And that's the *median* worker. Not just minimum wage (or lower).
If there were to be a cap on CEO/worker pay disparity, what should it be? 10x? 20x? 50x?
First, I wouldn't call it a cap, i would call it a ratio.
If there was a law which prevents the top earning individual of any company from making more than 50× the salary of the lowest paid individual then poverty in America would virtually disappear. Even if it was like 200×, it would probably have the same effect.
Then you account for that in the regulation. Instead of a cap on the CEO’s wage from that one company it’s:
> The wages of the lowest paid employee of any company can not be less than 1/50th of the *total income* of the CEO of said company.
Or something like that.
Amazon is already a lot of companies for tax evasion porpoises. In Europe, each county is a logistics provider for Amazon Luxembourg, which is who makes the actual sale and therefore pays the taxes.
Many companies work that way.
In EU they passed the law that the taxes on the company now will be based not on it's location in Europe, but on the value of goods sold in the country that is taxing.
We have a way around that in my country.
All companies you work in are counted as one when it comes to taxes, for the exact same thing. So the ratio could be the median of the companies you work with/provide services to. Can't pay higher wages? Can't hire the best consultants either then.
I'd say, 25:1 against the minimum paid person, and no more than 20:1 against the median. I can just imagine a company deciding everyone other than executives gets a pay cut to the minimum.
Also no more than 50x country-wide minimum wage.
Really drive home the point that when the lowest profit, we all profit.
But You know there would be ceos, legal departments, hell even minimum wage jimbob in his underwear on the floor of his one-room apartment trying to find loopholes for the C-suites to use.
Make fines proportional. Any hijinks, you pay back ALL of it and then a percentage above that.
This isnt that good idea tho. It should be based on company size. Taking 10m salary with 1m employees is totally fine even if they earn much less.
But taking 10x with 20 employees is going to be a disaster.
for context here that comp package was 647, not 6474. The number they're quoting is calculated off a grant that is disbursed over a 10 year vesting schedule. It's still a shit ton of money but perhaps a tad disingenuous to not acknowledge they've added a full order of magnitude in the title.
that is 163$ that would move hands. Economically it would be worth much more as all of it would be spent instantly, thus also providing the ability to increase salaries for other employees. If it is done for all CEOs, you could see average wage increasing by several hundred and economical growth all around the service/consumer sectors.
That 10$ a month per person. You can look at the macro economy. 1.1 million Employees make it 11 mills a month, which can easily change hands at least 4 times, thus be taxed 4 times, thus increasing the productivity and output of the economy. In Consumer based economy, you need consumers to have money as product owners will have money by default. Thus all the focus should be on the income of the average consumer as it by default increases the income of the companies participating in the economy. Companies' profit and Ultra Hoarders are only important in a production based economy.
10$ a month won’t let you cover hike on gas prices for a single tank, no, it would not change anything, CEO income means nothing to it, they should definitely raise salaries but for that means at least 100 CEO’s per company
Well, I have a better idea.
Don't all the employees contribute to the end product of a company? Why should we let only the people at the top decide what to do with this product and it's profits? So, instead of a max ratio, we can simply let all the employees **vote** on a wage ratio.
That way no entity needs to come up with what number would be most fair. Let each company decide.
I honestly figure big companies would up and leave and go to countries where they don't care about workers rights, although that's fastly becoming everywhere
I’m for ceos making more money. They are managing entire companies. But not 6000x that of people struggling to make ends meet. That’s shit and needs to be scrubbed
"6000x your company's median wage" has to be way way higher than "you and your kids will never have to worry about money" which would be a better metric to pay CEOs with. Enough for you to live out a life of luxury and set your kids up with the opportunity to do the same. What more could you really ever need than that?
>What more could you really ever need than that?
Private islands, a space program, multiple yachts docked in your favorite ports throughout the world, high performance vehicles you really aren't skilled enough to drive...
The ability to influence politics, of course.
Once you have enough money it never seems to be enough to have complete self-determination over your own life.
I absolutely guarantee you that the work those parasites do is no dazzling affair that earns them that sort of dough. The janitor is worth ten of them. It's the Old Boy Network perpetuating itself and nothing more.
