These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m
A good reason to have laws regulating the maximum pay gap between executive and the lowest paid peon. And make sure to include all types of pay like stock options so companies can’t squirm out of it.
Sounds great, and sure might as well pass it, but there’s a lot of ways to get around it
- Shell companies
- TC in stock/bonuses
- Outsourcing to contractors
- Utilizing foreign jurisdictions
Ok, let’s do it anyway and make them work for their wealth. Instead of doing nothing, and letting them also do nothing to keep their wealth.
There are solutions for all of those loopholes, but it will hurt our congresspeople’s investments so it will get shot down
deleted by creator
Income tax is just fine thanks.
deleted by creator
37% federal plus 5-10% state, plus additional Medicare tax and 3.8% investment income tax and a bunch of others, not good enough for you? That’s literally approaching 50% what’s your problem?
I fail to see the problem with your statement.
50% when you are Uber rich isn’t even that much. In plenty of countries you have that at a much lower level of income. Perfectly doable and fine
So crank it up to 60, 70, or 99%! You don’t need a wealth tax to do that.
37% federal means you are in the tax bracket that makes over $578,000/year. You’ll be just fine with several more percentage points added on.
That’s literally exactly what I’m advocating for word for word. Wealth tax bad, income tax good. Income tax rate too low? Crank it up to your hearts content. Glad we agree.
So then add more percentage points. You don’t need a wealth tax to do that. Income tax is fine.
The upper-class does not rely on income the same way the middle and lower class do. Taxing income affects us much more than it does them, that’s why you institute a wealth tax to spread the burden.
You simply don’t understand. All income flows into wealth. All wealth is eventually becomes, one way or another, taxable income. You can defer it for a while but it’s literally all the same thing.
You’re talking about legislating a massive clusterfuck, like you can’t even imagine how messy it would be, that pretty much nobody would comply with free of errors and omissions, all over a timing difference.
Just please, I’m fucking begging you, stop talking about a wealth tax, especially when you don’t understand how tax works to begin with.
Whatever.
It starts with paying their employees a dignified wage.
The point is that if max pay gap laws are passed, CEOs will just hide their actual pay in external resources and normal employees will still make exactly the same.
Good. Make them hide it. Then make it illegal to hide income(if it already isn’t). Tax agencies like the IRS are really good at catching this sort of thing.
Make it difficult for them and their companies.
Make them have to spend to hide it. If they get caught, the money goes back to the economy. If they don’t get caught, at least some the money they spend on law firms and accounts goes back to the economy.
That’s the system we have right now and it doesn’t work. Soooo…
I’m ok with this, but it’s essentially just a step toward socialism which is the better option (but will never happen). Because all this will do is make CEOs less wealthy from the company itself. The investors still make tons more than the CEOs already and they don’t do anything. You need to force revenue sharing essentially which is just socialism with extra steps. Cause CEOs will just end up investing in other companies and still be wealthy and get less compensation from the company itself.
I mean, it’s a pretty big step. It would basically make it such that a company has to expand it’s footprint to grow revenue.
No, for investors to grow revenue it would. Which was the whole initial concept of owning the means of production. You invest in what you thought would make money. You didn’t invest because you wanted to take away employee’s earned value to yourself. But that’s what it came to. A majority of inflation is profit-driven related. Not government assistance related like many corporations and conservatives want you to think. Aside from that, any overt success is shared amongst everyone and no increase would be offset by normal COLA through the supply chain. People could survive and thrive without having to gut the value of employees or those in the supply chain. The only issue would be loss of business which is always a risk. But losses can be shared equally or if it’s a large enough loss over a long enough time, it would require some folks to be laid off and depending on why, the employees could put the person running the business.
You didn’t invest because you wanted to take away employee’s earned value to yourself.
The fact that this ends up being the way that companies create more ‘shareholder value’ is a particular disease of modern neoliberalism. What you describe seems to me more similar to how companies in the US were run in the 1950s. More of a ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ approach that was used before management became antagonistic towards labor (viewing business units as ‘cost centers’ etc…). Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.
