5 ms·

at a company with a median salary of $29,000 - over 7000x. Wild.

conductr 5y ago
The median doesn't bother me so much - because AFAIK they pay well for every job I've ever known about when you compare it to the market for that experience level (also I'm assuming part-time and gig work is driving that number down) - but, I don't think executives should be making that much and at what point do shareholders raise concerns? Maybe they have (?) but it seems to me that >$200M is probably 5-10x what he should have been paid and I'm sure many other execs are follow a similar multiple.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Just because market rates for manual labour are rock bottom, doesn't make it morally justifiable that amazon workers are paid slightly above that when the CEO gets paid 200 million dollars. To be clear: my primary concern is not that the CEO is paid too much, but that the gap between them is so great. As a company grows more profitable, that profit should be shared amongst the workers, not paid out as insane executive compensation.
  - conductr 5y ago
    I get it. It's a common sentiment that I happen to disagree with. You could pay the CEO $20M and have the floor for labor at $200K and the gap is still absurd. I do believe that different jobs should command different pay and that markets should set those rates. I don't believe $200M is the market rate for a good CEO though. I believe the shareholders should get the profit as they grow (that's why they invested) and employees should be paid appropriately to their job/market. In all cases, employees should be treated well. I don't advocate taking advantage of the lower rung. Have some level of purchasing power, etc. But, there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" and the only fix is to climb to a higher level as an individual. Lifting the entire bottom just moves the needle and doesn't improve purchasing power as it just forces prices up as well. Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable gap between min/max compensation?
    - wpietri 5y ago
      > there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" Oh? Why's that? And how long have you spent struggling at the bottom rung?
      - conductr 5y ago
        Welp. I suppose I grew up in trailer parks, single alcoholic mom, food stamps, HUD paid rent, absent dad.... end up working my way through college without debt (FT job + FT course load).... what's your story? Because I know a lot of poor people and their psychology pretty well. My quoted "struggle" is because there is a distinction between real poor and bottom, in my mind. Bottom is just that and can be quite functional and the struggle comes from perception and comparing to other things/people. Sacrifice is necessary at this level. You can not get every new Apple product, etc. But that's been normalized and they feel they are struggling when they can't get the shiny things. They typically can afford housing but have to sacrifice on location, commute, schools, etc. The "$15 federal minimum wage" topic is a good example of the bottom. It's billed as a "living wage" because it's compared to current prices. However, if implemented, just moves the bottom upwards. Their position on the ladder does not change, rents go up and they still have the same affordability issues they do right now.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job market mostly deciding rates (with a minimum wage pinned to a reasonable standard of living). I don't believe that you need to have a working poor in order to have a functioning economy, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary. I think we should run the economy in such a way as to maximise human happiness, and the working poor exist contrary to that goal. As for shareholders - I don't think they should get either sole control of profit or unlimited upside. I think companies should be controlled by all their stakeholders, including (especially) the workers. After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes.
      - 5y ago

The median doesn't bother me so much - because AFAIK they pay well for every job I've ever known about when you compare it to the market for that experience level (also I'm assuming part-time and gig work is driving that number down) - but, I don't think executives should be making that much and at what point do shareholders raise concerns? Maybe they have (?) but it seems to me that >$200M is probably 5-10x what he should have been paid and I'm sure many other execs are follow a similar multiple.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Just because market rates for manual labour are rock bottom, doesn't make it morally justifiable that amazon workers are paid slightly above that when the CEO gets paid 200 million dollars. To be clear: my primary concern is not that the CEO is paid too much, but that the gap between them is so great. As a company grows more profitable, that profit should be shared amongst the workers, not paid out as insane executive compensation.
- conductr 5y ago
  I get it. It's a common sentiment that I happen to disagree with. You could pay the CEO $20M and have the floor for labor at $200K and the gap is still absurd. I do believe that different jobs should command different pay and that markets should set those rates. I don't believe $200M is the market rate for a good CEO though. I believe the shareholders should get the profit as they grow (that's why they invested) and employees should be paid appropriately to their job/market. In all cases, employees should be treated well. I don't advocate taking advantage of the lower rung. Have some level of purchasing power, etc. But, there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" and the only fix is to climb to a higher level as an individual. Lifting the entire bottom just moves the needle and doesn't improve purchasing power as it just forces prices up as well. Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable gap between min/max compensation?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    > there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" Oh? Why's that? And how long have you spent struggling at the bottom rung?
    - conductr 5y ago
      Welp. I suppose I grew up in trailer parks, single alcoholic mom, food stamps, HUD paid rent, absent dad.... end up working my way through college without debt (FT job + FT course load).... what's your story? Because I know a lot of poor people and their psychology pretty well. My quoted "struggle" is because there is a distinction between real poor and bottom, in my mind. Bottom is just that and can be quite functional and the struggle comes from perception and comparing to other things/people. Sacrifice is necessary at this level. You can not get every new Apple product, etc. But that's been normalized and they feel they are struggling when they can't get the shiny things. They typically can afford housing but have to sacrifice on location, commute, schools, etc. The "$15 federal minimum wage" topic is a good example of the bottom. It's billed as a "living wage" because it's compared to current prices. However, if implemented, just moves the bottom upwards. Their position on the ladder does not change, rents go up and they still have the same affordability issues they do right now.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job market mostly deciding rates (with a minimum wage pinned to a reasonable standard of living). I don't believe that you need to have a working poor in order to have a functioning economy, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary. I think we should run the economy in such a way as to maximise human happiness, and the working poor exist contrary to that goal. As for shareholders - I don't think they should get either sole control of profit or unlimited upside. I think companies should be controlled by all their stakeholders, including (especially) the workers. After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes.
    - 5y ago