Most C-levels have performance-based stock packages as their main compensation.

Which is why I'm saddened by this article not having any actual data (like others have said). It would be useful to have a study that analyzes the overall landscape of performance-based versus non-performance-based compensation, the share of CEO comp that is or isn't performance-based, how often C-level is awarded for good performance when the employees aren't, etc.

Instead it reads like an opinion piece with a study linked that doesn't back up their claims and just tells us the cumulative amount of stock buybacks.

But that's already a thing, and probably one of the reasons the article has so much data - C-levels ARE affected: cost reductions screw over the worker, and the C-level makes more money.

C levels work for the board, which works for the shareholders.

The rest of the company works for the C levels.

Companies go on cost reductions to increase shareholder returns.

Of course C level pay will be impacted - positively, because they know the C level is going to be shit on by employees, and they’ll need them to stay around to properly insulate them from it and implement what they want.