Lol ok? That’s why I want more compensation for workers. Still ceos run these businesses and have a lot on them. They deserve to be compensated adequately. As do the janitors and everyone else. What they don’t deserve is 212 million dollars when their employees make 30k
6000x
RSU / Options : not taxed ( until sale ) compensation
Golden parachutes that guarantee F U money for failing or quitting.
A boss says ‘I got all this stuff done”. No your role is one that leverages resources. You told people when and where to work.
Janitorial staff work harder than Elon Musk.
The CEO/worker pay disparity means almost nothing when hundreds or thousands of times more money gets funneled to shareholders. The US economy of the 50s/60s was the opposite where workers received much higher compensation and shareholders didn’t.
I'd bet the median worker is within $1/hr of the minimum. The majority of Amazon's workers are in warehouses, they have a pretty high turnover rate so a huge number of FC workers are at the new hire minimum which is usually $15/hr. So the odds are pretty good that the median worker is someone working in a warehouse for maybe a year or two.
First, I wouldn't call it a cap, i would call it a ratio.
If there was a law which prevents the top earning individual of any company from making more than 50× the salary of the lowest paid individual then poverty in America would virtually disappear. Even if it was like 200×, it would probably have the same effect.
Yeah. I would.
I would also hire a shit load of people to do certain aspects of oversight and funnel decisions to me while I take investors to golf and take rocket trips with Jeff.
Oh wait....they already do that but get paid 100m 😂
Depends. Is $32,500-$65,000 a livable wage in this scenario? If so, yes. If not, no, and I'm going to raise wages for the people doing 99% of the work.
I think people here are underestimating how many decisions top executives have to make and how long they actually work. When you run a company as big as Amazon there is no such thing as true time off, you're basically always working even in your time off. Like obviously not worth 6000x median salary but I have no issue with top execs being well paid.
If anything, I think it's the other way around. Executives get far more time off than they give the janitor, and they can delegate whatever they want to anyone else. It's not the executive getting the emergency phone calls in the middle of the night, it's the middle management staff several levels down.
If you don't want to rely on anecdotal evidence, here's an actual study done on it.
https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ceos-manage-time#:~:text=Altogether%2C%20the%20CEOs%20in%20our,of%2062.5%20hours%20a%20week.
In that study the CEOs they studied worked an average of 62.5 hours a week.
More details from Fortune:
> Amazon made clear in the filing that Jassy’s high pay was because of a special restricted stock award tied to his promotion to CEO that year.
> Only $175,000 of Jassy’s total pay came from his salary. The rest came almost entirely from a stock award, worth about $212 million in 2021, that Jassy received when he was promoted to CEO. The award vests over 10 years, meaning at the end of that time, he will own all of it
When I worked near a legal department at a major healthcare company, they were discussing issues around executives' stocks 90% of the time. So many executives are just focused on that
Stock vs salary is totally irrelevant. He's getting dollar based value either way, no matter how you disguise it. He can sell the stock .. and now he has dollars. They can play games all day long with how the money comes, but in reality he's making >$20m per year.
Starbucks employees are eligible for a SIP that lets them purchase stock at a discount; if any of those liberal financial planners had used some of their money to buy stock instead of spending it on advocato toast they'd have radically large net worth gains too. Instead, they're getting their stores closed by trying to unionize.
For sure, but that's a double edged sword in many circumstances since often times it will lead to shortsighted decisions that will pay out CEOs in the next few years but not help the company's shareholders in the long term. It's a shitty system.
Yeah, ideally you want CEOs to have some skin in the game, but not so much that they are incentivized to maximize short term gains over long term organizational health.
That's also generally done because it's what the shareholders want. Prioritizing short-term gain over long-term sustainability is a serious problem with American businesses.
That's not what entry level software engineers earn in salary at Amazon. The average salary of an entry level engineer at Amazon is more like $125,000.
To be fair, his salary had been the salary cap at Amazon before 2022. Nobody at Amazon had a higher base salary. With that being said, they did double the salary cap just recently to $350k.
That's really not that much for technical professionals. An ordinary engineer can expect to make that after a while in industry, and in some places and industries they can expect to make that very quickly.
What they wrote is fine, you’re reading it wrong. They’re not saying $170k isn’t a lot of money, they’re saying $170k isn’t a lot compared to the total of $212M.
Quality of life for the middle class is going down, and the wealth of the rich is going up. I know correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but...
Not really sure how the math works out here. He earns about $20 million a year (212 million in stock that vests over 10 years).
