261–270 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
40% of IT work is already outsourced and that’s a number that is rapidly growing and that’s only over a decade and a half. It doesn’t even take into account foreign employees that now just work remotely.
Sort of. There's a lot of outsourced work. It doesn't appear to have cannibalized the onshore work in a significant way.
> 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…
> Use the same framework to explain CEO pay. Sure. It's the same framework that explains the pay of Lebron James. The NBA became a massively popular global game during the era of fast growth globalization, in which billions of consumers entered into the active global economy. Now you've got like 50 players earning $30m or more per year in the NBA. To play a game in just the US market. ~450 active players earning arou…
So start there instead of making it seem like your few specific examples speak for the entire population of CEOs. Talk about the CEOs who fumbled completely during COVID despite having a great position, demanded benefits despite their huge reserves and are now crying about having to pay it back while their profits are up.
Talk about the CEOs dumping their toxic waste straight into the rivers to avoid having to pay costs. And the CEOs who push for every trick in the book to pay a close to zero net tax. And the ones who will lobby and keep almost any potential upstart from ever becoming a threat. And those who have solidified themselves in their branch thanks to first mover advantage, and can do whatever they want and still succeed despite our 'competitive free market' (yeah right).
>They deserve to earn drastically more than the average worker.
They already did in absolute terms. Percentages compound. How about explaining why CEOs need an even bigger advantage in both absolute and relative terms than they had before? Did the workers not contribute to their success?
And why are the workers the first to feel the headwind whereas the CEOs are the first to feel the tailwind?
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.
No-one is managing thousands of people.
You might have ~10 direct reports as CEO (common incident command theory says that number should be between 3 and 7, optimal around 5, because after that, you start to lose connectivity between what each report is doing).
imagine a line worker comparing themselves to a ceo. tim gurner is right the workers really are becoming arrogant
The word you're looking for is "uppity." "Arrogant" is the CEO assuming he's worth hundreds of times more than a different man.
> 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…
What they need to do is to publicly disclose the performance of their CEO. Have CEOs rated by staff and publicly distribute this info worldwide. They also need to implement clawback dating as far as a decade depending whatever products they in charge during their tenure. And lastly, always put full jail offenses directly on CEO without any plea bargain. Not doable? Then workers need to get retrenched as they rightly deserve it when they didnt bother to hop away.
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…
> paid zero > paid $1.5 million in cash These are two wildly different things.
There is an equation with an equilibrium: CEO's pay rate = (some multiplier) * median salaried worker's pay rate OR CEO's pay rate = (some multiplier) * minimum salaried worker's pay rate We've been conditioned to think it's not fair somehow, but the discrepancy is just....engorgingly terrible. I'm not arguing for how this metric would be enforced, only that it would be a good one to have. Especially in a time when g…
IMO an equation like that would be fine as long as you made it possible for CEOs of larger companies to make more money than CEOs of small and medium sized companies. There’s a job market for C-Suite employees (whether we care to admit it or not). At a certain point you won’t get qualified candidates if you can’t reward them enough, same as engineers or any other role. The answer for how much CEOs should be paid is t…
If we can hit a nice logarithmic return on investment for company size, I think that would be nice. Like many things, perhaps impossible to easily achieve, but it's a nice thought in idea at least methinks <3 :'))))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mean, to be fair, no executive is managing thousands of people. Maybe leading thousands of people, but there's a real physical limit to how many people you can directly manage.
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…
It seems erroneous to me to imply that the CEO deserves a bigger pay increase than the workers that actually increased profits by 92%
Imagine a chocolate bar factory, making chocolate bars for 50 cents and selling them for $1... 1mio per month, 500k profits per month.
Then a new ceo comes, sees that all the ingredients are vegan, there are nuts inside, making the bars "healthy", slaps on vegan logos, superfood logos, changes the ads to make the chocolate bar seem more high end and raises the price to $2 each... due to new logos, superfood text and ads, even with a price increase, 1mio of chocolate bars are sold, and the profits rise from 500k to 1.5mio per month.
Did the workers make the chocolates that brought in 500k? sure. Did the same workers make the same chocolates that brought in 1.5mio? sure. Did the workers do anything differently than the month before? Change anything? No. Did the ceo make a single chocolate bar? Nope. If the workers did the same as they did the month before, and if the CEO didn't make a single chocolate bar, who 'created' the extra 1mio of profits?
Sure, it sounds intuitive to put dollar values to each person, but reality is more complex than that. In the end, workers want to get the as much as possible money for least work done, and owners want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible work done... and that applies to everything, from workers and owners in a company to average joe buying apples (most apples for least amount of money)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone pointed out "1.5 million in cash" for not doing the job you were hired for is .. not zero. I'm fairly sure I could achieve the same results for considerably less. Moreover making compensation dependent on stock price movement encourages corruption and fraud - look at the numerous Enrons and other financial claims. All of which left the majority of those responsible enriched while destroying the lives of ot…
> I'm fairly sure I could achieve the same results for considerably less. I'm highly skeptical of that. Not driving the company value to zero is worth a significant amount of money; anyone who has worked under a bad executive or CEO can tell the difference between one that didn't accomplish aggressive goals and one that's objectively bad. If you have a bunch of executive experience, maybe you'd be able to replicate t…