姆-庫克（Tim Cook）在一級方程式賽車歷史上最糟糕的一次方格旗揮舞。

All the wealth in the world, and all the iPhones and iPads and everything, can't give you a strong wrist and nice action to do that.

世界上所有的財富，所有的 iPhone、iPad 和其他東西，都無法讓你擁有有力的手腕和漂亮的動作來做到這一點。

But in addition to the maybe unnecessarily small pool of candidates to pull from, there's another simpler reason why CEOs end up with mad stacks.

不過，除了可供選擇的候選人數量可能少得可憐之外，還有一個更簡單的原因，那就是首席執行官們最終都是 "瘋子"。

They tend to be pretty cozy with the people who are deciding how much they get paid.

他們往往與決定他們工資多少的人關係密切。

In theory, the CEO is supposed to be the people that shareholders hire to run their company and maximize their profits.

從理論上講，首席執行官應該是股東聘請來管理公司並實現利潤最大化的人。

CEOs are supposed to be doing the bidding of shareholders, and the shareholders' representatives are basically the boards of directors of big companies.

首席執行官應該聽命於股東，而股東代表基本上就是大公司的董事會。

But it turns out these are really complicated companies, and there's millions of shareholders in each one, and it's up to a single person, usually the CEO, to even decide who sits on the board of directors.

但事實證明，這些公司真的很複雜，每家公司都有數百萬的股東，甚至由一個人（通常是首席執行官）來決定誰進入董事會。

And so basically, the CEOs are picking the people who are supposed to be their overseers and the people they're negotiating with about salaries.

是以，從根本上說，首席執行官們正在挑選那些本應成為他們監督者的人，以及與他們談判薪酬的人。

Like Josh says, in theory, at a big public company, the CEO reports to the board of directors, who represent the shareholders' interests.

正如喬希所說，從理論上講，在大型上市公司，首席執行官向代表股東利益的董事會彙報工作。

And it's typically the board's job to decide how much the CEO gets paid.

而決定首席執行官的薪酬通常是董事會的工作。

But if you're on the board and you're buddy-buddy with the CEO, it might be a little tough to decide on their pay objectively.

但是，如果你是董事會成員，而且與首席執行官是好兄弟，要客觀地決定他們的薪酬可能就有點困難了。

I mean, who doesn't want to see their boy get a bag?

我的意思是，誰不想看到自己的孩子得到一個袋子呢？

Now granted, there are tons of public companies, each with different dynamics between their boards and executives.

當然，現在有數不清的上市公司，每家公司的董事會和高管之間都有不同的動態關係。

But still, folks are def getting suspicious about how these companies decide on executive comp.

不過，人們還是對這些公司如何決定高管薪酬產生了懷疑。

For example, in Delaware, where earlier this year a judge ruled in favor of Tesla stockholders who sued the companies saying that Elon Musk's 2018 pay package was unfair.

例如，在特拉華州，今年早些時候，一名法官做出了有利於特斯拉股東的判決，他們起訴了特斯拉公司，稱埃隆-馬斯克 2018 年的薪酬方案不公平。

That judge in Delaware said, no, this process was not right.

特拉華州的法官說，不，這個程序不對。

This was flawed.

這是有缺陷的。

The board was too conflicted.

董事會太矛盾了。

Too many people on the board and on the compensation committee had too many close ties to Elon Musk.

董事會和薪酬委員會中有太多人與埃隆-馬斯克關係密切。

There's also the United Auto Workers Union, who in negotiations with top carmakers last year demanded a 40% increase in pay over the next four years, which they said would mirror the same pay gain their CEO saw over the previous four years.

此外，美國汽車工人工會去年在與頂級汽車製造商談判時，要求在未來四年內將薪酬提高 40%，並稱這將與他們的首席執行官在過去四年內的薪酬增幅相同。

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders proposed taxing companies whose CEOs make more than 50 times the salary of their average employee.

與此同時，伯尼-桑德斯提議對首席執行官收入超過普通員工工資 50 倍的公司徵稅。

But here's the thing.

但問題是

It's not all unions and socialist Gandalfs lining up to take a closer look at executive pay here.

在這裡，並非所有工會和社會主義甘道夫都在排隊仔細查看高管薪酬。

Even capitalist zaddies are speaking out.

就連資本家扎迪也在大聲疾呼。

Carl Icahn has said that many top CEOs underperform, are overpaid, and aren't held accountable by their boards.

卡爾-伊坎（Carl Icahn）曾說過，許多頂級首席執行官業績不佳、薪酬過高，而且董事會不對他們負責。

Warren Buffett has described some executive pay packages as irrational and excessive, saying that compensation reform will only occur if the largest institutional shareholders demand a fresh look at the whole system.

沃倫-巴菲特（Warren Buffett）將一些高管的薪酬待遇描述為不合理和過度，他說，只有最大的機構股東要求重新審視整個制度，薪酬改革才會發生。

Meanwhile, the federal government is getting in on the action, with the SEC announcing new regulations in the past couple of years designed to shine a light on the closed process through which boards decide on executive pay.

