5 ms·

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was paid $36M in 2023. The company had, at the end of the year, 310,000 employees. So we can assume that if got paid zer

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was paid $36M in 2023. The company had, at the end of the year, 310,000 employees. So we can assume that if got paid zero, the company would've been able to distribute about $116 to each of them. Doesn't look very compelling to me, in that particular case.

enraged_camel 2y ago
Cool, now combine the salaries of the entire C-suite. That’s what the parent comment is referring to.
- nullhole 2y ago
  Also maybe do it across a few more industries.
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    Also maybe move whatever other goalposts you can find until the Marxist theory begins to make sense.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Also keep stubbornly clinging to the idea that organizing and coordinating workers is not real work.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        It is, but it's not worth the massive sums some executives pay themselves.
    - enraged_camel 2y ago
      Haha, imagine being the type of person who attacks anyone who criticizes ultra-high C-suite salaries by calling them a "Marxist".
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?
        enraged_camel 2y ago
        This has nothing to do with class warfare. We're talking about individuals who make several orders of magnitude more money than regular employees, despite the impossibility of demonstrating that they add an equivalent amount of value to the organization. The idea isn't "everyone should make the same amount", the idea is that pay should be proportional to one's value add.
    - TheGamerUncle 2y ago
      Lmao this is not marxism this is much much closer to falangism and Catholic Syndicalism. Also answering to your comment "How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?" Nobody talked about that or said that they just asked to replicate the model in more industries, and seeing the sorry state of many products, that seems wise. As someone that escaped a socialist country, I can and will have to ask you to take five minutes to enage with people comments instead of blindly barking.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  You end up with ~$2300 more per employee, assuming they all get paid the same and there are 20 of them. Which still isn't much.
  - skciva 2y ago
    Ask the average American worker if they'd like an extra $2300 a year. And yes I understand thats pre-tax. But even so, thats a non-negligible amount for a lot of people.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      I'm not diaagreeing, but most of the people working for JPM are not average.
    - dh2022 2y ago
      For whom $2,300 / year is meaningful is, dare I say, hard to answer question. Most of the people for whom an additional $2,300 / year is meaningful pay little to no taxes. However, a large chunk of these people also get Earning Income Credit. These people would lose at least part of this credit if their income increases. This question I believe can be answered by the bi-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office or U.S Treasury- they certainly have the income returns for all Americans.
      - seabass-labrax 2y ago
        Stepped tax thresholds are always a problem when they incentivise low-earners to keep their income below a certain, arbitrary level. However, it would be inappropriate to deny employees a raise based on the existence of tax levels - after all, wouldn't the employees pay exactly no tax at all if they weren't paid? The tax is also guaranteed in most cases to improve the economy of the local area. I don't know the specifics of how it works in the USA, but I am aware of 'buy American' policies for federal public spending and equivalent rules for local government. Say an employee effectively gets $10 less money, but the company effectively now pays the government $1000 in the same period. That might mean new bus subsidies, legal aid, development grants... things which make everyone slightly better off in the long-term. I think that's a good trade-off.
