The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.
Take it up with your company. If you can't change it then leave and become your own CEO?..
San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
21–30 of 91 posts
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…
> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…
Obviously there’s more reasons to backstab when the pay is hundreds of times that of a regular employee
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#23The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.
Well some CEO's maybe should; I don't know how it is to run companies with 50000+ employees; as a long term CTO myself, I look to work with CEO's who are not greedy and spread the wealth with the employees and who are not just out there to buy jets and ferrari's. (Actually, I have a natural aversion to people who buy sportscars with their wealth as I find it rancid and decadent in this day-and-age, but that's another story. Also probably because I'm Dutch and know many very rich people over there who drive shit cars, live in small houses and go by car and caravan to France on vacation.)
I do see why CEO's (and all c-level if they are founders, have board seats, are early investors, have a high amount of %) should be compensated well over employees; they take the risks. Or rather; they should take the risks. If times are bad, I am looking to work with people who cut their own salary or reinvest to keep the employees and not just throw everyone out and take the bonus and then close up shop (which seems to happen a lot with startups right now).
200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees. Like said; no idea how it works at real enterprises, but in companies I see with few 100 to few 1000 people; I can walk around and remove a few dozen people (employees) and the entire company will grind to a halt. There are always vital things that are governed by a few (early?) employees which, if removed, are extremely hard to replace. This means that at least those employees cannot earn 200x less than the CEO, not 100x less either.
I saw a post on Twitter a few days ago about those kind of employees of these kind of companies starting a company together, resigning and then having the new company acqui-hired by the old company for many millions. That's how you should handle that situation if you have a CEO that is that greedy indeed.
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#24The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.
Why? In Japan my CEO gets paid $1 million year and I make $50k a year. (20x) In the USA my CEO gets paid $60 million and I get paid $300k a year (200x)
I'd much rather have the CEO getting paid 200x
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…
> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…
>You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time
Your average retail worker is responsible for following confusing sets of rules that are rarely fully modeled, if even fully understood, while working under cameras that are selectively and obliquely monitored. If someone wants them fired, or the place just needs to reduce staff, providing a justification is very low-effort.
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…
> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…
[deleted]
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#27Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#28The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.
Well some CEO's maybe should; I don't know how it is to run companies with 50000+ employees; as a long term CTO myself, I look to work with CEO's who are not greedy and spread the wealth with the employees and who are not just out there to buy jets and ferrari's. (Actually, I have a natural aversion to people who buy sportscars with their wealth as I find it rancid and decadent in this day-and-age, but that's another…
> 200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees.
Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world. Apple had a series of CEOs before Jobs that didn't.
Essentially, the CEO decides which hill to climb. The right hill, the company makes $$$. The wrong hill, the company languishes. That's worth a heckuva lot of money. Nobody else in the company has that kind of influence over its fortunes.
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well some CEO's maybe should; I don't know how it is to run companies with 50000+ employees; as a long term CTO myself, I look to work with CEO's who are not greedy and spread the wealth with the employees and who are not just out there to buy jets and ferrari's. (Actually, I have a natural aversion to people who buy sportscars with their wealth as I find it rancid and decadent in this day-and-age, but that's another…
> 200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees. Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world. Apple had a series of CEOs before Jobs that didn't. Essentially, the CEO decides which hill to climb. The right hill, the company makes $$$. The wrong hill, the company languishes. That's worth a h…
That's just cherry-picking one particular case with a positive outcome. The last few Boeing CEOs were also paid tens of millions per year and ended up running the company (and two planes) into the ground.
Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees. Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world. Apple had a series of CEOs before Jobs that didn't. Essentially, the CEO decides which hill to climb. The right hill, the company makes $$$. The wrong hill, the company languishes. That's worth a h…
That's just cherry-picking one particular case with a positive outcome. The last few Boeing CEOs were also paid tens of millions per year and ended up running the company (and two planes) into the ground.
Yes, but this is in response to "nobody should make 200x their employees".
But it's really not that simple. Some CEOs are that valuable. Some are not. You need to figure out if they're a Boeing CEO or a Steve Jobs and compensate them accordingly.