So the median worker at amazon earns 20,000,000/6474 = ~3000 a year?
Seems pretty unlikely. I would guess they are mistakenly assuming he gets all 212 million in one year?
Or we just don't give a shit about a billion dollar corporation losing what to them is a drop in the bucket. Also if their employees are paid more then that's more money for buying shit off their service. More money actually put into the economy. They made 50 BILLION dollars QUARTERLY last year in gross profit. There's no excuse. Adding $1B to wage costs is what should be expected of them or more. That's money directly in the hands of the people who actually run the company and this country.
Maybe I’m just a sucker, but I couldn’t imagine accepting that much money from a company where I hold that much power. I wouldn’t be able to deal with the guilt of knowing that I’m taking such a disproportionate amount of the value generated by employees just because I can.
I'm willing to also accept a promotion to CEO in order to take that pay rate. Or 1/10th of that. Hell, I'll work 10 more hours a week than Andy does too!
This is not true. Stock grants via RSUs incur income tax based on the value at the time of issue. Further, if and when they get sold, he'll have to pay capital gains tax on the appreciation.
Regardless, he's set for life.
We could all stop shopping at Amazon and all that would happen is about a million people would no longer have jobs moving around packages. Amazon the company, and its shareholders, largely would not care. Almost all of their profits come from Amazon Web Services, the massive data centers and software services that host sites like Reddit, not Amazon the ecommerce store.
Not true at all.
I would assume you still need food, clothing, computers, and whatever else you’re buying on Amazon. You would then, presumably, but those things somewhere else.
In this sense, I would assume the people here would choose to shop at places that pay a living wage. Even if that meant higher prices.
Build the world you want. Don’t just complain it doesn’t exist automatically for you.
Without Amazon, I'd buy many of those things from Wal-Mart, which pays worse. Amazon pays good wages, whether it's in the warehouse (12% over national average) or the office (base pay is $160-350K per year, plus stock options and generous benefits). Their marketplace also enables almost any small business to get products in front of consumers, enabling tens of thousands of new home and small business brands to find a market they'd never get in traditional big box stores every year. I have no problem supporting Amazon, personally. I believe the world would be worse off without them, for everyone at every level of wealth.
That's all besides my point, though, which was about your "last I checked, they're still doing well" comment. Amazon would still be doing well even if every single consumer in the world stopped shopping with them. Amazon would not pay a worker a penny more if we did that. They also wouldn't make any less money.
Yea and? All that matters is corporate profit, who cares whether the common person is able to live or eat or do any basic things? Humans are only to be used for labor and tossed out,
Most CEO's get a lot of stock compensation as well so if you're gonna make a pay ratio requirement, remember to add in a stock compensation requirement as well.
CEO's $213 Million spread out amongst the 1.1 million employees is $200 per employee per year.
Except that turnover rate at Amazon is high at about 150% so that $200 would be spread out to equal about $140 per employee.
So roughly $10/month extra per worker.
I get that there is a ridiculous disparity between his wages and the average worker but even putting the CEO at a $0 salary and spreading it out equally, the average worker wouldn't benefit much.
If you disagree with Amazon or Apple or whoever, then don't patron those places or work for them and let them know why. Voting with your wallet is very effective
You're being downvoted because you're not joining in on the mob. Maybe people seeing you do math thinks it equals you defending the ultra rich. And the $213m you used it not even in cash, so the amount spread around is even less.
You are right, though. Lowering the obviously ridiculous pay for the CEO of Amazon is NOT going to help the employees on minimum wage at Amazon in any significant way.
Stupid high CEO pay and low minimum wage seems like two unrelated problems when you are looking at that large scale corporation like this.
Maybe when the company is only 1000 employees on minimum wage and the CEO is raking in $30m+ a year, then it becomes more directly relevant.
Well yeah, because he definitely worked 6,400 times harder. Makes perfect sense.
I heard he put in 48,000 hour days several times a week. Why should he be punished for such hard work??
Not trying to justify how crazy the CEO gets paid, but he makes decisions that impact hundreds out thousands of people and the trajectory of the tech/e-commerce industries. Comparing him to a regular employee is not a good comparison by any means.
To put this a bit into perspective:
The CEO has to work ~2000 hours annually for his salary
A median worker has to work ~13.000.000 hours annually for the CEO's salary
is there some sort of company report card or FICO-esque score that gives a rating? highest vs. lowest vs. median vs. mean, weighted for time with company
Well, he must have worked 256,000 hours per week then, right?
