#CEO pay ratio
Text
Last July, The Intercept obtained an internal Bank of America memo that stated “we hope the ratio of job openings to unemployed is down to the more normal highs of the last business cycle.” Translated into English, this means the bank was rooting for there to be fewer job openings.
Likewise, a California real estate CEO said on an earnings call last year that a recession could be “good” if “it comes with a level of unemployment that puts employers back in the driver seat and allows them to get all their employees back into the office.”
Around the same time, an anonymous Texas businessman told the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve about his delighted anticipation that “the workforce pulls its head out of its rear when a correction or recession makes jobs scarce and people start to feel the pain or fear of not providing for their family and loved ones.” He did have one concern, however — that the government might “jump back into the fight and pay them to do nothing again.”
Even Janet Yellen, the current secretary of the Treasury and former chair of the Fed during the Obama administration, wrote this in a 1996 memo: “Unemployment serves as a worker-discipline device because the prospect of a costly unemployment spell produces sufficient fear of job loss.”
6K notes
·
View notes
Text
Time for some tracts:
"How do we create jobs?" You raise the minimum wage, because if people don't need to work three jobs to make rent, those other two jobs will mysteriously open up.
"How do we support small businesses?" You raise the minimum wage, staggered to the biggest corporations first.
"How do we reduce homelessness?" You raise the minimum wage.
"How do we make sure raising the minimum wage doesn't negatively impact prices or--?"
Prices are already rising faster than wages are, this is playing catch up.
Put a cap on CEO salaries and bonuses, they can't earn more than 100 times more than their lowest paid workers. Current US ratio is 342, which is insane. (This list is mostly about the US.)
Hit corporations first, give small businesses time to adjust. McDonald's and Walmart can afford to raise wages to $20/hr before anyone else does, they have that income.
Drop the weekly hours required for insurance from thirty to fifteen. This will disincentivize employers having everyone work 29hrs a week, partly because working only 14hrs a week is a great way to have undertrained, underpracticed staff. Full time employment becomes the new rule.
Legalize salary transparency for all positions; NYC's new law is a good start.
Legislation that prevents companies from selling at American prices while paying American wages abroad. Did you know that McDonald's costs as much or more in Serbia, where the minimum wage is about $2/hr? Did you know that a lot of foreign products, like makeup, are a solid 20% more expensive? Did you know that Starbucks prices are equivalent? Did you know that these companies charge American prices while paying their employees local wages? At a more extreme example, luxury goods made in sweatshops are something we all know are a problem, from Apple iPhones to Forever 21 blouses, often involving child labor too. So a requirement to match the cost-to-wage ratio (either drop your prices or raise your wages when producing or selling abroad) would be great.
Not directly a minimum wage thing but still important:
Enact fees and caps on rent and housing. A good plan would probably be to have it in direct ratio to mortgage (or estimated building value, if it's already paid off), property tax, and estimated fees. This isn't going to work everywhere, since housing prices themselves are insanely high, but hey--people will be able to afford those difficult rent costs if they're earning more.
Trustbusting monopolies and megacorps like Amazon, Disney, Walmart, Google, Verizon, etc.
Tax the rich. I know this is incredibly basic but tax the fucking rich, please.
Fund the IRS to full power again. They are a skeleton crew that cannot audit the megarich due to lack of manpower, and that's where most of the taxes are being evaded.
Universal healthcare. This is so basic but oh my god we need universal healthcare. You can still have private practitioners and individual insurance! But a national healthcare system means people aren't going to die for a weird mole.
More government-funded college grants. One of the great issues in the US is the lack of healthcare workers. This has many elements, and while burnout is a big one, the massive financial costs of medical school and training are a major barrier to entry. While there are many industries where this is true, the medical field is one of the most impacted, and one of the most necessary to the success of a society. Lowering those financial barriers can only help the healthcare crisis by providing more medical professionals who are less prone to burnout because they don't need to work as many hours.
And even if those grants aren't total, guess what! That higher minimum wage we were talking about is a great way to ensure students have less debt coming out the other side if they're working their way through college.
