- 46 -
(1976), affd. without published opinion 553 F.2d 93 (2d Cir.
1977).
Secondly, the question of what courts do in fact requires an
understanding of the effect of the limits of what is in the
record before us. For example, if we knew that (1) the
underlying data for the RMA ratios came from only those mobile
home retailers who provided nonsalary benefits to their
executives, (2) but this underlying data included only the cash
compensation paid to the executives and not the value of (or
current cost to buy) the nonsalary benefits, and (3) the value of
(or current cost to buy) these benefits was, as Ding stated, 24.4
percent of total compensation (i.e., cash compensation plus
nonsalary benefits), then we would adjust the cash compensation
amount upward by about 32.3 percent to arrive at total equivalent
compensation.14 However, the record before us does not include
any of the needed information as to the data underlying the RMA
ratios. Also, the 24.4 percent in Ding’s analysis comes from a
report of a 1992 study of 297 employers. The record does not
give us any characteristics of the participating employers that
would enable us to make a useful judgment as to how that sample
14 If nonsalary benefits are 24.4 percent of total
compensation, then cash compensation constitutes the remaining
75.6 percent of the total compensation. Thus, total compensation
is
100 percent of cash compensation, or l32.3 percent of cash
75.6 percentcompensation.
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011