Its a particular framing that I think we can say does not guarantee any kind of result of profitability, but seems particularly enshrined in modern management culture.
It’s enshrined in a management culture that has largely conquered labor through a mixture of anti-union measures and taking capitalism global so that they can pay as close to zero as possible for labor in other countries.
Sure, the products and services (and the country) all suffer, but nobody really seems to give a shit about that.
I don’t think the point is for them to be less wealthy, the point is you shouldn’t make more than 600 times what half your employees make.
I know. But investors don’t care. They’re the root of the problem. CEOs are simply an employee of the company that ultimately represents the shareholders interest. Affecting their pay does not affect shareholder value that much. It just commoditizes the CEO position.
Seriously, I literally just posted the same comment basically. It’s really silly how fixated on CEOs people are. I guess they are an easy scapegoat example, but they’re just goons hired by the board of directors on behalf of the shareholders. It’s not like they straight up own the company. (Yeah yeah yeah, there’s stock compensation, and some founder CEOs like Zuck still own shares after IPO etc, i know.)
Exactly. Increasing pay would be really, really nice. But we can do that and have more control over our workplaces. Worker owned companies would prevent huge disparities in pay from reoccurring, regardless of what the government does.
Like a wise and angry man once said: “Fuck the G rides, I want the machines that are making them.”
Socialism is the abolition of social classes. Regulating capital is usually called Social Democracy, or Marxism. Honestly, sieze the means of production.
Hey I said this like 6 years ago on Reddit and I got downvoted and called a fucking idiot lol
Why do we not have a maximum wage when we have a minimum wage?
Because this is America and if you make rules like that you’ll crush the American Dream tm and no one will want to work at all because you’ve taken away their ability to daydream about one day being the disgustingly rich person doing the trickling instead of the disgustingly poor person waiting to be trickled on.
I’d be absolutely ecstatic for a 1:4 ratio.
That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead
You can also raise the bottom to make that ratio reach the top…
You’re not really all that familiar with how ratios work are you lol
Sure I am. If employees made $90/hr the ratio would be significantly improved. It’s not the ratio that’s the actual problem here. You get that right?
That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead
What in the fuck does “lifting from the bottom” mean to you if raising employee wages isn’t it.
Lift from the bottom, pull from the top. The ratio is the actual problem here. You get that right?
They were talking about reducing ceo pay, which who cares? It’s the workers that need the boost. Go back to reddit you jerk
Reduce CEO pay… to increase worker pay
Damn, that was hard.
Raising wages isn’t a boost? The hell are you talking about
if you’ve ever worked food service in your life you should instantly be able to calculate how fucked wages are. in 1 hour you make dozens of meals that cost $10+ while getting paid maybe $10 or $15 per hour. it’s obscene
Good sentiment but not really a true conclusion. Most restaurants sell their food for a little over cost. The majority of their sales profits come from the drinks. It’s insane. A 5 gallon bag of Coke syrup is good for $1,000+ in drink sales but costs most businesses less than $100. Regardless, I agree that workers should be paid more, but not because the food is so expensive.
Here’s the list of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms that are fucking over their employees (listed in the full ‘Institute for Policy Studies’ report):
Lowe’s
Home Depot
Walmart
S&P Global
Linde Plc
Autozone
O’Reilly Automotive
Nike
Target
Dollar General
Analog Devices
Sherwin-Williams
McDonald’s
Mondelez Intl
Amazon.com
TJX
MGM Resorts Intl
Best Buy
Starbucks
Kroger
Johnson Controls
Seagate Technology
Colgate-Palmolive
Philip Morris Intl
Marriott Intl
Cognizant Tech
Solutions
Fleetcor Technologies
FedEx
Estee Lauder
TE Connectivity
Domino’s Pizza
Constellation Brands
YUM Brands
Ulta Beauty
Coca-Cola
Stanley Black &
Decker
Mosaic
Ross Stores
Hilton Worldwide
Bath & Body Works
Corning
Becton Dickinson & Co
Amphenol
Dollar Tree
Tractor Supply
Tapestry
Whirlpool
LKQ
Skyworks Solutions
Advance Auto Parts
Carrier Global
Amcor Plc
Assurant
Darden Restaurants
Walgreens Boots
Alliance
Costco Wholesale
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Mohawk Industries
Microchip Technology
DXC Technology
ON Semiconductor
Hershey
Kimberly-Clark
Ralph Lauren
Tyson Foods
Wabtec
Baxter Intl
Align Technology
Smith (A.O.)
