6 ms·

> 21 million per year, which wouldn't even make him a top 10 paid NFL quarterback and people are complaining about his pay for running one of the biggest compan

> 21 million per year, which wouldn't even make him a top 10 paid NFL quarterback and people are complaining about his pay for running one of the biggest companies in the world. If anything he is underpaid compared to other large tech company CEOs. People really just want to be outraged. Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! How out of touch with reality are you, if you think that's acceptable for any human to make that kind of money when majority of the world can hardly afford food.

sushisource 4y ago
But, it's a good point that you rarely hear much in the public discourse about how much NFL players make, where tech CEOs are a constant target of this sort of anger. Mind you, I agree with you on the general point, but turns out people don't act terribly rationally about who they get angry at for making too much money.
- beeboop 4y ago
  This is actually a very interesting point. I think what this points out is that society thinks an athlete who is good at throwing a ball earns their money more than a tech executive, and honestly I'm not sure I disagree. One gets to where they are with extreme practice, talent, dedication, and typically a generous portion of privilege while growing up. The other (tech execs) often get where they are by lying, cheating, manipulating, and with nepotism.
  - reasonabl_human 4y ago
    I seriously cannot tell if this is satire
vhgyu75e6u 4y ago
How much money has Tom Brady or Jassy made for the patriots/Amazon due to their leadership? If they brought 500M then 25M seems fair.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  Tom Brady did actual work for his team, a CEO does not do $500M worth of work. If there were no employees other than the CEO then the $500M doesn't get made.
  - weezin 4y ago
    > CEO does not do $500M worth of work The decision to make AWS created 100s of billions of dollars of value. CEO decisions can make and break companies. > If there were no employees other than the CEO then the $500M doesn't get made. Right, and if Tom Brady doesn't have receivers to throw to he doesn't win any super bowls. It is the leadership that can create massive amounts of value.
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      > The decision to make AWS created 100s of billions of dollars of value I can make decisions to create something all day, none of it makes any money unless effort is put into it's creation. Product and engineering and design made AWS which allowed the company to make billions. The marketing team after that.
      - weezin 4y ago
        And who was leading that effort? When executing, hard decisions get propagated to the top and leaders like Jassy have to make the toughest decisions that result in moving the trajectory of the company/project. This can create or destroy a lot of value.
        krainboltgreene 4y ago
        At best the project managers and team leads. No decision is worth this much money when it comes at the expense of paying the people for their labour.
  - mehphp 4y ago
    He isn't being paid for his work (which I assume you are conflating with labor); he is being paid for the perceived value he can bring to the company. His decision-making can absolutely influence the bottom line far more than any single Amazon warehouse worker could. Now, I'm not saying that warehouse workers are worthless or should be treated like shit, far from it, but if Amazon doesn't pay him this much, some other corporation will. That's the free market.
justapassenger 4y ago
> Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. > How out of touch with reality are you, if you think that's acceptable for any human to make that kind of money when majority of the world can hardly afford food. Livable conditions for all humans have nothing to do with how to compensate top of the of the top people in their profession. By mixing those 2, you're only hurting your case.
- bumby 4y ago
  >Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. Small nit pick, but it's a function of perceived economic value, which I think is where some of the outrage comes from. For example, someone may provide a lot of unperceived economic value and not be paid accordingly or they may provide a high level of societal value, but relatively low economic value and not be paid well.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  > Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. So what is the value there? It's almost like with a piece of art. Only because people are ready to pay a price for it, it's valued at that price. On the other hand you have thousands of slaves working for the same company, generating value you can actually touch and they earn unbelievably less that the artistic head of this monster. So sure...nice try but you have to be really far away from the bottom to actually believe it.
  - justapassenger 4y ago
    > I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. Did you ever try to manage small org vs big org vs huge company? It's very naive to think that managing dozens of people requires same skills as managing some of the biggest companies in the world.
weezin 4y ago
I'm more pointing out that people don't rage against the machine like you are doing when an athlete signs a new contract.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  There are dozens of us upset with athlete pay! Dozens!
avalys 4y ago
How many people can you feed with one share of Amazon stock? Is it even edible?
- scarface74 4y ago
  At $2200/share? You would have to work 7.5 weeks at minimum wage to make enough to buy one share.
dopamean 4y ago
I never understand the arguments against high pay for professional athletes. They are largely union organized labor. Their pays is directly tied to how much money their league is bringing in in revenue (mostly TV deals). If they don't get paid that money then that money goes to the already incredibly wealthy owners of the team. Does that make more sense?
- gtvwill 4y ago
  Well it generally stems from the source of the arguments as to why you don't just print money and pay everyone a living wage. Because money is artificially kept scarce. Do you think Amazon could maintain its warehouses if it didn't have desperate workers trying to make enough to survive? Shit no it couldn't. So why do think the boss of that company who well let's be honest could probably be replaced quite easily compared to the warehouse workers (it's easy af to replace a workforce of one man but go try fill 10'000 positions at once) should get paid so much more than the workers literally making his company work? It'd take the AVG worker 3.5 lifetimes on 20 an hour to be compensated the same as one year of that CEO. Are you telling me that is acceptable? Your going to create individuals who have wealth that would take the AVG Joe 35 lifetimes to equal. Lol folks who simp for absurd pays to CEOs are legit bonkers. Your never going to earn that. Your kids and your kids kids are never going to earn that not for another 35 generations. So yeah how fair so you think that is? How equal is that? Creating a class of generational slaves and wealth imbalance that's set to last a few thousand years. Such sustainable business! Lol
nemothekid 4y ago
>Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. No, athletes are paid what they deserve. That wasn't always the case, they got it through collective bargaining and it took strikes to make it happen. The average warehouse worker does not have this option, and the entire government/media/corporate apparatus is designed to make collective bargaining as difficult as possible. The difference between a warehouse worker and an NFL player warming the bench is that one has a union, with teeth, that has fought for his fair share.
- mrep 4y ago
  > The difference between a warehouse worker and an NFL player warming the bench is that one has a union, with teeth, that has fought for his fair share. No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. If warehouses paid NFL wages, nobody would spend like 10 years practicing for the minuscule chance they get into the NFL and make NFL wages.
  - xmonkee 4y ago
    Sure, even with a union, warehouse workers won't make millions, but a union is not going to demand that either. With collective bargaining, the salary discrepancy will become a lot less disgraceful.
    - mrep 4y ago
      I'm all for unions for the warehouse workers but the CEO also controls AWS which is a high margin high pay industry so I don't think it is fair to compare their low margin low pay retail business wages to the CEO of a conglomerate that has a much more profitable high margin high pay business.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. No, it's not. The NFL athlete market is even more ripe for collusion than other markets because there are only a handful of owners who can (and did) easily collude to keep salaries low. It took several player strikes to get the NFL to the eye popping numbers we see today, and it wasn't always that way. There is no way in hell Tom Brady get's to command a $50MM salary if the next guy on the bench is only making $80k/yr. Owners wont commit to a 500k/yr minimum for a guy who is injured out of the goodness of their hearts. You can't ignore that the jumps in player compensation happened in the NFL after lockouts and strikes. The "invisible hand of the market" isn't a force you can take for granted.