------------------
Linda P requested something either really interesting or really silly and this is... definitely more of a tract on a topic of interest (the minimum wage and other ways business and government are both being impeded by corporate greed) than on a topic of Silly. Hope it's still good!
2K notes
·
View notes
Quote
Consider these findings from a 2014 study: Asked what they view as an ideal pay ratio between CEOs and unskilled workers, Americans pointed to a ratio of 7-to-1. The real ratio at the time? 354-to-1. Meanwhile, Americans thought that the actual ratio was more like 30-to-1, about an order of magnitude off from reality.
Media That Benefit From Inequality Prefer to Talk About Other Things
138 notes
·
View notes
Text
i don't, like, truly ship tom/greg but i think they're conceptually very funny
cut for the obvious finale spoiler
“You know, it’s okay if you want to fuck Greg,” Shiv says, casually, over dinner at a restaurant she doesn’t care for but that’s fuck all expensive enough that it feels like she’s making Tom pay to make a point. He is all about pointless excess at this point because he’s fucking earned it but there is a dormant distinctly Midwestern part in the back of his brain she’s well aware of that balks at the ratio of cost to miniscule portion.
“. . .excuse me?” he asks, slowly sitting his fork down and raising his eyebrows.
“It’s not like we’ve ever done the traditional one man, one woman, monogamous once a month lifeless missionary kind of marriage,” she says, like she’s one hundred percent serious, tucking her hair behind her ears and taking a sip of whiskey neat without breaking eye contact. “If I wanted to hop into bed with a pathetic lanky idiot, I would expect you to support me. Also, also–really, what kind of CEO would you be if you didn’t molest your assistant? It’s tradition. Dad would be so proud.”
She’s smiling by the end of it, leaning forward on her elbows, all spark and mean and perfect. He loves her when she’s like this, even if he hates her when she isn’t.
“As CEO, I think I’m entitled to molest someone more compelling than Greg,” he says, defensively. “I don’t want to know your reasons for suggesting it but I can assure you that they’re wrong. And stupid.”
“I bet he has a big dick,” Shiv says, making an ambiguous waving hand gesture. “Just, like–considering proportions.”
“I’m not convinced he has a dick,” Tom says. “For all I know, it’s just a void down there.”
“I figured you’d already made him measure it for you or something,” Shiv says, dryly, popping the last tiny bite of her food into her mouth. “But, sure, you’re not fucking weird about the kid at all. No nineties James Spader putting a saddle on Maggie Gyllenhaal vibes around you two. No, sir.”
“You know, divorce is still on the table,” Tom says.
“I hope he sues you for damages,” Shiv says, happily.
87 notes
·
View notes
Text
Even the ratio of CEO pay to workers being 7:1 is funny since plenty of CEOs don't actually do any of the work a CEO should be doing
I remember this Twitter thread from an American CEO talking about how she had so much free time because what she was actually doing was making a Filipino girl do all the actual CEO work like doing meetings and interviewing employees, so she was free to do talks about how successful her company was, and then she ended it by saying she paid her assistant 350k a year but in pesos, or $6264 USD annually.
61 notes
·
View notes
Text
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said that out-of-control spending in Washington that keeps adding to the growing pile of U.S. government debt threatens to trigger a reckoning in the form of a market “rebellion.”
Mr. Dimon made the remarks while speaking on a panel at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington last week alongside former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a self-proclaimed deficit hawk.
At one point in the discussion, Mr. Ryan said that the “most predictable crisis we’ve ever had” is the looming debt spiral as the U.S. government faces increasing levels of indebtedness, threatening America’s ability to pay it back—and risking a default.
Mr. Dimon, who agreed with Mr. Ryan’s take, was asked what it means for the U.S. economy if the federal government fails to tackle the issue of massive government spending.
He recalled that in the early 1980s, the debt was around 35 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Today, the debt-to-GDP ratio is above 100 percent, and Mr. Dimon said it’s projected to reach 130 percent by 2035.
“It’s a hockey stick,” Mr. Dimon said of his prediction for the future path of the debt-to-GDP ratio, applying a term often used to describe a chart pattern showing plotted values moving more or less sideways—before they suddenly spike and vault skyward.