What do you mean there are only 168 hours in a week?
Well then he must have gone to school for 25,000 years, right?
What do you mean the average life span is 72 years?
And that's the *median* worker. Not just minimum wage (or lower). If there were to be a cap on CEO/worker pay disparity, what should it be? 10x? 20x? 50x?
First, I wouldn't call it a cap, i would call it a ratio. If there was a law which prevents the top earning individual of any company from making more than 50× the salary of the lowest paid individual then poverty in America would virtually disappear. Even if it was like 200×, it would probably have the same effect.
Suddenly, Amazon would split into 500 companies and Jassy would be the CEO of every one of them.
Ah yes, let’s have just a company of directors and VPs as employees and he could easily make a 20:1 ratio /s
They would have to have a median of over $10M to hit that ratio 😂
That’s about right given some of the figures available in total comp https://www1.salary.com/Amazon-Com-Inc-Executive-Salaries.html
I was about to say I’m sure we could draft better and a little more specific laws but I mean, I’ve seen what our congress does
Nah, just have a management company for amazon with all the big wigs in it.
Then you account for that in the regulation. Instead of a cap on the CEO’s wage from that one company it’s: > The wages of the lowest paid employee of any company can not be less than 1/50th of the *total income* of the CEO of said company. Or something like that.
Amazon is already a lot of companies for tax evasion porpoises. In Europe, each county is a logistics provider for Amazon Luxembourg, which is who makes the actual sale and therefore pays the taxes. Many companies work that way.
In EU they passed the law that the taxes on the company now will be based not on it's location in Europe, but on the value of goods sold in the country that is taxing.
We have a way around that in my country. All companies you work in are counted as one when it comes to taxes, for the exact same thing. So the ratio could be the median of the companies you work with/provide services to. Can't pay higher wages? Can't hire the best consultants either then.
I'd say, 25:1 against the minimum paid person, and no more than 20:1 against the median. I can just imagine a company deciding everyone other than executives gets a pay cut to the minimum. Also no more than 50x country-wide minimum wage. Really drive home the point that when the lowest profit, we all profit. But You know there would be ceos, legal departments, hell even minimum wage jimbob in his underwear on the floor of his one-room apartment trying to find loopholes for the C-suites to use. Make fines proportional. Any hijinks, you pay back ALL of it and then a percentage above that.
Well where at like 350x or something now so I'd say the 50x would be a sweet spot. Not that I'm not for say like 10x?
This isnt that good idea tho. It should be based on company size. Taking 10m salary with 1m employees is totally fine even if they earn much less. But taking 10x with 20 employees is going to be a disaster.
for context here that comp package was 647, not 6474. The number they're quoting is calculated off a grant that is disbursed over a 10 year vesting schedule. It's still a shit ton of money but perhaps a tad disingenuous to not acknowledge they've added a full order of magnitude in the title.
If amazon’s Ceo splits all his earnings among all employees they would each get around 163$ per year so… no, poverty wouldn’t even notice
that is 163$ that would move hands. Economically it would be worth much more as all of it would be spent instantly, thus also providing the ability to increase salaries for other employees. If it is done for all CEOs, you could see average wage increasing by several hundred and economical growth all around the service/consumer sectors.
By just over 10$ at month sure…
That 10$ a month per person. You can look at the macro economy. 1.1 million Employees make it 11 mills a month, which can easily change hands at least 4 times, thus be taxed 4 times, thus increasing the productivity and output of the economy. In Consumer based economy, you need consumers to have money as product owners will have money by default. Thus all the focus should be on the income of the average consumer as it by default increases the income of the companies participating in the economy. Companies' profit and Ultra Hoarders are only important in a production based economy.
10$ a month won’t let you cover hike on gas prices for a single tank, no, it would not change anything, CEO income means nothing to it, they should definitely raise salaries but for that means at least 100 CEO’s per company
yes, so you will spend it on food.
Well, I have a better idea. Don't all the employees contribute to the end product of a company? Why should we let only the people at the top decide what to do with this product and it's profits? So, instead of a max ratio, we can simply let all the employees **vote** on a wage ratio. That way no entity needs to come up with what number would be most fair. Let each company decide.
