71–80 of 91 posts
Haven't done any calculations, but this sounds like one of those taxes which earns very little revenue, and can easily be bypassed? Essentially it exists just to stroke a politician's ego and gain support from those with tall-poppy syndrome.
The total number of CEOs this is likely to affect is zero. > According to reports, Wells Fargo, the bank headquartered in San Francisco, increased its CEO’s salary to $23 million in 2019. It would have to pay its median worker in the city at least $38,000 to avoid the highest tax rate and $230,000 to avoid the lowest tax rate. Well the minimum wage in San Francisco is $33,425.60 annually, so the median wage is almost…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many CEOs who aren't famous because they failed still got paid at that 200x rate.
Yes, but the solution is not "nobody should get paid at that rate", it's "pay people in accordance with their actual performance". If you are the CEO and your company does terribly, you should probably get paid 0 that year.
Imagine you are an amazing developer, and a company with a terrible codebase and a high risk of technical problems wants to hire you, precisely because it is aware it has problems and needs you. Then the company says "oh, and if we have any technical problems your pay will be zero." You would be extremely unlikely to take that role, regardless of the salary they were promising in the event of technical success. Every hire, including CEO's who work for the board of directors, is subject to that same calculus. If a company is at risk of doing terribly, it will often seek to bring in a new CEO or retain an existing CEO. If that CEO knows they will receive no compensation in the not-unlikely to expected scenario of the company doing poorly, they will walk away from the offer, even if they are the best candidate to potentially solve the company's woes, precisely because anyone who is the best candidate to solve the company's woes is good enough to obtain another better offer that doesn't contain a punitive no salary for you clause.
The 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…
Give them stocks. If they do a good job, they get a lot of money.
But not in salary; that's simply mad.
The total number of CEOs this is likely to affect is zero. > According to reports, Wells Fargo, the bank headquartered in San Francisco, increased its CEO’s salary to $23 million in 2019. It would have to pay its median worker in the city at least $38,000 to avoid the highest tax rate and $230,000 to avoid the lowest tax rate. Well the minimum wage in San Francisco is $33,425.60 annually, so the median wage is almost…
While it seems ineffective now, the legislation installs the knobs and levers which can later be turned or pulled to achieve effectiveness.
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if just putting this on the ballot caused a few companies to decide to move away, which results in less tax revenue for the city. This whole thing seems short sighted, and unlikely to do anything but hurt the people of SF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it seems ineffective now, the legislation installs the knobs and levers which can later be turned or pulled to achieve effectiveness.
It's likely if this passes, we'll see companies use the pandemic as a reason to move out of SF. If these companies see that the city is becoming increasingly hostile to them, why would they stay? This is also the perfect time since it's likely that you can get real estate for much cheaper in other parts of the state or even in a different state. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if just putting this on the ballot c…
Earlier 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…
"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" What risks do they or should they take to deserve higher salaries? These people typically have golden parachutes from which they'll make out rather well if the company does poorly, and they typi…
You bought a house for $100k in SF in 2000.
You hire a maid to clean it every week. The maid basically upkeep your asset.
It's 2020 now. You sold the house for $2m.
Should you pay your maid much more since your didn't do much and you earned profit?
Should you give equity to your maid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loaded question. Without the team captain, the team loses.
It also does without it's star players which is what I mean. A company needs a lot of people, but has a pool of star players who are redundant only on paper. If they really drop away, it's a massive issue. And if they drop away all at the same time, the company will stall or worse depending on size and cash position. Ofcourse the large enterprises have (ISO etc) processes in place to make everything as process-driven…
Earlier 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.
In fact, Boeing's case proves that a good CEO is worth 200x, because look what a bad one costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Some CEOs are that valuable. The question isn't "are they valuable" though. The question was "how much should they be paid". There are people in labs, technical committees and various other key institiutions who create untold billions of dollars in value far in excess of what Jobs did. I doubt Alexander Fleming made money in proportion to the value of his contribution. I don't necessarily disagree with how CEOs are…
The reason is pretty simple - supply & demand.