11–20 of 62 posts
Its sad that people don't understand economics. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella for example has created tremendous value for Microsoft over the last 6 years and deserves every penny he is paid. Whereas on the other end its kinda a no-brainer that the McDonalds CEO is paid significantly more than the average fry cook... like come-on. Again a reason I am never going back. This city is a piece of shit. Good luck with the ex…
This is going to have unintended consequences. Chances are it brings in a trickle of revenue and triggers silly behaviour rather than making anyone better off.
This pairs hilariously with Prop 22 making all Uber's low wage employees non-employees.
Glad to see this as an East Bay resident. Here's hoping it helps the already-existing trend of more tech companies moving across the bay ;-) Or, maybe the San Francisco companies will just fire their low-paid workers or shift them to being employed by a subsidiary to avoid this tax. It's funny how San Francisco often seems to be both the home of the US tech industry, and the home of opposition to the US tech industry…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong. But neither of those examples justify less than 3% compared to the lowest workers (assuming lowest = $30,000, and highest = $1,000,000). In reality the highest paid executives earn waay more then 1 million. This isn't okay.
> This isn't okay. Why not?
in the usual economic sense, you keep paying until it hits the exact costs, you don't pay too much and you don't pay too little.
Now lets think of a two kind of counter factual worlds and think of which is worse for the firm.
1. CEO disappears from the company, that marginal benefit is lost and the costs disappear.
2. Where a "Low Level" employee disappears.
I don't know the answer for which one is worse for the firm, but World 2 sort of actually happened when Corona started. "low level" employees with very little costs started to disappear and it turns out the value of these employees was much more than their costs - as shown by how badly the economy tanked from these people not being able to work. That is, it seems the value these employees bring is quite high compared to their costs... yet for some reason they are paid much less. And from just a general economic sense, that seems not okay to pay too little.
Idiocy. If they want to tax high-income people, set an income tax. Why does an arbitrary subset of other people's income matter? This pairs hilariously with Prop 22 making all Uber's low wage employees non-employees.
Idiocy. If they want to tax high-income people, set an income tax. Why does an arbitrary subset of other people's income matter? This pairs hilariously with Prop 22 making all Uber's low wage employees non-employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't okay. Why not?
hypothetically, at a certain point you pay an employee (the costs) should be equal to their value they bring to the company (the benefits) in the usual economic sense, you keep paying until it hits the exact costs, you don't pay too much and you don't pay too little. Now lets think of a two kind of counter factual worlds and think of which is worse for the firm. 1. CEO disappears from the company, that marginal benef…
Company A and Company B pay their CEOs the same thing. Company A has 1000 employees and pays an average salary of $50k/yr. Company B has 500 employees and pays an average salary of $100k/yr. Company A is taxed, but Company B is not. Is that fair?