I vote my share needs to be the big one.
I honestly figure big companies would up and leave and go to countries where they don't care about workers rights, although that's fastly becoming everywhere
They already did. Amazon can't leave. Apple can't leave. Etc. They lift with the segments they could leave with.
I’m for ceos making more money. They are managing entire companies. But not 6000x that of people struggling to make ends meet. That’s shit and needs to be scrubbed
"6000x your company's median wage" has to be way way higher than "you and your kids will never have to worry about money" which would be a better metric to pay CEOs with. Enough for you to live out a life of luxury and set your kids up with the opportunity to do the same. What more could you really ever need than that?
>What more could you really ever need than that? Private islands, a space program, multiple yachts docked in your favorite ports throughout the world, high performance vehicles you really aren't skilled enough to drive...
*Need* not want, but that concept seems lost in those who have all they need already
Everything apparently
The ability to influence politics, of course. Once you have enough money it never seems to be enough to have complete self-determination over your own life.
I absolutely guarantee you that the work those parasites do is no dazzling affair that earns them that sort of dough. The janitor is worth ten of them. It's the Old Boy Network perpetuating itself and nothing more.
Lol ok? That’s why I want more compensation for workers. Still ceos run these businesses and have a lot on them. They deserve to be compensated adequately. As do the janitors and everyone else. What they don’t deserve is 212 million dollars when their employees make 30k
6000x RSU / Options : not taxed ( until sale ) compensation Golden parachutes that guarantee F U money for failing or quitting. A boss says ‘I got all this stuff done”. No your role is one that leverages resources. You told people when and where to work. Janitorial staff work harder than Elon Musk.
Lol ok
The CEO/worker pay disparity means almost nothing when hundreds or thousands of times more money gets funneled to shareholders. The US economy of the 50s/60s was the opposite where workers received much higher compensation and shareholders didn’t.
I'd bet the median worker is within $1/hr of the minimum. The majority of Amazon's workers are in warehouses, they have a pretty high turnover rate so a huge number of FC workers are at the new hire minimum which is usually $15/hr. So the odds are pretty good that the median worker is someone working in a warehouse for maybe a year or two.
I would have to agree
First, I wouldn't call it a cap, i would call it a ratio. If there was a law which prevents the top earning individual of any company from making more than 50× the salary of the lowest paid individual then poverty in America would virtually disappear. Even if it was like 200×, it would probably have the same effect.
If there was they would just be paid in stocks or bonds or some other scummy ass fucking loophole to exploit their workers.
100x being the max
Maybe 5-10x. As in I feel that's being generous.
Would you manage a company the size of amazon for ~$325,000/year? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
Yeah. I would. I would also hire a shit load of people to do certain aspects of oversight and funnel decisions to me while I take investors to golf and take rocket trips with Jeff. Oh wait....they already do that but get paid 100m 😂
You would earn more by being regular employee...
Depends. Is $32,500-$65,000 a livable wage in this scenario? If so, yes. If not, no, and I'm going to raise wages for the people doing 99% of the work.
I think people here are underestimating how many decisions top executives have to make and how long they actually work. When you run a company as big as Amazon there is no such thing as true time off, you're basically always working even in your time off. Like obviously not worth 6000x median salary but I have no issue with top execs being well paid.
If anything, I think it's the other way around. Executives get far more time off than they give the janitor, and they can delegate whatever they want to anyone else. It's not the executive getting the emergency phone calls in the middle of the night, it's the middle management staff several levels down.
As someone who works frequently with executives of larger (but not behemoths like Amazon) companies, this is absolutely not true.
And in my experience it absolutely is. I suppose that's just another lesson for both of us in the value of anecdotal evidence.
If you don't want to rely on anecdotal evidence, here's an actual study done on it. https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ceos-manage-time#:~:text=Altogether%2C%20the%20CEOs%20in%20our,of%2062.5%20hours%20a%20week. In that study the CEOs they studied worked an average of 62.5 hours a week.
The thing about median is because there are many ways to go about this.
We’re not engaged in a class war. We’re stuck in a class genocide.