與此同時，聯邦政府也加入了這一行列，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）在過去幾年中宣佈了新的規定，旨在揭露董事會決定高管薪酬的封閉程序。

And yet my top secret sources agree with Buffett, saying that it's going to take a lot to change the status quo.

然而，我的絕密消息來源同意巴菲特的觀點，認為要改變現狀需要付出很大努力。

It keeps going up.

它一直在上升。

And I don't see a reason that that's likely to stop anytime soon.

我認為這種情況不會很快停止。

There's a range of things you can imagine doing to get at this problem, but they do require systemic policy changes.

要解決這個問題，你可以設想做一系列事情，但這些事情確實需要系統性的政策變革。

I think it is weird because often people think about CEO pay and it feels like a very populist issue, like CEOs versus workers, and that it is true that that is a clear contrast.

我覺得這很奇怪，因為人們經常在思考首席執行官的薪酬問題時，會覺得這是一個非常民粹主義的問題，就像首席執行官與工人的對比，而這確實是一個明顯的對比。

The number one group who's really getting hurt by CEO pay directly is shareholders.

真正受到首席執行官薪酬直接傷害的第一大群體是股東。

Ah, the shareholders.

啊，股東們。

Us red-blooded Americans who get up in the morning, put in an honest day's work, and after a microwave chicken pot pie, do it missionary on the couch while Monday night football blasts through the old rabbit ears.

我們這些血氣方剛的美國人，每天早上起床，老老實實地工作，吃完微波爐雞肉餡餅後，躺在沙發上傳教，週一晚上的橄欖球賽在老式兔耳朵裡播放。

We should all care about this, because if you own stock or if you have a retirement account, then these corporate boards, who are supposed to be awarding CEOs with fair pay packages, are representing your interests.

我們都應該關心這個問題，因為如果你擁有股票或退休賬戶，那麼這些本應為首席執行官提供公平薪酬的公司董事會就代表了你的利益。

And while there is evidence that people do care, there's also evidence that we don't fully understand just how much money top CEOs are making.

雖然有證據表明人們確實關心這個問題，但也有證據表明，我們並不完全瞭解頂級首席執行官們到底賺了多少錢。

A 2016 survey from Stanford Business School, you know the one, estimated that about 70% of Americans believe CEOs are overpaid.

斯坦福大學商學院 2016 年的一項調查顯示，約 70% 的美國人認為 CEO 薪酬過高。

To update that, we had our publisher Morning Brew poll a sample audience of corporate hardos, and 87% of them agree that the discrepancy between CEO and worker pay is too high.

為了更新這一觀點，我們請我們的出版商 Morning Brew 對企業硬漢們進行了抽樣調查，結果顯示 87% 的人同意 CEO 和工人之間的薪酬差距過大。

But from each of these surveys, another thing was clear.

但從每一次調查中，我們都能清楚地看到另一件事。

People literally cannot imagine how much money CEOs make.

人們簡直無法想象首席執行官能賺多少錢。

The Stanford survey estimated that the average American believed CEOs made just 1 tenth of what they actually make.

斯坦福大學的調查估計，普通美國人認為首席執行官的收入只有他們實際收入的十分之一。

And in our better survey, almost 75% of Morning Brew's sample audience guessed that CEOs make 100 times or less than the average worker, when the answer is actually 200 times or more.

在我們進行的更好的調查中，Morning Brew 的樣本閱聽人中有近 75% 的人猜測首席執行官的收入是普通工人的 100 倍或更少，而實際上答案是 200 倍或更多。

Which is like a lot, on a completely different scale than what most of us were thinking.

這與我們大多數人的想法完全不同，簡直是天壤之別。

So now that we all know about this runaway train that is CEO pay, maybe we can think about slowing it down a bit.

既然我們都知道 CEO 薪酬這輛失控的列車，也許我們可以考慮讓它慢下來一點。

Our companies will be a little more profitable.

我們公司的利潤會更高一些。

Our economy, a little more equitable.

我們的經濟，更公平一點。

And goddammit, we need to get Tsunami under control.

該死的，我們必須控制住海嘯。

So for Shareholders Everywhere, I'm Dan Toomey.

各位股東，我是丹-圖米。

And I have been this entire time.

我一直都是這樣。

To enjoy something silly.

享受一些愚蠢的事情。

What's the point of the YouTube endcard?

YouTube 底卡有什麼用？

There is no point.

沒有意義。

In fact, the longer we make the endcard, the more we hurt our retention, the more we anger the algorithm.

事實上，我們製作尾卡的時間越長，就越會傷害我們的留存率，越會激怒算法。

But sometimes, it feels good to make the algorithm angry.

但有時，讓算法生氣的感覺也不錯。

To do something for the dedicated ones, something for the sickos.

為有奉獻精神的人做點什麼，為病人做點什麼。

To those still watching, I say keep sitting around.

對於那些還在觀望的人，我想說的是繼續坐著吧。

Keep doing nothing.

繼續什麼都不做。

Watch another few dumb videos before you go back to the hyperspeed of life.

在你回到高速生活之前，再看幾段無聊的視頻吧。

See you at the next endcard.

下一次終點站見。