> A whole bunch of employees worked really hard to raise that stock price, and they’re not even being paid a living wage. Some of them can’t afford an apartment

> A whole bunch of employees worked really hard to raise that stock price, and they’re not even being paid a living wage. Some of them can’t afford an apartment and live in their cars. But the CEO was only paid $3million in cash, which is a different order of magnitude in wage multiplier when compared with the lowest employee. I'm unsure what the stock distribution program that disney may or may not have to employees. I actually have no doubt that disney shortchanges their lowest level employees. But, that is not the question at hand. The company is being asked to provide equivalent wages. To do that, the lowest level employees would get paid cash + stock. That would allow us to make a fairer comparison, but it would not look like what the article wants. > Why does the CEO get so many thousands of shares of Disney stock rather than a large portion of that package going to the many thousands of workers that also helped the company grow in value? Morally, I don't disagree with you, but this is certainly not what people mean when they make these wage comparisons. Can you imagine if an employee got minimum wage + hundreds of stock? Most people would think that is the company short changing the employee. > I don’t believe the CEO caused all of that rise in the stock, and the issue is whether one person should even be in a position to benefit that much while others get a meager salary. The shareholders of disney think so. Perhaps he did not. I don't know. They are free to fire him if they don't like him.