6 ms·

"the bosses of America’s largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home an average of $18.9m in compensation while their employees’ wag

"the bosses of America’s largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home an average of $18.9m in compensation while their employees’ wages stalled, rising just 0.3% over the year." That's the worst part of it. Companies are split up in two sections. One that benefits from the company's success while others get almost nothing. I see that in my company. In meetings they celebrate increased revenue and earnings. When I look around almost nobody except a few top guys I see benefits from that success and instead has to wonder when his job goes to India. There was a discussion here about increasing employee participation. I really think we should get away from the belief that only shareholders count but also acknowledge that employees and even the communities where the company has its buildings have a stake.

freehunter 8y ago
Man I hate that too. We throw parties to celebrate the company's financials if they're above target, but we don't get pay raises for it. Yet when the company is still profitable but misses revenue targets by 0.5%, we get told no pay raises because we missed targets and you're just lucky you're not getting laid off because we only made $9.95b in profits, not the $10b we wanted.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
  The weirdest thing about these parties is some of the gormless employees love them.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I mean, it's at least free cake. And an hour or so where you don't have to do work.
- nojvek 8y ago
  Supply and Demand. If you don’t like it, make some noise and leave to a place where you do get equity. If you think you are truly worth that money, then build your own business. AAGMF has becoming a massive juggernaut taking in insane amount of talent and sometimes directing them towards mundane causes. Quitting is always an option.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. This is horribly, horribly naive. Not everyone is in the position where they can just up and quit like that. Does that mean those people should get fucked over?
    - goobynight 8y ago
      Should? Hard to answer and not too practically relevant. It is certainly why they are getting screwed though. People should aggressively save, so they are treated properly. People also sometimes willingly make themselves exploitable, through their own fault, by adding tons of debt and liabilities (children, houses, vehicles) into the equation. One would be a fool to think people aren't looking at those to assess your risk tolerance
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Should? Hard to answer and not too practically relevant." Considering that's kinda what you're arguing for when you say that they should just quit, yes, I would consider it relevant. "People also sometimes willingly make themselves exploitable, through their own fault, by adding tons of debt and liabilities (children, houses, vehicles) into the equation. One would be a fool to think people aren't looking at those to assess your risk tolerance" No. The fault for exploitation is ALWAYS entirely on those doing the exploiting. Always. They are the ones actively choosing to fuck people over.
    - aeternus 8y ago
      Those people should not get fucked over but they should also not be compensated for taking risk.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Quitting is always an option" I always said that until the 2003 downturn. Things can change very quickly.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I love those company parties. They're so...awkward! The big shots up on stage with microphones yelling "OUR STOCK PRICE IS UP 150% THIS YEAR! WOOOOOOOOO!!! PARTY ON!" And the rest of the employees standing around shrugging or pretending to be excited as they at least get some free food.
black6 8y ago
It’s a problem of motivation, alright? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don’t see another dime, so where’s the motivation? And here’s another thing, I have eight different bosses right now.
- mv4 8y ago
  What if - and believe me this is a hypothetical - but what if you were offered some kind of a stock option equity sharing program?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    I don't know, I guess. Listen, I'm gonna go. It's been really nice talking to both you guys.
    - felix_nagaand 8y ago
      Looks like you may have forgot to switch accounts.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        whoosh
      - lkrubner 8y ago
        It’s a movie reference
      - tribesman 8y ago
        What he means is that, discussion about this is futile, nothing gonna change and life continues.
sgslo 8y ago
It seems as though there are two competing issues tied to pay inequality: 1) Increasing inequality of social power between the mega rich and the common person 2) A feeling of unfairness as business leaders take home the lions share of profits #1 is a true issue, but, let's be honest here, the average CEO's level pay isn't contributing to increasing inequality. That McDonald's CEO had a yearly take home pay of 21.7m. That's unbelievable peanuts compared to the wealth of the mega-rich. It is the multi-billionaires flexing their political muscles and exerting influence that leads to the nasty consequences of pay inequality. As to #2, I understand the unfairness, but fail to understand the social consequences of it. In other words - what harm to society is being done by a manager getting paid more than a line employee? You mentioned offshoring jobs, but that is a separate issue, not tied to pay inequality.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  > what harm to society is being done by a manager getting paid more than a line employee? Since you're being downvoted without any responses, I'll try to add my take. To me, it's not that a manager is getting paid more. It's that he's getting paid 312x more when the average worker in America struggling to afford healthcare, an education for their kids, and probably has to take in two salaries just to make ends meet. That's when income inequality is a problem -- when it's so unequal that one side gets everything, and the other is left to a battle royale.
  - sgslo 8y ago
    Then it appears the issue is stagnant wages, not inequality in pay. Let's say that all pay of big bosses gets capped at 200k across the nation tomorrow. Does that solve any issues with healthcare, education, etc? It seems as though the assumption is that higher pay for bosses comes solely at the expense of line workers. I don't think cutting pay of one party is going to magically increase pay of another party.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "It seems as though the assumption is that higher pay for bosses comes solely at the expense of line workers." Yeah, it does. Money given to bosses and shareholders is money not available to pay workers.
Veelox 8y ago
If I am reading the charts on page 3 right [0] the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that labor productivity raised ~1% in 2017 while unit costs of labor raised ~2%. Going off the assumption that labor should be paid in proportion to the value they produce, wages should increase when productivity growth outpaces cost growth. Thus since that didn't happen in 2017 wages should be about flat. Can you give an alternative reason on why average wages should increase? [0]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  >The gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation has increased dramatically since 1973 https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
  - Veelox 8y ago
    Thank you for providing that link. It seems like that the divergence started in 1973 and was clear by 1980. Do you have any ideas on what changed in that time phrase that caused the divergence?
    - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
      My pleasure! Another link from EPI explains it better than I can. >The Economic Policy Institute’s earlier paper, Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge, presented a thorough analysis of income and wage trends, documented rising wage inequality, and provided strong evidence that wage stagnation is largely the result of policy choices that boosted the bargaining power of those with the most wealth and power (Bivens et al. 2014). As we argued, better policy choices, made with low- and moderate-wage earners in mind, can lead to more widespread wage growth and strengthen and expand the middle class. https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...