VF
Robert Half Intl
Genuine Parts
Avery Dennison
Kraft Heinz
Borgwarner
Factset Research
Systems
PPG Industries
Newell Brands
Fastenal
Carnival
Viatris
Live Nation
Entertainment
Wynn Resorts
Garmin
Cooper Cos
Extra Space Storage
Aptiv
Mccormick & Co
Epam Systems
Royal Caribbean
Group
Norwegian Cruise Line
Iron Mountain
AES
Teleflex
Western Digital
Caesars Entertainment
Copart
Las Vegas Sands
Monolithic Power
Systems
Public StorageThey are not only fucking over their employees. They’re fucking over all tax payers and straining the countries they are allowed to operate in, while funneling those dollars to top executives and shareholders.
These companies rely on social programs like welfare and food stamps to support their front line staff. They drain those programs for their own profits, and leave the governments less able to help their people. This is vampire capitalism.
Hey my company is on this list. Can confirm it fucking sucks. Where did you source this from?
The article is about a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies which identifies the top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms. The full report is linked from the article to here: https://ips-dc.org/report-executive-excess-2023/ , I opened the PDF and pulled out the full list.
Thanks
Same and same!
Fucking Kroger, man
Why is epam on this list? They charge more than most other contracting firms
I mean charging customers more does not mean they are paying their workers more.
That just means more profits. How does your brain operate.
But they bring so much value for that $601. Like figuring out how many people to fire to maximize revenue for shareholders. Come on, doesn’t that deserve a $15 million salary?!
It’s ironic, they’re the one position that I think at most companies provides no value at all. They think they’ll be the ruling class in an apocalypse, but they don’t realize that they have no marketable skills whatsoever.
Yes and no. They can’t do what everyone else can do and not many can do what they do. You only see the darker side of thing and yes most are incredibly evil in many ways.
However, someone has to organize. Someone has to delegate. Someone has to decide. Do they deserve that much money? No. Does the position need to exist? In many ways it seems so.
Do they deserve that much money?
As long as the employees are paid fair and well for their work, and the company is financially sound, they should.
The problem is almost all of them rake in millions at the cost of employees/customers/business or all.
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that they don’t have a unique skillset. You’re right that someone does need to delegate, organize, and decide, but the ability to do so isn’t special at all. You could probably put any given technical worker in that position and they’d do just fine too.
Experience of course is what really shines here, but the problem is the same as politics. They may have more experience, but the decisions they’re making aren’t for everyone’s best interest. They’re biased towards the newer, richer friends.
This experience vs corruption duality is tough. It’s also there when you have the government making policy. The experts you want to consult on how X is made and what regulations there need to be are those who are experiences in making X – but those same groups also want money and clout, and will try to get that into the regulations. I’m not sure what a good solution is.
Feels like this is actually a way to make it seem like less of a gap? Hourly workers (the workers discussed here for the most part) think of wages in, you guessed it… hours. To keep it clear, tell them, “You make $10 an hour, but your CEO makes $6,000 an hour.”
Or even better, “Your CEO makes more in a single day than you do in an entire year of full time work - Almost double what you make in a year in fact. And that day your CEO ‘works’ is a fairly relaxing day with a long lunch break, a private office and air conditioning,”
If the CEO is making that much wait’ll you find out how much the shareholders are making off those employees!