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
It’s not every day you see a CEO arguing for a worse economy. But that’s what Tim Gurner, founder and CEO of Australian luxury real estate company the Gurner Group, tried to do at an Australian Financial Review conference on Tuesday.
“Employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them, as opposed to the other way around,” Gurner told the audience. “We’ve got to kill that attitude, and that has to come through hurting the economy,” he continued.
“We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around,” he said. The real estate CEO also suggested that Australian unemployment needed to jump by as much as 50%.
Gurner also complained about “tradies”—workers who practice a trade, like electricians, plumbers and carpenters—and claimed they had “pulled back on productivity.”
Gurner’s remarks have since rocketed out of the Australian context to catch the attention of commentators around the world, including U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
“Major CEOs have skyrocketed their own pay so much that the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is now at some of the highest levels *ever* recorded,” the congresswoman wrote on X, responding to a video of Gurner’s comments.
WHO IS TIM GURNER?
Gurner is the head of the Gurner Group, a real estate company founded in 2013. According to the company’s website, the firm has a development and management portfolio worth about 9.5 billion Australian dollars (or just over $6 billion). The firm primarily focuses on luxury homes and property management, but also dabbles in private social clubs, with one offering anti-aging services.
The Australian Financial Review estimates Gurner’s net worth to be $584 million.
It’s not the first time Gurner has courted controversy with his opinions.
Back in 2017, Gurner took to Australia’s “60 Minutes” news program to talk about housing affordability.
The real estate millionaire complained that poor spending habits—particularly on avocado toast and other small luxuries—were the reason why younger Australians were struggling to afford homes.
“When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t buying smashed avocado for [19 Australian dollars] and four coffees at [4 Australian dollars] each,” he said.
“The people that own homes today worked very, very hard for it, saved every dollar,” while younger Australians “want to eat out every day, they want to travel to Europe every year,” he said.
In spite of his rhetoric, Gurner reportedly got help when he started out. According to the Australian Financial Review, after Gurner’s comments went viral, the real estate founder got help from his former boss and his grandfather as he was starting his business.
COMPLAINING BOSSES
Gurmen’s blunt complaints about arrogant workers may win sympathy from other business leaders.
In April, the CEO of office equipment company MillerKnoll, Andi Owen, told employees to stop worrying about bonuses in an internal meeting.
“Spend your time and your effort thinking about the $26 million we need, and not thinking about what you’re going to do if you don’t get a bonus, alright?,” she said, while also suggesting that employees “leave Pity City.”
Owen apologized for her comments after they went viral on social media. She later told Fortune CEO Alan Murray that social media allowed “a few negative people to amplify and take things out of context,” and that the experience reinforced her view of bringing people back together in person.
Then in May, Tesla CEO Elon Musk complained that workers who wanted remote work needed to “get off their goddamn moral high horse.” In an interview with CNBC, Musk argued that remote employees enjoyed unfair privileges that other workers didn’t yet. “You’re going to make people who make your food that gets delivered—they can’t work from home?” Musk asked.
Despite the loud rhetoric from some CEOs, the remote work debate between bosses and workers may be settling into a truce. Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies tracked by remote work platform Scoop are settling into a hybrid work system.
“A lot of the coverage and discussion is on the CEOs who are pushing really hard on full time in office, and there are a lot of readers interested in that,” Scoop CEO Rob Sadow tells Fortune. “But in reality, employees and employers are less far apart than it may seem.”
#us politics#world politics#economics#economy#fortune#news#2023#Tim Gurner#Gurner Group#Australian Financial Review#unemployment#remote work#work from home#workers rights#working class#trade workers#anti-aging services#productivity#affordable housing#MillerKnoll#Andi Owen#raises#bonuses#Elon Musk#tesla#Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#worker solidarity#eat the rich#tax the rich#tax the billionaires
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
What do you think are the chances SM will drop out of the big 4 eventually soon? All I hear about them recently is how the company CEOs are milking it for all they can without care, I know big ships sink longer but it can't last forever, and Kakao doesn't seem to do SM much good too. Both companies are quite a pair to be honest, lawsuits, investigations and all, Bang PD must be happy he left that disaster for Kakao to deal with 😁 I wonder how SM falling apart would influence the entertainment industry.