sushisource 4y ago

But, it's a good point that you rarely hear much in the public discourse about how much NFL players make, where tech CEOs are a constant target of this sort of anger. Mind you, I agree with you on the general point, but turns out people don't act terribly rationally about who they get angry at for making too much money.

beeboop 4y ago
This is actually a very interesting point. I think what this points out is that society thinks an athlete who is good at throwing a ball earns their money more than a tech executive, and honestly I'm not sure I disagree. One gets to where they are with extreme practice, talent, dedication, and typically a generous portion of privilege while growing up. The other (tech execs) often get where they are by lying, cheating, manipulating, and with nepotism.
- reasonabl_human 4y ago
  I seriously cannot tell if this is satire

vhgyu75e6u 4y ago

How much money has Tom Brady or Jassy made for the patriots/Amazon due to their leadership? If they brought 500M then 25M seems fair.

krainboltgreene 4y ago
Tom Brady did actual work for his team, a CEO does not do $500M worth of work. If there were no employees other than the CEO then the $500M doesn't get made.
- weezin 4y ago
  > CEO does not do $500M worth of work The decision to make AWS created 100s of billions of dollars of value. CEO decisions can make and break companies. > If there were no employees other than the CEO then the $500M doesn't get made. Right, and if Tom Brady doesn't have receivers to throw to he doesn't win any super bowls. It is the leadership that can create massive amounts of value.
  - krainboltgreene 4y ago
    > The decision to make AWS created 100s of billions of dollars of value I can make decisions to create something all day, none of it makes any money unless effort is put into it's creation. Product and engineering and design made AWS which allowed the company to make billions. The marketing team after that.
    - weezin 4y ago
      And who was leading that effort? When executing, hard decisions get propagated to the top and leaders like Jassy have to make the toughest decisions that result in moving the trajectory of the company/project. This can create or destroy a lot of value.
      - krainboltgreene 4y ago
        At best the project managers and team leads. No decision is worth this much money when it comes at the expense of paying the people for their labour.
- mehphp 4y ago
  He isn't being paid for his work (which I assume you are conflating with labor); he is being paid for the perceived value he can bring to the company. His decision-making can absolutely influence the bottom line far more than any single Amazon warehouse worker could. Now, I'm not saying that warehouse workers are worthless or should be treated like shit, far from it, but if Amazon doesn't pay him this much, some other corporation will. That's the free market.