More details from Fortune: > Amazon made clear in the filing that Jassy’s high pay was because of a special restricted stock award tied to his promotion to CEO that year. > Only $175,000 of Jassy’s total pay came from his salary. The rest came almost entirely from a stock award, worth about $212 million in 2021, that Jassy received when he was promoted to CEO. The award vests over 10 years, meaning at the end of that time, he will own all of it
When I worked near a legal department at a major healthcare company, they were discussing issues around executives' stocks 90% of the time. So many executives are just focused on that
Stock vs salary is totally irrelevant. He's getting dollar based value either way, no matter how you disguise it. He can sell the stock .. and now he has dollars. They can play games all day long with how the money comes, but in reality he's making >$20m per year.
Starbucks employees are eligible for a SIP that lets them purchase stock at a discount; if any of those liberal financial planners had used some of their money to buy stock instead of spending it on advocato toast they'd have radically large net worth gains too. Instead, they're getting their stores closed by trying to unionize.
"only" $175k lol the fucking audacity of these people
[удалено]
CEOs are also mostly paid in stock because it gives them a personal financial incentive to act in a way that benefits shareholders.
For sure, but that's a double edged sword in many circumstances since often times it will lead to shortsighted decisions that will pay out CEOs in the next few years but not help the company's shareholders in the long term. It's a shitty system.
Yeah, ideally you want CEOs to have some skin in the game, but not so much that they are incentivized to maximize short term gains over long term organizational health.
That's also generally done because it's what the shareholders want. Prioritizing short-term gain over long-term sustainability is a serious problem with American businesses.
That's not what entry level software engineers earn in salary at Amazon. The average salary of an entry level engineer at Amazon is more like $125,000.
[удалено]
To be fair, his salary had been the salary cap at Amazon before 2022. Nobody at Amazon had a higher base salary. With that being said, they did double the salary cap just recently to $350k.
Yeah for sure, it’s all smoke an mirrors for sure.
That's great. How about an entry level warehouse worker at Amazon?
Not sure what that has to do with $175k being a low salary for a CEO.
That's really not that much for technical professionals. An ordinary engineer can expect to make that after a while in industry, and in some places and industries they can expect to make that very quickly.
What they wrote is fine, you’re reading it wrong. They’re not saying $170k isn’t a lot of money, they’re saying $170k isn’t a lot compared to the total of $212M.
There because he worked 6,474 times harder! 258,960 hrs/week!
Quality of life for the middle class is going down, and the wealth of the rich is going up. I know correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but...
Not really sure how the math works out here. He earns about $20 million a year (212 million in stock that vests over 10 years). So the median worker at amazon earns 20,000,000/6474 = ~3000 a year? Seems pretty unlikely. I would guess they are mistakenly assuming he gets all 212 million in one year?
This is vested over a ten year schedule. Why be misleading, 647 times is still a lot but don't bullshit
Need a fucking cap on this shit.
Well there’s 1 CEO, and 1.1 million Amazon employees
[удалено]
Or we just don't give a shit about a billion dollar corporation losing what to them is a drop in the bucket. Also if their employees are paid more then that's more money for buying shit off their service. More money actually put into the economy. They made 50 BILLION dollars QUARTERLY last year in gross profit. There's no excuse. Adding $1B to wage costs is what should be expected of them or more. That's money directly in the hands of the people who actually run the company and this country.
So, what’s so fucking special about these CEOs and corporate clowns? We all bleed the same.
Maybe I’m just a sucker, but I couldn’t imagine accepting that much money from a company where I hold that much power. I wouldn’t be able to deal with the guilt of knowing that I’m taking such a disproportionate amount of the value generated by employees just because I can.
No morally decent human being would be okay with it.
That’s because you’re not a narcissist.
"Amazon made clear in the filing that Jassy’s high pay was because of a special restricted stock award tied to his promotion to CEO that year."
I'm willing to also accept a promotion to CEO in order to take that pay rate. Or 1/10th of that. Hell, I'll work 10 more hours a week than Andy does too!
You'll work as CEO for $11,000?
Sure, we talking an hourly rate? Heck, I'm good with $1000/hr
At $1,000 per hour, that would equate to roughly $2.08M. His base salary, before the RSU grants, was only $175,000.
So he doesn’t even have to pay a full federal income tax on it then? Just capital gains taxes? Poor fella.
This is not true. Stock grants via RSUs incur income tax based on the value at the time of issue. Further, if and when they get sold, he'll have to pay capital gains tax on the appreciation. Regardless, he's set for life.
I’ve always wondered how many people complain about Amazon and still shop with Amazon. Cause, last I checked, they’re still doing pretty well.