- Kalium 2y ago
  OK. Let's assume that the rest of the C-suite combines to give that number a solid 5x multiplier. How accurate that is is left as an exercise to the reader, but be aware that the CEO is almost always the highest-paid member of a C-suite. That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-changing money for hundreds of thousands of people, right? The point here is not that spreading the money from the C-suite to the workers is in any way a bad idea. The point is that it doesn't go nearly as far as we might like to think. We might want to adjust our policy preferences and goals to reflect reality instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite. Oh, and here's a reference for C-suite comp at JP Morgan Chase. Reliability unknown, but if accurate it means my assumption of a 5x multiplier is overly generous: https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Salaries.html https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Sala...
  - hawk_ 2y ago
    > instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite. I thought the issue with such high/concentrated C-suite compensation isn't the envy (though that may be the case for some). The issue is that just by squeezing $116 per employee such a CEO can pay herself. Like if removing armrests from all employee chairs nets you a few additional millions of dollars, the temptation to do so exists. If there was no such C-suite, there would be less incentives for pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.
    - Kalium 2y ago
      If you look at sibling comments, you'll find a whole discussion where users talk about the major significance to many people of a different numerical estimate. With that in mind, I think that for many people the issue is indeed greater employee income instead of avoiding pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.
DragonStrength 2y ago
I believe the idea is you replace individuals who solely manage across the board, with the idea management is really a part time job. That so many executives split their time would suggest that might very well be the case. With that in mind, there are many efficiencies imaginable beyond just the C-suite. And the employees now have ownership, so they have more of a reason to take up more responsibility than the current environment where employees are increasingly detached from their work, for good reason.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Huh, that sounds like taking yet another full-time job and smearing its workload across everyone. That already happened with quite a lot of occupations - thanks to "increased productivity" brought by computers, a typical white-collar employee is now also doing the job of a secretary (calendar, mail, setting up meetings), graphics department (PowerPoint), financial department (managing and reporting travel expenses), and couple other ones as well. And then everyone is surprised that real productivity doesn't seem to track the theoretical increase brought by technology. Well, maybe because most of that turns out to be replacing legible expense (salaries of well-defined jobs) with larger, illegible ones (everyone else doing tiny bit of extra work). Feels to me that your proposal would end up being just another case of that.
  - jancsika 2y ago
    > graphics department (PowerPoint) You started the paragraph with the word "workload," but here the load is about as close to zero for the average employee as one could get without being pedantic about it. People aren't using virtual brushes and learning color theory to digitally paint their PowerPoints, or even composing their slides effectively in the visual space provided as a graphic designer would in Photoshop. They are writing and revising their drafts in PowerPoint, often using the default templates or perhaps 2-3 minutes of trying out different themes. That ends up smearing all the costs and benefits of default PowerPoint look-and-feel across the audience for all these boring presentations. But I claim the cost to the employee's time and education due to them technically having taken on the responsibilities of a graphic designer are, on average, effectively zero.

enraged_camel 2y ago

Cool, now combine the salaries of the entire C-suite. That’s what the parent comment is referring to.

nullhole 2y ago
Also maybe do it across a few more industries.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  Also maybe move whatever other goalposts you can find until the Marxist theory begins to make sense.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Also keep stubbornly clinging to the idea that organizing and coordinating workers is not real work.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      It is, but it's not worth the massive sums some executives pay themselves.
  - enraged_camel 2y ago
    Haha, imagine being the type of person who attacks anyone who criticizes ultra-high C-suite salaries by calling them a "Marxist".
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?
      - enraged_camel 2y ago
        This has nothing to do with class warfare. We're talking about individuals who make several orders of magnitude more money than regular employees, despite the impossibility of demonstrating that they add an equivalent amount of value to the organization. The idea isn't "everyone should make the same amount", the idea is that pay should be proportional to one's value add.
  - TheGamerUncle 2y ago
    Lmao this is not marxism this is much much closer to falangism and Catholic Syndicalism. Also answering to your comment "How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?" Nobody talked about that or said that they just asked to replicate the model in more industries, and seeing the sorry state of many products, that seems wise. As someone that escaped a socialist country, I can and will have to ask you to take five minutes to enage with people comments instead of blindly barking.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Workaccount2 2y ago
You end up with ~$2300 more per employee, assuming they all get paid the same and there are 20 of them. Which still isn't much.
- skciva 2y ago
  Ask the average American worker if they'd like an extra $2300 a year. And yes I understand thats pre-tax. But even so, thats a non-negligible amount for a lot of people.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    I'm not diaagreeing, but most of the people working for JPM are not average.
  - dh2022 2y ago
    For whom $2,300 / year is meaningful is, dare I say, hard to answer question. Most of the people for whom an additional $2,300 / year is meaningful pay little to no taxes. However, a large chunk of these people also get Earning Income Credit. These people would lose at least part of this credit if their income increases. This question I believe can be answered by the bi-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office or U.S Treasury- they certainly have the income returns for all Americans.
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      Stepped tax thresholds are always a problem when they incentivise low-earners to keep their income below a certain, arbitrary level. However, it would be inappropriate to deny employees a raise based on the existence of tax levels - after all, wouldn't the employees pay exactly no tax at all if they weren't paid? The tax is also guaranteed in most cases to improve the economy of the local area. I don't know the specifics of how it works in the USA, but I am aware of 'buy American' policies for federal public spending and equivalent rules for local government. Say an employee effectively gets $10 less money, but the company effectively now pays the government $1000 in the same period. That might mean new bus subsidies, legal aid, development grants... things which make everyone slightly better off in the long-term. I think that's a good trade-off.
Kalium 2y ago
OK. Let's assume that the rest of the C-suite combines to give that number a solid 5x multiplier. How accurate that is is left as an exercise to the reader, but be aware that the CEO is almost always the highest-paid member of a C-suite. That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-changing money for hundreds of thousands of people, right? The point here is not that spreading the money from the C-suite to the workers is in any way a bad idea. The point is that it doesn't go nearly as far as we might like to think. We might want to adjust our policy preferences and goals to reflect reality instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite. Oh, and here's a reference for C-suite comp at JP Morgan Chase. Reliability unknown, but if accurate it means my assumption of a 5x multiplier is overly generous: https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Salaries.html https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Sala...
- hawk_ 2y ago
  > instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite. I thought the issue with such high/concentrated C-suite compensation isn't the envy (though that may be the case for some). The issue is that just by squeezing $116 per employee such a CEO can pay herself. Like if removing armrests from all employee chairs nets you a few additional millions of dollars, the temptation to do so exists. If there was no such C-suite, there would be less incentives for pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.
  - Kalium 2y ago
    If you look at sibling comments, you'll find a whole discussion where users talk about the major significance to many people of a different numerical estimate. With that in mind, I think that for many people the issue is indeed greater employee income instead of avoiding pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.

DragonStrength 2y ago

I believe the idea is you replace individuals who solely manage across the board, with the idea management is really a part time job. That so many executives split their time would suggest that might very well be the case. With that in mind, there are many efficiencies imaginable beyond just the C-suite. And the employees now have ownership, so they have more of a reason to take up more responsibility than the current environment where employees are increasingly detached from their work, for good reason.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Huh, that sounds like taking yet another full-time job and smearing its workload across everyone. That already happened with quite a lot of occupations - thanks to "increased productivity" brought by computers, a typical white-collar employee is now also doing the job of a secretary (calendar, mail, setting up meetings), graphics department (PowerPoint), financial department (managing and reporting travel expenses), and couple other ones as well. And then everyone is surprised that real productivity doesn't seem to track the theoretical increase brought by technology. Well, maybe because most of that turns out to be replacing legible expense (salaries of well-defined jobs) with larger, illegible ones (everyone else doing tiny bit of extra work). Feels to me that your proposal would end up being just another case of that.
- jancsika 2y ago
  > graphics department (PowerPoint) You started the paragraph with the word "workload," but here the load is about as close to zero for the average employee as one could get without being pedantic about it. People aren't using virtual brushes and learning color theory to digitally paint their PowerPoints, or even composing their slides effectively in the visual space provided as a graphic designer would in Photoshop. They are writing and revising their drafts in PowerPoint, often using the default templates or perhaps 2-3 minutes of trying out different themes. That ends up smearing all the costs and benefits of default PowerPoint look-and-feel across the audience for all these boring presentations. But I claim the cost to the employee's time and education due to them technically having taken on the responsibilities of a graphic designer are, on average, effectively zero.