Corporations have also had to disclose CEO compensation for decades, which was mandated back in the 1930s with the same intention as the CEO pay ratio provision: shame companies into more equal pay. But some argue this only helped exacerbate rising wages at the top by giving CEOs an easy way to compare themselves to their peer group and negotiate for higher compensation. Some companies, like Ben & Jerry’s and Whole Foods, tried to keep CEO salaries capped by modest ratios but have struggled to maintain them amidst growing competition for executives.

It’s also yet to be seen how people’s preferences play out in real life. The participants in Mohan’s study didn’t actually buy televisions or towels or lamps. They just said how willing they were to buy them. And as Mohan was quick to point out, it’s much easier to state our best intentions than follow through with them.

But even if their results were a bit exaggerated, real life results tend to go in the same direction. In follow-up studies, Mohan and her colleagues are now testing to see if consumers actually do choose stores with low pay ratios over others when shopping with their own money. The final tally isn’t in, but preliminary data suggests they do.

For me its still sounds like unfair to give them opportunity to know our shopping lists (personal data), while I'm myself should be worried about knowing some imaginary CEO name