***
“eventually soon” feels like an oxymoron lol, but I’ll assume you mean anytime in the next 5 years.
So what are the chances SM drops out?
My gut feeling is 0%. (With a caveat in point 3). SM is still going to be a prominent company in this space for the next 5 years for three reasons.
1. K-pop stans. That company has lasted this long because it’s perfected the model of k-pop - gamifying music consumption - on the largest swarth of fans for the longest time, longer than any other k-pop company. In fact I’d say you’ve not really met a company stan until you’ve met an SM stan because those creatures are the blueprint. Like, I see the way they move, decades later, and feel some respect for Lee Sooman because he’s created a formidable army that’s kept his company rolling through cultism scandals, a government subpoena, an Interpol indictment, several lawsuits from idols under his management, and a HYBE takeover… for starters.
SM dominated 1st and 2nd gen k-pop (alongside YG and JYP for 2nd gen) and a lot of k-pop stans who got in back then were pre-teens and teens. K-pop dominated by SM wasn’t just a hobby for those people, it was their childhood. And they cherish it as such, which also means bias on SM generally skews the way you’d expect. Many 1st and 2nd gen k-pop stans are still very active, they’ve grown up now and are no longer the pre-teens lost in the lights learning about Girls Generation. No. Now, those stans are now the ‘tastemakers’ of k-pop spaces. Much of the mythos around the Big 3 is created and actively sustained by this group of k-pop stans. They are the people you’d typically see being k-pop ‘journalists’ today, they run the main podcasts on k-pop, they moderate the main k-pop forums both in Korea and internationally, and so on. They play a significant part in driving ‘consensus k-pop’ opinions (though ARMYs seem to also make sure they have a voice). K-pop stans will be the first people to tell you how much they “hate” SM for being so shitty in treating their idols, but the bias towards SM in k-pop spaces is implicit. And no, it’s not because of the ‘vocals’.
2. SM’s cost base is low: (I rambled a lot in the first point and now jet lag is kicking in so I’ll try to keep this point brief.) SM spends next to nothing on their staff and talent. Part of the reason HYBE and Kakao could acquire them relatively easily last year, was because that company has next to no cost base, compared to other Big 4 companies. Almost every costing ratio has SM at the bottom compared to peers (excluding legal fees and other non-operating costs); on Korean blinds their employees self-report being the lowest paid among the Big4; Black composers SM hires have reported to The Guardian that the company doesn’t pay them… My point being, even if half of SM’s idol roster stopped putting out music for 1 year, the company’s cost base is so low that they’d still be afloat. Aside from all the auxiliary businesses SM is involved in (they also own hotels in Korea and other businesses), the company is more nimble than it seems at first glance and just needs a bit more time to get stable again.
Which brings me to my 3rd point.
3. New Groups. By this time next year I expect at least one of three things to have happened to SM. I’ll list two. (1) There’s M&A with a Western music label, and (2) SM (as a standalone entity) are back at the topline ratios they were at in 2019. Scenario 2 is already feasible with SM’s Moon&Back partnership, the new girl group debuting in 2024/2025, and RIIZE maintaining their current momentum, even as NCT begins enlisting this year. Nothing revives a company like SM better than new blood, and after the last few years of stagnation, SM is likely to see significant growth from those projects.
I agree with you that nothing lasts forever, empires rise and fall and HYBE will too at some point. And so eventually, SM as we know it will cease to exist. But I’m not expecting it to be anytime soon, save the caveats in point 3.
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Inquisition pays poverty wages
I have a rant that might be relevant to your interests. :)
In Dragon Age Absolution, a mage working for the Inquisition refers to five gold as "a month's wages."
Let's consider what we know about in-game prices and purchasing power parity.
One of the lowest armors you can craft in DAI is an Apprentice Coat and that schematic requires 11 cloth. The cheapest cloth is cotton and the cheapest price you can buy cotton from a merchant is 20 gold each, so 220 gold for 11 pieces.
If the Inquisition only pays 5 gold per month -- and let's assume that room and board at Skyhold are free -- someone would have to work for the Inquisition for ALMOST FOUR YEARS to save up enough money to buy enough cloth to make a SINGLE outfit.