It makes for a decent example I guess, but it’s really silly how fixated on CEOs Joe Public is. They’re hired by the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. It’s not like the CEO straight up owns the company (usually).
#abolishWageSlavery
Unemployment for all
Everyone in the country should strike, keep your homes and others should take them from corporations . Move in and squat, literally millions of us.
Ugh. I forgot to apply for the CEO position again!
They all just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become CEOs. Doesn’t anyone want to work anymore? When I became a CEO I had to walk up hill both ways and put in 2,000 hours a week. Just kidding, I got a loan from daddy. /s
I’m sure this is even less awful than the disparity with Big Lots employees and employers. Store managers make 100k a year, most employees are making less than 15 an hour. Absolutely the worst conditions and employment terms of any retail I’ve ever worked.
Which side of the fence are you putting store managers on? At a minimum that’s $48 an hour (or a little over $3 for every $1 by the lower employee), but it’s likely worse than that as often store managers work more than 40 hours a week and are not allowed overtime, so their pay doesn’t change. Just saying I can’t tell based on your wording if you think the gap between managers and employees is a problem, as I guess it’s debatable, but definitely nowhere near the numbers above. So just wondering if you could clarify your point a bit.
The Home Depot here in Montana pays the store manager more than that and hes raped an underaged cashier and was protected by corporate.
Fuck all corporations and their enablers.
What percentage of the US economy is low wage firms?
Yes
By their metrics that’s a resounding success.
So what dollar amount is acceptable between the person whose responsibility is a broom and the person that has hundreds of people’s livelihoods at stake and dozens of stores to maintain?
When was the last time a CEO was held personally responsible for a workers safety or the death of an employee?
A CEO answers to the shareholders or a board of directors and do not concern themselves with their employees livelihoods or maintaining stores.
They may very well provide a valuable service to a company but not for the reasons you mention.
So they aren’t responsible for making sure stores stay profitable enough to stay open, providing a job for people? Because that’s exactly what I said.
Uneducated apologist.
Well I could do that job, too. But I won’t be allowed. Because I couldn’t go to the right school. Because I wasn’t born to rich parents. Because I’m working class, and they are owner class.
I mean that’s just a long list if excuses. It’s that mentality that keeps you back. Our outcomes in life are a direct reflection of our choices. It might take a lot of sacrifice but easy and successful are not synonymous.
I’m trying to point out that these fuckers are a different class above us. They’re filthy rich and they own us, that’s why they get paid hundreds of times more than us - they didn’t earn it. That’s just life.
So going through years of school, or working their way up from the bottom isn’t earning it?
The owner class doesn’t work the way we do. They go to private school from birth, their grades can be guaranteed or cheated. Their acceptance into schools is often a matter of being a Heritage admission and then paying full price or more for it.
We work for half the opportunities that are handed to them.
Why did you dodge the question and inserted a completely separate scenario. Your scenario is true in some cases, but so is mine. Would you be willing to answer my question now?
Bootlicker is what you are. Go back to truth social.
None. Quality of life is already a huge bonus.
None? So you think the janitor and CEO should have the same wage?
Absolutely. You might compare their work, which janitors generally work themselves to the bone and have to deal with filth, while CEOs have to deal with stress. What about retirement? People who work manual labor generally destroy their bodies and have terrible quality of life after retirement or just in later years in general, CEOs get to walk away with their health. Work is work. If they put in equal effort they should make an equal wage.
So when a company decides to compensate employees, your belief is that the janitor who has minimal responsibilities and training for that job provides the same value as the one who had to earn a degree for the position, is actively trying to expand the company, which has an added benefit of hiring new employees, among many other factors?
Here’s a real world example. I train people to do the job and meet the standards I require for my company. They start out with no or minimal skills, I provide the knowledge so they can do the work. Should I not be compensated more than them even though I’ve invested my time and money in them? Should they not be compensated more than the brand new hire even though they have more skills and seniority? Or do we all make the same since we all ‘give it our all’?
