These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    158
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

            • solstice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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?

              • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

              • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So then add more percentage points. You don’t need a wealth tax to do that. Income tax is fine.

              • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • solstice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • whatisallthis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Shard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

      • Wilibus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • solstice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.)

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.”

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Socialism is the abolition of social classes. Regulating capital is usually called Social Democracy, or Marxism. Honestly, sieze the means of production.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey I said this like 6 years ago on Reddit and I got downvoted and called a fucking idiot lol

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

          • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They were talking about reducing ceo pay, which who cares? It’s the workers that need the boost. Go back to reddit you jerk

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • maniajack@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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 Storage

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • sfgifz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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,”

  • solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

  • ineedaunion @lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone in the country should strike, keep your homes and others should take them from corporations . Move in and squat, literally millions of us.

  • Tolstoshev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ineedaunion @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re responsible for maximizing stock price (i.e. enriching shareholders including themselves). That’s it. They don’t give a shit about providing jobs and you can see this with all the jerking off they’re doing over AI supposedly making people obsolete.

          • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            You have a very limited view of what the owner of a company is responsible for. That also explains your views on the pay structure.

            But as far as AI? One can only dream. Any day without human interaction is paradise.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The CEO is not necessarily the owner of the company. If you want to feel superior with your supposed knowledge on the subject, then you shouldn’t make basic mistakes like this.

              The rest of your post explains a hell of a lot about you.

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re a misanthrope and likely just as insufferable to those people as you perceive them to be. Your misanthropy leads you to support dehumanizing systems like capitalism.

            • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Español
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You have a very limited view of what the owner of a company is responsible for.

              I mean what else are they in business for if they are not doing it to enrich themselves?

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

        • Leviathan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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’?