we see ceos do everythin but work xd
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
700 points (98.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
7435 readers
4230 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
You only say that because you don't see what they're doing behind the scenes.
For example, they're putting lots of money into think tanks to dissuade the public from even talking about taxing the rich: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rQg24dralYY
I'll say it again, CEO pay ain't the problem. Did the math once for American Airlines, then McDonald's just lately. If the CEO took $0 pay, and that was spread among total employees, it amounts to chicken change.
Hell, let's take aim at Microsoft, why not.
In fiscal year 2024, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's total compensation was $79.1 million. This represents a 63% increase compared to his prior year's compensation of $48.5 million.
And most of that was stock, not cash.
The increase is primarily due to a significant rise in the value of his stock awards, which accounted for the majority of his compensation.
They have 228,000 employees. Spread that around and it amounts to a $347 yearly bonus. (Or, $.17/hr. if you like.) If I worked at M$, I'd be fucking insulted if that was my Christmas Bonus. Hell, my last job was at a tiny software dev and we all got 10x that much, sometimes more.
Now add in the CFO, CTO, COO, CIO, board members, and major shareholders.
No you see, we have to fix wealth inequality without effecting the personal wealth of the rich.
income inequality*
Wealth inequality is the main goal to be honest. A high median net wealth so that people stop being poor in opportunity.
Belgium has 256k USD median net wealth and Germany has it at 66k USD.
Both countries have low income inequality (Belgium 0,26 and Germany 0,29 gini).
Which country would you choose to migrate to in order to increase your family's net worth?
If you're wealthy already then perhaps Germany. If you're poor then probably Belgium.
Don't get us wrong though, we do this mainly because we have an aging population and are in need of quite some immigrants that can be activated in the labour market.
I agree, just wanted to point out there is a meaningful difference between those two problems their solutions.
Though the last part of your comment confuses me, do you mean we Belgium or we Germany? And you write do this, but I'm not sure what this refers to.
Major shareholders should be at the top. Execs are usually just the goons getting their hands dirty. They’re explicitly disposable, intended to soak up liability then go away. It’s the major shareholders they answer to, and these are the real agenda setters.
Granted, sometimes you have to go through a few goons to get to the actual boss, and it at least sends a message, but there are always more goons ready for dirty work if the price is right. The major shareholders, however, are publicly known and limited in number (like one-page-of-names limited).
They’re the ones treating the global economy and the health of our planet like a game of monopoly. Once people realize the simplicity of the task, you will start seeing actual players removed from the board, and reform will quickly follow.
The people owning the company and the people hired by the people owning the company.
It's their property and they can choose to pay people as much as they want.
mcdonalds CEO isn't the problem. you're introducing a straw man to the argument; an easily-defeated example of a position, which wasn't stated by anyone but you.
Your math is correct but your argument is flawed, because you pick the wrong number. So you divide Microsofts CEO his total compensation over the other 227,999 employees, and conclude that means a $0,17 difference for 227,999 individuals every single hour they work that year. I have no clue how correct that is, but let's just assume you're right. Even though the tech sector generally pays quite well, there is probably someone working there for a minimum wage. But let's say the lowest paid staff costs Microsoft $17 hourly, you could give that person a 1% increase in salary this way. That might make a big difference, who knows.
Now let's assume the second and third best payed employees together make the same amount of money as the CEO and they also work for free from now on. That is another $0.17 every hour for all 227,997 remaining employees.
Now let's assume the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh positions pay as much as the ceo: another $0.17 every hour for all remaining 227,993 employees.
You can go on this way, but it's not really realistic with these numbers. Better might be, what if you progressively lower the top earning half and spread that among the lowest earning half. I am not going to make the math, but you can drastically improve the lives of the people earning the least.
You might be right, the salary of the ceo alone isn't the problem, but companies offering people in high-up positions more and more to be 'competitive for talent' while also offering the people earning the least less and less to be 'competitive economically' is a moral and these are the strategies and corporate values that a CEO decides on. Think about it, the people in the bottom sure as hell didn't get a 63% pay rise. Sure, a CEO can be the solution, but in most of the cases they are the problem.