justapassenger 4y ago

> Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. > How out of touch with reality are you, if you think that's acceptable for any human to make that kind of money when majority of the world can hardly afford food. Livable conditions for all humans have nothing to do with how to compensate top of the of the top people in their profession. By mixing those 2, you're only hurting your case.

bumby 4y ago
>Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. Small nit pick, but it's a function of perceived economic value, which I think is where some of the outrage comes from. For example, someone may provide a lot of unperceived economic value and not be paid accordingly or they may provide a high level of societal value, but relatively low economic value and not be paid well.
Krasnol 4y ago
> Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. So what is the value there? It's almost like with a piece of art. Only because people are ready to pay a price for it, it's valued at that price. On the other hand you have thousands of slaves working for the same company, generating value you can actually touch and they earn unbelievably less that the artistic head of this monster. So sure...nice try but you have to be really far away from the bottom to actually believe it.
- justapassenger 4y ago
  > I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. Did you ever try to manage small org vs big org vs huge company? It's very naive to think that managing dozens of people requires same skills as managing some of the biggest companies in the world.

weezin 4y ago

I'm more pointing out that people don't rage against the machine like you are doing when an athlete signs a new contract.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
There are dozens of us upset with athlete pay! Dozens!

avalys 4y ago

How many people can you feed with one share of Amazon stock? Is it even edible?

scarface74 4y ago
At $2200/share? You would have to work 7.5 weeks at minimum wage to make enough to buy one share.

dopamean 4y ago

I never understand the arguments against high pay for professional athletes. They are largely union organized labor. Their pays is directly tied to how much money their league is bringing in in revenue (mostly TV deals). If they don't get paid that money then that money goes to the already incredibly wealthy owners of the team. Does that make more sense?

gtvwill 4y ago
Well it generally stems from the source of the arguments as to why you don't just print money and pay everyone a living wage. Because money is artificially kept scarce. Do you think Amazon could maintain its warehouses if it didn't have desperate workers trying to make enough to survive? Shit no it couldn't. So why do think the boss of that company who well let's be honest could probably be replaced quite easily compared to the warehouse workers (it's easy af to replace a workforce of one man but go try fill 10'000 positions at once) should get paid so much more than the workers literally making his company work? It'd take the AVG worker 3.5 lifetimes on 20 an hour to be compensated the same as one year of that CEO. Are you telling me that is acceptable? Your going to create individuals who have wealth that would take the AVG Joe 35 lifetimes to equal. Lol folks who simp for absurd pays to CEOs are legit bonkers. Your never going to earn that. Your kids and your kids kids are never going to earn that not for another 35 generations. So yeah how fair so you think that is? How equal is that? Creating a class of generational slaves and wealth imbalance that's set to last a few thousand years. Such sustainable business! Lol

nemothekid 4y ago

>Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. No, athletes are paid what they deserve. That wasn't always the case, they got it through collective bargaining and it took strikes to make it happen. The average warehouse worker does not have this option, and the entire government/media/corporate apparatus is designed to make collective bargaining as difficult as possible. The difference between a warehouse worker and an NFL player warming the bench is that one has a union, with teeth, that has fought for his fair share.

mrep 4y ago
> The difference between a warehouse worker and an NFL player warming the bench is that one has a union, with teeth, that has fought for his fair share. No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. If warehouses paid NFL wages, nobody would spend like 10 years practicing for the minuscule chance they get into the NFL and make NFL wages.
- xmonkee 4y ago
  Sure, even with a union, warehouse workers won't make millions, but a union is not going to demand that either. With collective bargaining, the salary discrepancy will become a lot less disgraceful.
  - mrep 4y ago
    I'm all for unions for the warehouse workers but the CEO also controls AWS which is a high margin high pay industry so I don't think it is fair to compare their low margin low pay retail business wages to the CEO of a conglomerate that has a much more profitable high margin high pay business.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. No, it's not. The NFL athlete market is even more ripe for collusion than other markets because there are only a handful of owners who can (and did) easily collude to keep salaries low. It took several player strikes to get the NFL to the eye popping numbers we see today, and it wasn't always that way. There is no way in hell Tom Brady get's to command a $50MM salary if the next guy on the bench is only making $80k/yr. Owners wont commit to a 500k/yr minimum for a guy who is injured out of the goodness of their hearts. You can't ignore that the jumps in player compensation happened in the NFL after lockouts and strikes. The "invisible hand of the market" isn't a force you can take for granted.