freehunter 8y ago

Man I hate that too. We throw parties to celebrate the company's financials if they're above target, but we don't get pay raises for it. Yet when the company is still profitable but misses revenue targets by 0.5%, we get told no pay raises because we missed targets and you're just lucky you're not getting laid off because we only made $9.95b in profits, not the $10b we wanted.

ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
The weirdest thing about these parties is some of the gormless employees love them.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I mean, it's at least free cake. And an hour or so where you don't have to do work.
nojvek 8y ago
Supply and Demand. If you don’t like it, make some noise and leave to a place where you do get equity. If you think you are truly worth that money, then build your own business. AAGMF has becoming a massive juggernaut taking in insane amount of talent and sometimes directing them towards mundane causes. Quitting is always an option.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No. This is horribly, horribly naive. Not everyone is in the position where they can just up and quit like that. Does that mean those people should get fucked over?
  - goobynight 8y ago
    Should? Hard to answer and not too practically relevant. It is certainly why they are getting screwed though. People should aggressively save, so they are treated properly. People also sometimes willingly make themselves exploitable, through their own fault, by adding tons of debt and liabilities (children, houses, vehicles) into the equation. One would be a fool to think people aren't looking at those to assess your risk tolerance
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "Should? Hard to answer and not too practically relevant." Considering that's kinda what you're arguing for when you say that they should just quit, yes, I would consider it relevant. "People also sometimes willingly make themselves exploitable, through their own fault, by adding tons of debt and liabilities (children, houses, vehicles) into the equation. One would be a fool to think people aren't looking at those to assess your risk tolerance" No. The fault for exploitation is ALWAYS entirely on those doing the exploiting. Always. They are the ones actively choosing to fuck people over.
  - aeternus 8y ago
    Those people should not get fucked over but they should also not be compensated for taking risk.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "Quitting is always an option" I always said that until the 2003 downturn. Things can change very quickly.
ryandrake 8y ago
I love those company parties. They're so...awkward! The big shots up on stage with microphones yelling "OUR STOCK PRICE IS UP 150% THIS YEAR! WOOOOOOOOO!!! PARTY ON!" And the rest of the employees standing around shrugging or pretending to be excited as they at least get some free food.

