Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 611 posts

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#211

Post by bravoetch »

afavour wrote: post #76
gretch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support the workers' decision and negotiating on labor rates is the basis of our economic system. Get what you deserve. That said, the CEO pay is easily explainable: > Profits at the struck auto companies increased 92% from 2013 to 2022, totaling $250 billion, according to EPI > CEO pay at the Big Three has grown 40% in the last decade, according to EPI If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92…

> If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92% Did you ? Attributing all the success a company achieves to the CEO feels shortsighted. Aside from anything else: if all these companies saw their profits grow by so much surely there’s an external commonality there? “The CEO did it all” would be slightly more plausible if only one company experienced that success.

And that's easy to test. Remove everyone except the CEO, and see how things work out.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#212

Post by p0pcult »

smfjaw wrote: post #96
candiddevmike wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SREs aren't on the board of directors setting the pay for other SREs who are on their board of directors though. The elite/ownership/"capitalism winner" class are playing on an entirely different level with their power and influence. Don't kid yourself into drawing comparisons with your situation and miniscule in comparison compensation. It's always heads they win, tails you lose.

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#213

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Aeolun wrote: post #192
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you hope coming out justifying the ridiculous state of CEO pay is going to go for you, but the problem is the incentives are not aligned. CEOs make big decisions... but they get paid more money than they'll ever need even if they do doom the company. In fact, many CEOs against union workers are torching their own companies to avoid a fair deal which would cost their businesses less . The only way CEO…

> having a deeply flawed moral fiber that enables you to sleep at night after doing unusually cruel things to everyone else I don’t think this is necessarily true. You might just be really good at lying to yourself.

Okay, I can accept that is also an alternative working criteria.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#214

Post by WalterBright »

spondyl wrote: post #141
astrange wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how they're counting. There was an example in Money Stuff this week where a CEO got a pay package "worth $110 million". It's actually made of stock options that vest if the share price went above $150, but the expected value was $110 million so that's what was reported. …But the share price only reached $66. So in fact he was paid zero, and he quit. (Well, $1.5 million in cash.) https://www.wsj.com/busines…

> It's actually made of stock options that vest if the share price went above $150, but the expected value was $110 million so that's what was reported. It gets a little weirder than that I suppose since you might have a great deal of shares in a company, which you never exercise so you could say that money doesn't really exist until exercised. You can however use those shares as collateral for a mortgage or other li…

Shares can and do go up and down quite a bit. I bought heavily into one tech company where the shares went down 90% in a couple months. It was pretty devastating for me.

> You can however use those shares as collateral

Only shares that you own, not have an option to buy. And only a portion of the shares, and if your shares become worth less than the loan, you still owe the money, and they'll come after any other assets you have.

> you might have a great deal of shares in a company, which you never exercise

You're confusing owning shares with having an option to buy shares. They're very different. You'll also owe income tax on the difference between the exercise price and the current price of the shares. (A friend of mine didn't know that, and consequently lost his house.)

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#215

Post by ZephyrBlu »

CraigRo wrote: post #207
kibwen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody wants to do that job for $1m/yr I invite everyone here to raise their hand if they're just as hard-pressed as me to think of any job that they wouldn't do for a million per year.

Nobody who is qualified to do it... I've worked with executives at that level, and let's face it-- most of us don't have the single-minded devotion to do it, nor the experience to manage thousands of people.

I do not understand people that believe all executive are useless and do nothing.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#216

Post by anigbrowl »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #158
econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

Stellantis has 270,000+ employees across 16 brands. I'm not saying their CEO does or doesn't deserve $20m in compensation but at some point you're going to run into a problem where... nobody wants to do that job for $1m/yr and they wouldn't be qualified or very good at it.

Maybe if a company gets so big that finding people to manage it becomes disproportionately expensive, it's time to break it up.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#217

Post by astrange »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #126
sokoloff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, without the 2008 concessions, they'd be out of a job entirely.

And the shareholders would be out of their investment.

Didn't the shareholders lose everything when the government nationalized the car companies in 2008? That may just have been GM.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#218

Post by jfghjhgfjhfg »

econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

[dead]

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#219

Post by the_third_wave »

Alupis wrote: post #74

Settle in for a wild propaganda-filled fall season. Between UAW Strike, SWG Strike, barely avoided UPS Strike, and probably a few I'm leaving out, we're going to be inundated with half truths, misdirection, selective statistics and even the occasional outright lie. UAW opening demand isn't just a 40% pay hike - but also a four day workweek (when combined is ~70% increase in pay). Nobody expects for UAW to get everyth…

Defending the excessive remuneration for C-suite inhabitants by saying they're never off work falls flat when you realise there are many other professions where this is the case. Whether this be a veterinarian who gets called out at night, a farmer who stays up all night because one of his cows is about to give birth, a mechanic on board a fishing boat with the responsibility for keeping the thing running or any of the other professions where responsibility is combined with unpredictable and/or uncontrollable event timing.

"Yes, but the C-suite is responsible for $zillions"...

Are they personally responsible? If they fail in their job do they get to reimburse the investors for money they lost? Hardly, they tend to get a golden handshake and move on to another company whereas that vet, the farmer or the mechanic tend to be punished for failure in some way - by loosing their accreditation, livestock or livelihood.

C-suite remuneration has far outgrown its justification.

> Comparing C-Suite compensation, pay scale, growth rate and disparity from line workers is disingenuous at best. They cannot be compared, nor should they.

Why should they not be compared? Why should it not be discussed whether an hour of a systems engineer's life is worth far less than an hour of a CFO's life? What great sacrifice does the CFO make which the farmer does not to explain the disparity in remuneration? An hour in a life is an hour in a life no matter your profession, you won't get it back when it is gone.

Re: Striking auto workers want a 40% pay increase–the same rate their CEOs’ pay grew

#220

Post by randomdata »

econperplexed wrote: post #8

> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…

> Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them?

Why would it?

Post reply on HN