This isn't anything a CEO decides on. That's what governments decide on by implementing minimum wages.
I agree on having more than a livable wage as minimum wage because unproductive jobs are a waste of a human as a resource.
If the company's owners could replace that CEO with a few people not even able to earn a livable wage, then they would. But these people wouldn't be able to do the job.
CEOs are just another employee that went for a job interview and got the job. They get paid so that they do not leave for a better paying job.
If they want these CEOs to earn less and the below living wage people to earn more, then that will happen through tax and social transfers outside of the company. The government can do this.
How can a government tax such "talent"? If they get taxed too much, then they will go to another country.
USA taxes based on nationality, so.. the person would just give up their citizenship.
Becoming CEO mainly requires you to know the country very well. The environment. So changing country and still getting a high end job might prove difficult.
The wage of a CEO is connected to the capital allocated to the location. CEOs are taxed based on the headquarters of the company far more often than not.
So there's quite some way to even the playing field in the search for talent.
Of course places like Dubai have free game if they do not tax their CEOs at all. Then companies in Dubai become very attractive.
It's complex, but eradicating poverty from a country will also make it very attractive to raise your kids there. Being with others on the street will be a lot more comfortable. So this makes it attractive to live in that country for rich people as well.
Really need to look at the pros and cons. The desired and undesired changes that each policy brings forth.
Then weigh them and see if this is the end result we want.
There definitely are companies who's owner (you're right, the ceo can not always make this decision) to spread the profits more equally over the employees. Even though the system pushes companies to compete for talent and pay the high positions high wages, they aren't forced by this. The other way around is true too.
Look at Apple for example, they make loads of money. Still the factory workers (which, I know, are not directly employed by apple) work 10-12 hours a day, 6 days a week.
The people in charge definitely get to choose whether they accept or resist the system they manouver in. Many big companies even spend money to get the system to benefit them. Have you ever heard companies fighting for an increase in the minimum wage? I haven't. But I sure hear them if a new environmental law threatens their competetiveness.
You cannot divide something as complex as this in good and evil, but big international corporations more often behave on the evil side of the spectrum, a lot more often, then they behave on the good side of it.
Apple Vs Xiaomi. I'm writing this on a Xiaomi. Both of them likely pay the Chinese factory workers the same amount. The latter is just being a lot more competitive while Apple relies on USA politicians in order to force americans to buy Apple instead. (Huawei was rapidly crippled by banning Google from working with them once they sold more phones than Apple).
So the problem is not really the company, but the government indulging their companies.
In USA the issue is that the American people do not realise that they need to pay their politicians in order to own their politicians. In Belgium there's a law that forces political parties to have 80% of their income come from tax money based on the amount of votes they got. In USA not even 1% of political parties their income comes from tax money. Apple basically owns the law that struck down Huawei.
And this is normal? You cannot expect Apple to be against their own interest.
It's up to those people that suffer due to apple's influence to take up the pitchforks and go do things that are good for their own interest.
Chinese citizens are happy, their economic gains in mere generations gained a gigantic amount. Soon factories will leave China as it has become too developed and now it is the Chinese that are the capitalists.
For example their EV market. They dominate the cobalt industry in Congo.
The 1850s Belgium gave rise to Marxism. But now that we are developed, nobody really cares about Marxism anymore.
Marxists basically hate us because they found new poor undeveloped countries that they can put their fangs in and claim that they are poor only because others are not poor.
I don’t think you understand how profits and shareholding work but okay.
He does understand that, why did you get 12 upvotes. You have 0 content in your comment.
Now do it for the billionaires.
Not OP, but...
https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-up-88-percent-over-four-years/
on March 18, 2024, the country has 737 billionaires with a combined wealth of $5.529 trillion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
About 340 million USA Americans in 2024.
About $16,000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA, including the former billionaires.
This is great as the former billionaires can prove just how great they are by being the first to earn a billion dollars again.
That's... obviously not what they're talking about though?
Some people don't even get yearly/Christmas bonuses. You would be mad if your bonus went up by 10%?
Then I guess it's stock dividends?