black6 8y ago

It’s a problem of motivation, alright? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don’t see another dime, so where’s the motivation? And here’s another thing, I have eight different bosses right now.

mv4 8y ago
What if - and believe me this is a hypothetical - but what if you were offered some kind of a stock option equity sharing program?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I don't know, I guess. Listen, I'm gonna go. It's been really nice talking to both you guys.
  - felix_nagaand 8y ago
    Looks like you may have forgot to switch accounts.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      whoosh
    - lkrubner 8y ago
      It’s a movie reference
    - tribesman 8y ago
      What he means is that, discussion about this is futile, nothing gonna change and life continues.

sgslo 8y ago

It seems as though there are two competing issues tied to pay inequality: 1) Increasing inequality of social power between the mega rich and the common person 2) A feeling of unfairness as business leaders take home the lions share of profits #1 is a true issue, but, let's be honest here, the average CEO's level pay isn't contributing to increasing inequality. That McDonald's CEO had a yearly take home pay of 21.7m. That's unbelievable peanuts compared to the wealth of the mega-rich. It is the multi-billionaires flexing their political muscles and exerting influence that leads to the nasty consequences of pay inequality. As to #2, I understand the unfairness, but fail to understand the social consequences of it. In other words - what harm to society is being done by a manager getting paid more than a line employee? You mentioned offshoring jobs, but that is a separate issue, not tied to pay inequality.

ModernMech 8y ago
> what harm to society is being done by a manager getting paid more than a line employee? Since you're being downvoted without any responses, I'll try to add my take. To me, it's not that a manager is getting paid more. It's that he's getting paid 312x more when the average worker in America struggling to afford healthcare, an education for their kids, and probably has to take in two salaries just to make ends meet. That's when income inequality is a problem -- when it's so unequal that one side gets everything, and the other is left to a battle royale.
- sgslo 8y ago
  Then it appears the issue is stagnant wages, not inequality in pay. Let's say that all pay of big bosses gets capped at 200k across the nation tomorrow. Does that solve any issues with healthcare, education, etc? It seems as though the assumption is that higher pay for bosses comes solely at the expense of line workers. I don't think cutting pay of one party is going to magically increase pay of another party.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "It seems as though the assumption is that higher pay for bosses comes solely at the expense of line workers." Yeah, it does. Money given to bosses and shareholders is money not available to pay workers.

Veelox 8y ago

If I am reading the charts on page 3 right [0] the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that labor productivity raised ~1% in 2017 while unit costs of labor raised ~2%. Going off the assumption that labor should be paid in proportion to the value they produce, wages should increase when productivity growth outpaces cost growth. Thus since that didn't happen in 2017 wages should be about flat. Can you give an alternative reason on why average wages should increase? [0]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf

grasshopperpurp 8y ago
>The gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation has increased dramatically since 1973 https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
- Veelox 8y ago
  Thank you for providing that link. It seems like that the divergence started in 1973 and was clear by 1980. Do you have any ideas on what changed in that time phrase that caused the divergence?
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    My pleasure! Another link from EPI explains it better than I can. >The Economic Policy Institute’s earlier paper, Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge, presented a thorough analysis of income and wage trends, documented rising wage inequality, and provided strong evidence that wage stagnation is largely the result of policy choices that boosted the bargaining power of those with the most wealth and power (Bivens et al. 2014). As we argued, better policy choices, made with low- and moderate-wage earners in mind, can lead to more widespread wage growth and strengthen and expand the middle class. https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...