334
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
334 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
1495 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's better to place the burden on the company as a whole per revenue than per CEO pay differential. Amazon for example made somewhere in the 500 billion dollars in revenue for 2022 but for all ~1.5m employees only spent ~42 billion on salaries for an average of ~28k a year.
They have so much ample revenue to use for increased salaries that goes unanswered.
Won't work, can't work.
There are companies which have insane revenues but tiny profits - let's say manufacturing, where you need to pay a shitton for materials and workers, just to get a bit in return.
There are also companies where the main source of income is selling people's time, say a consulting firm like McKinsey. Their income/revenue ratio is gonna be totally different from the first example.
I'm sure there are good ways to do it but this ain't one of them.
I can see your point, but I am also tired of pointing to CEO salaries and thinking that reducing them will make any meaningful increase on company wide salaries.
There's always making cost scalable to reported profit. It's annoying to see a company like Amazon make so much but pay employees so little because it's"competitive pay" to the business they're ruining through monopoly.