[Natika33]

I think the point was, the excesses of executive pay (which are indeed hard to justify) don't add up to enough payroll dollars to help the rank and file achieve a raise.

Suppose the CEO of a global corporation with 10,000 employees is making a million dollars too much (by someone's standards). So you take the million away from the CEO and pay the employees $100 each.....not really material.

The really egregious overpaid execs who make the papers may employ 100,000 people worldwide. I'm not saying things are fair, but the excess money paid to execs can be small change in the corporate cash flow, where a 5% eaise to workers is bigger coin.

- Paul

$100 is material when you are broke. If a CEO sees fit to accept a raise, the workers should also get one. They also contributed to making that profit for the company. You are not a good shepherd if you don't first take care of your flock and would rather feed the wolves of Wall street.

 

[zang]

$100 is material when you are broke. If a CEO sees fit to accept a raise, the workers should also get one. They also contributed to making that profit for the company. You are not a good shepherd if you don't first take care of your flock and would rather feed the wolves of Wall street.

I've long been in favour of a legislation limiting total compensation at the top being a multiplier of the compensation of the lowest paid employee. A 20:1 ratio sounds good. If the lowest paid employee makes $50,000 in total compensation, the top exec can make $1,000,000 in total compensation. If that CEO/Board wants more money or make the job more attractive when searching for new execs, there's a simple solution; boost every one else's pay too.

 

[ARG1]

I've long been in favour of a legislation limiting total compensation at the top being a multiplier of the compensation of the lowest paid employee. A 20:1 ratio sounds good. If the lowest paid employee makes $50,000 in total compensation, the top exec can make $1,000,000 in total compensation. If that CEO/Board wants more money or make the job more attractive when searching for new execs, there's a simple solution; boost every one else's pay too.

That seems incredibly easy to loophole. Easy Example: You now hire to an arms length shell firm who acts as a contracting company, and is led by a puppet leader who has a meager salary.

And I don't think there is a way to fix this without completely neutering the business of many genuine contracting companies.

 

[asey20]

That seems incredibly easy to loophole. Easy Example: You now hire to an arms length shell firm who acts as a contracting company, and is led by a puppet leader who has a meager salary.

And I don't think there is a way to fix this without completely neutering the business of many genuine contracting companies.

Even easier loophole. They will just pay the CEO in stock options.

 

[zang]

Even easier loophole. They will just pay the CEO in stock options.

Stock options are considered part of “total compensation”.

 

[zang]

That seems incredibly easy to loophole. Easy Example: You now hire to an arms length shell firm who acts as a contracting company, and is led by a puppet leader who has a meager salary.

And I don't think there is a way to fix this without completely neutering the business of many genuine contracting companies.

If your business model only works if you pay full time workers less than a living wage, it’s already broken.

Too many businesses nowadays are allowed to survive solely on the exploitation of the public, through under pay, tax loopholes, or over subsidy.

 

[Jonny5]

Even easier loophole. They will just pay the CEO in stock options.

Even easier loophole. Get rid of the lowest paid employees entirely.
Not a new idea either, but one much easier than ever now thanks to automation options and outsourcing.

 

[zang]

Even easier loophole. Get rid of the lowest paid employees entirely.
Not a new idea either, but one much easier than ever now thanks to automation options and outsourcing.

And the difference between what’s happening now is?

 

[Jonny5]

And the difference between what’s happening now is?

It's not only socially acceptable as it was before, it's now socially celebrated.

 

[zang]

It's not only socially acceptable as it was before, it's now socially celebrated.

I'm pretty sure shareholders are the only ones celebrating mass automation these days.

 

[Natika33]

I've long been in favour of a legislation limiting total compensation at the top being a multiplier of the compensation of the lowest paid employee. A 20:1 ratio sounds good. If the lowest paid employee makes $50,000 in total compensation, the top exec can make $1,000,000 in total compensation. If that CEO/Board wants more money or make the job more attractive when searching for new execs, there's a simple solution; boost every one else's pay too.

Hear hear! I've long said the same thing!

 

[evandyk]

In many big companies, the pay grades now start at levels 4, 5, 6 etc. because all of the work they previously used to hire for at levels 1, 2 and 3 has been outsourced. Think janitorial, food service, routine clerical, mail room, etc. None of those people are employed in the business they're performing services for.

 

[turbanplanner]

Aside from being completely irrelevant and incomparable, no one says CEOs should be removed for one-time payments to employees. Companies need CEOs, it's the pay disparity and "maximizing shareholder value trumps all"-mentality that's the problem.

I've seen that line of thinking several times on reddit and even in person with people I know.

 

[lexaprofessional]

I think what people are more upset about is the absurd disparity of pay between a CEO and regular employees. Moreover, CEO pay routinely gets ratcheted up, while worker pay is held flat or increased under the rate of inflation, causing real wage decreases.

That’s what’s driving those “fire the CEO” comments.

Ironically, a major driver of price inflation since 2022 has been the tight labour market and the resulting above inflation wage increases that have created excess demand.

 

[Northern Light]

Even easier loophole. They will just pay the CEO in stock options.

There a couple of jurisdictions that have outlawed stock options as compensation. I would tend to support this. Its not even a social equity argument. Its actually a shareholder's interest argument.

The value in stock options is the ability to buy shares at a set price, where that set price is below the market price. This comes with two serious issues for shareholders.

1) The incentive to the CEO to goose short-term earnings to inflate the stock price to exercise said options to greater personal gain, but at the expense of long-term company performance.

2) The exercise of options automatically carries a dilutive effect that lowers everyone else's share value.

Its a poorly thought out form of compensation.