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

I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 325 posts

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#21

Post by mcv »

johnchristopher wrote: post #13
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

Isn't money used to buy luxury things supposed to stimulate the economy that would then stimulate the job markets and then trickle down to people ? /s edit: forgot the /s

Money for luxury things doesn't do nearly as much as money for necessities, because luxury things are optional. The person with the money can easily decide to postpone the purchase and save the money instead. Or spend the money abroad, which doesn't do much for the local economy.

People who are short on necessities will immediately buy them when they get the money for them, because they are necessities. Money for the poor is an extremely reliable way to stimulate the economy, much more so than money for the rich.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#22

Post by mschuster91 »

adrianN wrote: post #20
hedonic_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Give someone earning $7.50/hour more money and it gets spent and put back into the economy like you said. Give someone earning a base salary of say 500k more money and it gets put into a bank to earn them even more money, taking it out of the equation.

I don't support trickle down economics, but it's not the case that money in banks is just sitting around in a vault. The banks actually do stuff with the money. For example it's loaned out to real world businesses.

> The banks actually do stuff with the money. For example it's loaned out to real world businesses.

Traditional loan business is not the core business of banks any more, at least not where the big profits come from.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#23

Post by tomp »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #7
chmod775 wrote: post #2

Why does a company with only 500 regular employees even have 20 executives in the upper bracket? Are they just overpaid sales people? If the upper 5% at my company earned enough to double the wages of the other 95%, I'd be pretty damn mad about those leeches. Especially if the company is already struggling.

What they have on the website: * Chief Executive Officer * Chief Medical Officer * Senior Vice President, Human Resources * Chief Customer Officer * Chief Legal & Strategic Solutions Officer * Chief Financial Officer * President and Chief Operating Officer * Chief Compliance Officer * Chief Technology Officer * Chief Growth Officer In addition their board has 8 members.

I wonder how many of these are legally mandated...

  * Chief Executive Officer - someone shareholders can sue
  * Chief Medical Officer - someone patients can sue
  * HR - someone employees can sue
  * Chief Legal Officer & Chief Compliance Officer - someone anyone can sue
  * Chief Financial Officer - someone the IRS can sue
  * Chief Technology Officer - someone that can be sued in case of a hack

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#24

Post by C1sc0cat »

hedonic_ wrote: post #16
johnchristopher wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't money used to buy luxury things supposed to stimulate the economy that would then stimulate the job markets and then trickle down to people ? /s edit: forgot the /s

Yes and no. Give someone earning $7.50/hour more money and it gets spent and put back into the economy like you said. Give someone earning a base salary of say 500k more money and it gets put into a bank to earn them even more money, taking it out of the equation.

Hypothetically here you would invest the 500k which is putting money into the economy.

Your right that socially its better for society for a lower paid person to have the $ how ever certainly in the UK some of that increase would get clawed back by reduction in benefits.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#25

Post by ForHackernews »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #24
hedonic_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Give someone earning $7.50/hour more money and it gets spent and put back into the economy like you said. Give someone earning a base salary of say 500k more money and it gets put into a bank to earn them even more money, taking it out of the equation.

Hypothetically here you would invest the 500k which is putting money into the economy. Your right that socially its better for society for a lower paid person to have the $ how ever certainly in the UK some of that increase would get clawed back by reduction in benefits.

How does buying $500k worth of stock ("investing the money") stimulate the economy? Haven't I just purchased a paper asset from the seller? I guess you could argue that the seller who liquidated their position is now free to spend that cash on something productive.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#26

Post by johntiger1 »

chmod775 wrote: post #2

Why does a company with only 500 regular employees even have 20 executives in the upper bracket? Are they just overpaid sales people? If the upper 5% at my company earned enough to double the wages of the other 95%, I'd be pretty damn mad about those leeches. Especially if the company is already struggling.

According to glassdoor: 1 to 5k employees, 2-5 billion in yearly revenue

https://www.glassdoor.ca/Overview/Working-at-CareCentrix-EI_...

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#27

Post by anticensor »

tomp wrote: post #23
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they have on the website: * Chief Executive Officer * Chief Medical Officer * Senior Vice President, Human Resources * Chief Customer Officer * Chief Legal & Strategic Solutions Officer * Chief Financial Officer * President and Chief Operating Officer * Chief Compliance Officer * Chief Technology Officer * Chief Growth Officer In addition their board has 8 members.

I wonder how many of these are legally mandated... * Chief Executive Officer - someone shareholders can sue * Chief Medical Officer - someone patients can sue * HR - someone employees can sue * Chief Legal Officer & Chief Compliance Officer - someone anyone can sue * Chief Financial Officer - someone the IRS can sue * Chief Technology Officer - someone that can be sued in case of a hack

None. You could even require board decions for each expense but it will gridlock the company.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#28

Post by mathattack »

If you take this at face value, those top 20 execs must have been extremely highly paid if freezing their wages allowed this to happen. (As math done by others shows - giving 25 people a 15K raise is ~350k. That means those top people were expecting raises of that much. Implies a crazy base)

I suspect there is more to the story. Either the raises paid for themselves via lower attrition, or perhaps came with added productivity. If you look up the company on Glassdoor, there is a lot of negativity towards management.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#29

Post by oldjokes »

pdimitar wrote: post #11
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they have on the website: * Chief Executive Officer * Chief Medical Officer * Senior Vice President, Human Resources * Chief Customer Officer * Chief Legal & Strategic Solutions Officer * Chief Financial Officer * President and Chief Operating Officer * Chief Compliance Officer * Chief Technology Officer * Chief Growth Officer In addition their board has 8 members.

What the hell is even "Chief Growth Officer"? Asking for real. Growth is either achieved organically or you are just forcing your way to a lucrative exit without bringing any value. Artificial and forced growth is toxic for the economy at large. The rest of the roles mostly make sense although I believe some of them can be merged so further savings can be accomplished.

Yes, but investors don't care about profit or sustainability anymore, always just this perpetual, artificial growth.

A million years ago when I was young the IPO market used to be the end of the bullshit, you actually had to make money and have a long term plan. That is no longer true, the fictional growth narrative is demanded over actual money now.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#30

Post by [deleted] »

rjf72 wrote: post #19

I don't understand something from this article: "Our margins had declined and our revenue growth had stalled. ... I was becoming increasingly worried about our team and our turnover numbers. We are a people business and in some divisions we were losing 30 to 40% of our teammates within a year. My HR staff suggested that we re-think our recruiting and training – which made sense – but I thought that we could do more.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN