5 ms·

The media would probably lose 20% of their revenue if people learned that CEO's with those monster pay packages get paid out of shareholders pockets, whereas wo

The media would probably lose 20% of their revenue if people learned that CEO's with those monster pay packages get paid out of shareholders pockets, whereas workers get paid out of company pockets. To put it plainly - not paying the CEO wouldn't free up any meaningful amount of more money to pay the workers.

vouaobrasil 1y ago
Even if that were true, they should still get less on principle. Making the elite richer gives them even more power that they don't need.
- bpt3 1y ago
  On what principle? Why should anyone be barred from negotiating the best deal they can get in a fair exchange?
  - vouaobrasil 1y ago
    The keyword is fair. The have the power to influence the government through bribes so it's never fair. And they can use their wealth to take advantage of the commons as well. They should be sent to prison, the majority of them.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      All that matters here is that the CEO and company are negotiating without one side being able to apply some sort of external pressure to force the other to capitulate to their demands. Unless of course you're claiming that CEOs are bribing "the government" to force companies to increase their pay, which would be quite the theory. So again, what is the principle that says CEOs should be paid less than a company is willing to pay them to work in that role? Should all workers decline to maximize their compensation, or just those you deem to have too much money? If the latter, what is the threshold?
clipsy 1y ago
I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Probably not, since you can't pay rent or buy groceries with shares. If the company is private this is even more of a headache as you may not see any money for years and the actual value wouldn't be firm until the sale is finalized. If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval). Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"...
  - clipsy 1y ago
    > Probably not, since you can't pay rent or buy groceries with shares. If the company is private this is even more of a headache as you may not see any money for years and the actual value wouldn't be firm until the sale is finalized. Equity in a privately held company is certainly more complicated to deal with, but if -- as per my original post -- you offer someone a substantial raise in the form of equity I'm quite certain they won't turn it down. > If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval). I can't help but suspect you are ignoring the substantial raise part of my post at this point, as otherwise this comment seems like a non-sequitur. > Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"... This is condescending and not conducive to a polite discussion. I did not ask for and do not need an explanation of equity compensation.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      >you offer someone a substantial raise in the form of equity I'm quite certain they won't turn it down. Of course not. If I walked up to you at the roulette table and said "I'll put $100 on red and if I win, you keep the winnings, If I lose, my loss". No one would turn that down. However no one would make that offer either, including you. Perhaps you are confused or misspoke, but equity is given in lieu of full monetary compensation, not given on top of full monetary compensation. Shareholders aren't a charity standing at the roulette table. Offer people to exchange 20% of their current compensation for equity, and suddenly you get a lot more cold feet.
hnav 1y ago
The company issues new shares to the CEO, it could just as well issue new shares to workers, issue new shares and sell them to the workers.
thrance 1y ago
And where is that money shareholders give to CEOs coming from? I'll one up your tautology: not paying shareholders would free up meaningful amounts of money to pay the workers.
kyralis 1y ago
Workers are paid out of shareholder pockets. Every dollar spent on worker salaries is a dollar not spent on dividends or stock buybacks. This isn't a useful distinction to make.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Sure, from the standpoint that the entire business is an investment owned by shareholders that's true. But it's not really helpful in any financial way to frame it like that. The entire business could be liquidated and paid out in a dividend if that's all shareholders wanted.
drowsspa 1y ago
Why does it matter?

vouaobrasil 1y ago

Even if that were true, they should still get less on principle. Making the elite richer gives them even more power that they don't need.

bpt3 1y ago
On what principle? Why should anyone be barred from negotiating the best deal they can get in a fair exchange?
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  The keyword is fair. The have the power to influence the government through bribes so it's never fair. And they can use their wealth to take advantage of the commons as well. They should be sent to prison, the majority of them.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    All that matters here is that the CEO and company are negotiating without one side being able to apply some sort of external pressure to force the other to capitulate to their demands. Unless of course you're claiming that CEOs are bribing "the government" to force companies to increase their pay, which would be quite the theory. So again, what is the principle that says CEOs should be paid less than a company is willing to pay them to work in that role? Should all workers decline to maximize their compensation, or just those you deem to have too much money? If the latter, what is the threshold?

clipsy 1y ago

I'm sure the workers would be happy to take substantial raises in the form of equity.

Workaccount2 1y ago
Probably not, since you can't pay rent or buy groceries with shares. If the company is private this is even more of a headache as you may not see any money for years and the actual value wouldn't be firm until the sale is finalized. If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval). Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"...
- clipsy 1y ago
  > Probably not, since you can't pay rent or buy groceries with shares. If the company is private this is even more of a headache as you may not see any money for years and the actual value wouldn't be firm until the sale is finalized. Equity in a privately held company is certainly more complicated to deal with, but if -- as per my original post -- you offer someone a substantial raise in the form of equity I'm quite certain they won't turn it down. > If the company is public...you can just buy shares like anyone else (well depending on your position you might need approval). I can't help but suspect you are ignoring the substantial raise part of my post at this point, as otherwise this comment seems like a non-sequitur. > Equity isn't a magical thing that prints millions. There are ample people on this forum that could tell you endless stories about "equity" and "getting rich"... This is condescending and not conducive to a polite discussion. I did not ask for and do not need an explanation of equity compensation.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    >you offer someone a substantial raise in the form of equity I'm quite certain they won't turn it down. Of course not. If I walked up to you at the roulette table and said "I'll put $100 on red and if I win, you keep the winnings, If I lose, my loss". No one would turn that down. However no one would make that offer either, including you. Perhaps you are confused or misspoke, but equity is given in lieu of full monetary compensation, not given on top of full monetary compensation. Shareholders aren't a charity standing at the roulette table. Offer people to exchange 20% of their current compensation for equity, and suddenly you get a lot more cold feet.

hnav 1y ago

The company issues new shares to the CEO, it could just as well issue new shares to workers, issue new shares and sell them to the workers.

thrance 1y ago

And where is that money shareholders give to CEOs coming from? I'll one up your tautology: not paying shareholders would free up meaningful amounts of money to pay the workers.

kyralis 1y ago

Workers are paid out of shareholder pockets. Every dollar spent on worker salaries is a dollar not spent on dividends or stock buybacks. This isn't a useful distinction to make.

Workaccount2 1y ago
Sure, from the standpoint that the entire business is an investment owned by shareholders that's true. But it's not really helpful in any financial way to frame it like that. The entire business could be liquidated and paid out in a dividend if that's all shareholders wanted.

drowsspa 1y ago

Why does it matter?