Even if we make the generous assumption that basic mage armor is the equivalent of a $5,000 Prada suit, even if we assume that the labor to sew the cloth into armor is included in the materials cost since we're not charged any fees while crafting, that's still only $113.64/month.
That means that adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Inquisition pays our employees the equivalent of LESS THAN A DOLLAR AN HOUR.
What. The. Fuck. Josie!
And the CEO-to-employee income ratio is insane. As Inquisitor, I eventually spent enough gold to collect every mount, clean out the entire stock of Dragon Bone at both the Black Emporium and the Legion of the Dead Camp, buy several ranks worth of influence, and blow 10,000 on the mystery box just to find out what was inside. To afford all that, I must have made at least 150,000 gold. That's 2,500 times the annual salary of one of my employees!
No wonder the Inquisition gets infiltrated by so many spies and traitors. If you pay poverty wages then you shouldn't expect employee loyalty, nor be surprised when your employees take on side gigs for extra money.
IDK why tumblr won't let me indent your submitted text normally. Sorry about the shitty formatting.
Anyway I wouldn't read too much into it. Also, we don't know if Qwydion was specifically referring to wages of the Inquisition - she might have just been talking about the general Thedosian economy.
97 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ko-Fi prompt from @kayasurin:
Economy topic - Trickle Down Economics, why they work/don't work
HI it's been two months since I got this prompt, so. Sorry about that. been a lot going on in my personal life, so let's hope this makes up for the wait.
(To anyone who was considering doing a ko-fi prompt... I promise to get to them, but I cannot promise a reasonable time frame, sorry.)
So, Trickle-down economics, and if they work.
Short answer: They absolutely don't.
Longer answer that you actually paid for:
Trickle-down is basically a propaganda-driven hustle that rich people run against the working class. It's an economic theory that is known to not function, but since it serves the people up top to keep pushing it, we still have to deal with people pretending it's a real thing.
The basic concept of it is that if the capitalists at the top are allowed to retain more money (less taxes), then that money will naturally find its way lower down the pyramid through natural market forces. If a wealthy individual is allowed to keep an extra 50% of their marginal income, then the bulk of that 50% will go into their businesses, reinvested to generate more wealth by purchasing new equipment, running R&D, and paying more money to more workers. By not paying the taxes, they wealthiest classes can direct their money as they see fit, so really they don't end up with any more money than they would have if they paid their taxes!
As you can guess, this is not what actually happens in almost every possible application of the theory.
First, let's address the concept of marginal tax rates. They get a lot of hate, but I find this infographic explains the reality best:
(source: This post, but originally from Kasia Babis on The Nib/@thenib)
To summarize for those using a screen reader:
Let's say you earn 50k every year, and we're not going to bother with currency, because this is a simplified explanation. In this scenario, there is a national/federal income tax of approximately 20%. With that, you give 10k to the government, and retain 40k for your own purposes.
You have a neighbor who makes 500k every year. In this hypothetical, a marginal tax rate applies to earnings over 100k. The marginal tax rate is 70%. What does that mean for your neighbor?
They pay 20% on the 100k, which is 20k. Then they pay 70% on the remaining 400k, which is 280k. Combining the base tax and marginal, they are taxed 300k.
At the end of the day, they are left with 200k. The total tax on their income is 60%. If you're following along, you can tell that regardless of the final percentage, anyone that the marginal tax applies to is always going to get to keep at least 80k, the amount left of the pay that is taxed at the base rate.
The more you earn, the more you are taxed. Again, this is super simplified, but this is the most basic way marginal taxation works. (Tax brackets are related but not entirely the same thing.)
With a marginal tax, exorbitant wealth is curtailed by forcing that wealth back into the system. The understanding is that nobody can actually perform hundreds of times more labor than their lowest-paid worker, and so all that surplus income was in some way not distributed properly. They get to keep enough to live on, quite comfortably, but not all of it.
