4 ms·

Are we supposed to be outraged by this? 23% raise seems very reasonable given the average employee at the entire company is getting 7%. The raise is tied to ext

by npalli 3y ago

Are we supposed to be outraged by this? 23% raise seems very reasonable given the average employee at the entire company is getting 7%. The raise is tied to external metrics so really not feeling any need to get agitated.

nylonstrung 3y ago
Yeah that 7% boost also includes every sub-average employee of the company. What did the top quartile employees get?
spacephysics 3y ago
Agree, this feels like rage bait stats. Anyone who knows about business or at least has tried to run one understands that (typically) the higher up you are in a company, the more high-leverage decisions you make. So, if the CEO made choices that increase profit by X multiple, bumping a single persons salary (heck even a handful of execs) by a decently high percent is very different than increasing the 10k’s of employees salaries. Honestly, a 7% average (not even talking median) sounds pretty darn good given the size of them
- dagw 3y ago
  There are lots of ways to raise the avg. salary without giving people a raise. If you fire the lowest earners (and perhaps outsource their jobs to third party contractors) then the avg. salary goes up without having to give anybody a raise.
everforward 3y ago
It's basically the same issue as compound interest. Even if both groups got 2% next year, that would practically be 2.5% for the CEOs because of compounding on this. And it continues compounding from there. It's also aggravating because those numbers look bad adjusted for inflation. Average inflation for 2023 was 4.1%, so inflation-adjusted, employees got a 2.8% raise and the CEO got 18.9%. Lastly, and most importantly, CEO raises spike atmospherically when the company does well, but they take regular pay cuts, if any, when the company does poorly. It would be one thing if their pay swang wildly both directions, but it starts to look like "privatize the gains, publicize the losses". When the company does well, most of the gains in pay go to the CEO. When the company does poorly, all the employees have to give stuff up for the company though. This would bother me a lot less if we also saw "CEO takes 23% pay cut because new initiative failed" articles.

by npalli 3y ago

nylonstrung 3y ago

Yeah that 7% boost also includes every sub-average employee of the company. What did the top quartile employees get?

spacephysics 3y ago

Agree, this feels like rage bait stats. Anyone who knows about business or at least has tried to run one understands that (typically) the higher up you are in a company, the more high-leverage decisions you make. So, if the CEO made choices that increase profit by X multiple, bumping a single persons salary (heck even a handful of execs) by a decently high percent is very different than increasing the 10k’s of employees salaries. Honestly, a 7% average (not even talking median) sounds pretty darn good given the size of them

dagw 3y ago
There are lots of ways to raise the avg. salary without giving people a raise. If you fire the lowest earners (and perhaps outsource their jobs to third party contractors) then the avg. salary goes up without having to give anybody a raise.

everforward 3y ago

It's basically the same issue as compound interest. Even if both groups got 2% next year, that would practically be 2.5% for the CEOs because of compounding on this. And it continues compounding from there. It's also aggravating because those numbers look bad adjusted for inflation. Average inflation for 2023 was 4.1%, so inflation-adjusted, employees got a 2.8% raise and the CEO got 18.9%. Lastly, and most importantly, CEO raises spike atmospherically when the company does well, but they take regular pay cuts, if any, when the company does poorly. It would be one thing if their pay swang wildly both directions, but it starts to look like "privatize the gains, publicize the losses". When the company does well, most of the gains in pay go to the CEO. When the company does poorly, all the employees have to give stuff up for the company though. This would bother me a lot less if we also saw "CEO takes 23% pay cut because new initiative failed" articles.