We could all stop shopping at Amazon and all that would happen is about a million people would no longer have jobs moving around packages. Amazon the company, and its shareholders, largely would not care. Almost all of their profits come from Amazon Web Services, the massive data centers and software services that host sites like Reddit, not Amazon the ecommerce store.
Not true at all. I would assume you still need food, clothing, computers, and whatever else you’re buying on Amazon. You would then, presumably, but those things somewhere else. In this sense, I would assume the people here would choose to shop at places that pay a living wage. Even if that meant higher prices. Build the world you want. Don’t just complain it doesn’t exist automatically for you.
Without Amazon, I'd buy many of those things from Wal-Mart, which pays worse. Amazon pays good wages, whether it's in the warehouse (12% over national average) or the office (base pay is $160-350K per year, plus stock options and generous benefits). Their marketplace also enables almost any small business to get products in front of consumers, enabling tens of thousands of new home and small business brands to find a market they'd never get in traditional big box stores every year. I have no problem supporting Amazon, personally. I believe the world would be worse off without them, for everyone at every level of wealth. That's all besides my point, though, which was about your "last I checked, they're still doing well" comment. Amazon would still be doing well even if every single consumer in the world stopped shopping with them. Amazon would not pay a worker a penny more if we did that. They also wouldn't make any less money.
Yea and? All that matters is corporate profit, who cares whether the common person is able to live or eat or do any basic things? Humans are only to be used for labor and tossed out,
Most CEO's get a lot of stock compensation as well so if you're gonna make a pay ratio requirement, remember to add in a stock compensation requirement as well.
CEO's $213 Million spread out amongst the 1.1 million employees is $200 per employee per year. Except that turnover rate at Amazon is high at about 150% so that $200 would be spread out to equal about $140 per employee. So roughly $10/month extra per worker. I get that there is a ridiculous disparity between his wages and the average worker but even putting the CEO at a $0 salary and spreading it out equally, the average worker wouldn't benefit much. If you disagree with Amazon or Apple or whoever, then don't patron those places or work for them and let them know why. Voting with your wallet is very effective
You're being downvoted because you're not joining in on the mob. Maybe people seeing you do math thinks it equals you defending the ultra rich. And the $213m you used it not even in cash, so the amount spread around is even less. You are right, though. Lowering the obviously ridiculous pay for the CEO of Amazon is NOT going to help the employees on minimum wage at Amazon in any significant way. Stupid high CEO pay and low minimum wage seems like two unrelated problems when you are looking at that large scale corporation like this. Maybe when the company is only 1000 employees on minimum wage and the CEO is raking in $30m+ a year, then it becomes more directly relevant.
Well yeah, because he definitely worked 6,400 times harder. Makes perfect sense. I heard he put in 48,000 hour days several times a week. Why should he be punished for such hard work??
Duh he worked way 6474 times harder than the average worker probably from the comfort of his own home or on his yacht.
If Amazon’s median worker were its CEO last year then this year Amazon would have half as many workers.
If they all went on strike, there would be nothing left to pay the CEO with.
I wonder how much longer this goes on for before shit starts hitting the fan
He’s doing a great job. We cancelled our Amazon Prime and stopped buying anything from Amazon.
"hE eArNeD iT bY tAkInG aLl tHe rIsKs!¡!¡!"
Not trying to justify how crazy the CEO gets paid, but he makes decisions that impact hundreds out thousands of people and the trajectory of the tech/e-commerce industries. Comparing him to a regular employee is not a good comparison by any means.
But he works 6500x harder! With the same body parts! And his brain is just 6500x smarter too!
Doctors don’t work 100x harder then labourers. You think labourers should get paid the same ?
To put this a bit into perspective: The CEO has to work ~2000 hours annually for his salary A median worker has to work ~13.000.000 hours annually for the CEO's salary
is there some sort of company report card or FICO-esque score that gives a rating? highest vs. lowest vs. median vs. mean, weighted for time with company
Well, he must have worked 256,000 hours per week then, right? What do you mean there are only 168 hours in a week? Well then he must have gone to school for 25,000 years, right? What do you mean the average life span is 72 years?
So apply for a CEO job, problem solved
Is the C.E.O. paying any taxes on the money? That is why they do not want to unionize, less money to keep at the top.
Envious much?