There may be some companies that are willing to cap their highest wages in relation to their lowest, but those are far and few between. There's a reason the average ratio of CEO to entry level worker in the US is nearly 400:1... up from 1965's 20:1. (source)
Trickle-down theorizes that, if allowed to keep that exorbitant wealth, the Capitalists will distribute that wealth back to their workers or reinvest it into productive enterprise, and do so in response to market forces or out of fear of a return of the marginal tax.
This is not what happens, basically ever. People do not earn that much money if they are already paying a living wage and distributing wealth properly. You cannot get exorbitantly wealthy through anything other than wage theft, system abuse, or capital-based market manipulation (see: hedge funds, housing market).
I suppose you could inherit the money, or win the lottery, but the latter is actually taxed higher than the former, believe it or not. The United States federal government doesn't have an inheritance tax, and most states also don't. There might be various legal fees and such, but not any actual taxes.
Where we end up is that those taxes the rich don't have to pay go instead towards 'passive income' schemes and market manipulation like the housing market.
(That is an entire separate rant, but yeah, most of the housing market at that income bracket is, to some degree, deliberately manipulated by those involved in it. We are all 100% watching for that bubble burst that is inevitably heading our way.)
The wealth does not trickle down to the workers. It is guided by those who have it, and they are significantly more likely to put it in foreign bank accounts, liquid assets, and real estate that they hope will gain value for a capital gain at sale.
Trickle-down economics relies on the goodwill of the wealthy, but almost nobody gets that wealthy by having goodwill to spare.
(Prompt me on ko-fi!)
259 notes
·
View notes
Text
from this AP News article, printed Sept. 17, 2023...
"...However you slice the numbers, the gap between CEO pay and rank-and-file workers at all three companies is gigantic.
At GM, the median worker pay was $80,034 in 2022. It would take that worker 362 years to make Barra’s annual compensation.
At Ford, where the media pay $74, 691, it would take 281 years.
At Stellantis, with a median pay of 64,328 euros, it would take 365 years, although the company noted its its annual report that the disparity includes expenses related to Tavares’ one-time grant. Excluding that, the pay ratio is 298-1.
How extreme that disparity? It depends on the comparison.
It’s far above the typical pay gap at S&P 500 companies, which was 186-1 according to AP’s annual CEO pay survey, which uses data analyzed by Equilar.
And it’s astronomical by historical standards. According to a study of the 350 largest publicly traded U.S. firms by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, the CEO-to-Worker pay ratio was just 15-1 in 1965...
...for that worker to make Musk’s “realized compensation” that year, it would take more than 18,000 years."
tl/dr...
'gigantic' and 'far above' and 'astronomical' differences between CEO compensation and workers salaries says it all
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
here's a fun game some articles play with numbers:
In November 2021, it was announced that Spotify co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek’s investment company Prima Materia had invested €100 million ($114 million USD) in Helsing, an artificial intelligence company based out of Europe that assists in military technological ventures. Helsing’s AI technology is reported to assist with battlefield operations, helping to identify and assess multiple collected forms of data via sensors in order to assemble a picturesque viewpoint which military agents could then use at their discretion.
Why would the CEO of a company whose purpose was to provide instant access to music use its profits to fund efforts of war? Although a report by Marie Charlotte Götting published on Statista stated that in 2021, 73.2 percent of Spotify’s revenue” “went mainly towards royalty payments towards music rightsholders and other fees”, the payout to individual artists who do not have big names are often miniscule. The scale of Ek’s investment in Helsing cuts deep to artists operating within Spotify’s payment distribution model.
the article is clearly trying to imply that if it wasn't for the $114M investment, spotify would have way more money to pay towards the small artists. but my thought was "hmm, spotify's a big tech company, right?" and i noticed that it doesn't compare the investment to revenue.
spotify's 2022 revenue was 11.7B euros. 100 million euros is 1% of that. which, it's not nothing, but it's still just... 1%. it doesn't "cut deep" in any meaningful sense.
anyway the lesson from this is whenever anyone is bringing up Big Number and implicitly comparing it to another number without bringing up the actual sizes (or ratios), double check how big the other number is
this is separate from object-level statements: spotify is fucking terrible at paying artists! if you want to support them you're far better off just buying an album! but it's not like this 1% of their revenue is the reason they're terrible.
9 notes
·
View notes
Link
David Zaslav—Warner Bros. Discovery, $246 million
Fabrizio Freda—Estée Lauder, $66 million
Jay Snowden—Penn National Gaming, $65.9 million
Patrick Gelsinger—Intel, $178.6 million
Glenn Fogel—Booking Holdings, $54 million
William McDermott—ServiceNow’s, $165.8 million
Robert Goldstein—Las Vegas Sands, $31.2 million
James Dimon—JPMorgan Chase & Co., $84.4 million
Andy Jassy—Amazon, $212.7 million
Tim Cook—Apple, $98.7 million
Ain't NUTHIN a human being can do to deserve that much money, and that includes finding a cure for cancer!!! Crony capitalism that benefits the few, not the many is exactly why Christ said rich men are gonna have a hard time making it to Heaven. Not that most of these yukaloons care anyway!
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
The CEO to worker pay ratio 524-to-1, but actually, you're the problem
#bank of america & wells fargo among bank ceos pushing back on new regulations after warning of impact on customers#fuck ceos#ceo steve rogers#ceos#ceomindset#best buy to focus promotions on struggling shoppers as ceo hopes ‘deals for all budgets’ will bring customers back#’ dollar general ceo casts doubt over self checkouts & reveals store changes coming#bank of america ceo has good news for ‘yolo spenders’ – but the warning cracks beginning to show mean change must happen#ceo#ausgov#politas#auspol#tasgov#taspol#australia#fuck neoliberals#neoliberal capitalism#anthony albanese#albanese government#jerktrillionaires#jerkbillionaires#jerkmillionaires#class war#eat the rich#eat the fucking rich#capitalism#slavery#wage slavery#antiwork#anti slavery
5 notes
·
View notes
Photo
These are obviously fake, but I know people fall for it, so just for those unaware of how these are fake, let’s go through one as an example:
Amazon: 6,474 to 1 ($212m to $33k)
Worker pay’s calculation includes part-time workers' compensation
CEOs work significantly more hours than most positions, so even among full time workers, the hourly variation is ignored.
CEO compensation includes stock options, yet median employees’ compensation does not (despite many employees receiving stock options).
Amazon is notorious for giving first year and second year sign-on bonuses to corporate employees (engineers, sales, marketing, accounting, finance, etc.) to substitute for initial year low vesting rates, which this also ignores for the worker’s pay calculation.
They are including 10 years worth of stock options for CEO compensation, yet using annual amounts. To put this into perspective, the CEO base pay is $175k and stock awards would be closer to $8.5m for 2022, which would be 262 to 1 ratio, but if you compared base wages between the two (which is how they calculated the worker pay), it would be a 5 to 1 ratio.
It’s important to also emphasize that stock options aren’t guaranteed for value, if Amazon stock depreciates in value, then so will his total stock value. Conversely, they can appreciate in value and go up, but this is still worse than direct cash payments because cash payments can be converted to Amazon stock or any other stock.
They are including the aggregate incremental cost to Amazon of security arrangements in addition to security arrangements provided at
business facilities and for business travel, which is a reporting requirement for executive compensation disclosures.
#Capitalism#Socialism#Politics#Anticapitalism#Antisocialism#Wage#Wage Gap#Eat the Rich#Minimum Wage#Living Wage#Affordable Education#Affordable Healthcare#Free Education#Free Healthcare#Student Loans
40 notes
·
View notes
Note
ngl i don't particularly like or care about really any of the CEOs or TPs but i would pay real money for toto to take zak up on that boxing match in vegas that zak was for whatever reason proposing today. for reasons i won't disclose but that was the one intelligent thing zak said today. that IS the entertainment i want.
Honestly same.
The most I will say about a TP is I think Toto is good looking.....but that might be the height and shoulder to waist ratio
I would pay EVERYTHING. I would sell my sister (she won't see this it's fine) for Toto to absolutel DESTROY Zak
I think we deserve this. We need this
10 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
korzagru
@korzagru
cindacarr782228-blog
What You Havent Read Anything About products
women-health
Untitled
lucio46e396934-blog
Weight Loss Plateaus - 4 Ninja Tricks To Beat Them
kina-axian
Untitled