• kyle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did basic digging, no idea where the tweet’s numbers come from.

    Ford CEO Jim Farley received ~$21mil in total compensation in 2022, mostly in stock awards. Source

    Average salary of Ford employee: ~$67k a year, derived from $37k in the bottom 10th percentile and $120k in the top 90th. Source

    Which gives a ratio more like 313 to 1.

    • MashedPotatoJeff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another thing about automotive (and probably most industries) is that large portions of the labor are contracted through agencies. Even most entry level engineers are contract now. So that figure doesn’t include many of the lower paid positions in these facilities.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stock awards aren’t exactly normal compensation, though. If everyone got equal stock in the company, everyone would be incentivized to work towards the company’s success.

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

        So why are most employees given salary or hourly pay without stock rewards? Shouldn’t the company want to incentivize employees for the company’s success? I understand there are a lot of people who defend their companies or corporations without much investment incentives given. I still don’t see why it is not a common benefit to give.

        • 1984@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I will never care about any company I work for. They can give me stock, sure, but I know it’s not my company and I don’t want to work harder for one extra peanut. I rather get time off then. :)

          Give everyone 6 weeks vacations and 4 day work weeks to start with. It’s more than fair. Let people have time off and enjoy their lives. But not going to happen.

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

          Stock grants are pretty common in tech. Wonder if the UAW has ever proposed a fair grant program with a favorable vesting schedule. Maybe a grant that immediately vests quarterly over 3 years, 20% of base salary? Build wealth for your long time employees while increasing the value of the stock.

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

      Do you know who Robert Reich is? I don’t know where he got these numbers either, but there’s pretty much zero chance that a former US secretary of labor and current Berkeley professor just pulled them out of his ass. Like his politics or not, the guy does know what he’s talking about.

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

        I’m a fan of Robert Reich, I just meant it as a preface for why my numbers were different.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who the hell is Stellantis? Checks web

    Who the hell though renaming Chrysler to a misspelling of a Paradox 5X space game was a good marketing move?

  • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you considered that the CEO is working 300 times harder than the worker you are comparing them to??

  • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we took the 29 million the GM CEO was paid in 2021 and broke that up equally across the roughly 167,000 employees they each get an extra $173-174 dollars for the year.

    They are getting paid too much but their salary isn’t enough to correct the shortages in worker pay. There are other places that need to be looked at in addition to CEO pay to find the money workers deserve.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      CEO pay, stock buybacks, likely a large company savings, all the C-suite executives, and more im sure.

      • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ll still end up giving people an extra $10 fir the week. It’s bonuses, the inefficient packages made for “consultants” who are doing the job of regular employees at 3x the price. Executive pay isn’t what is behind the issue here.

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

      And your point is? Obviously Reich knows this. He’s talking about the way these companies are set up to funnel ridiculously disproportionate salaries to those at the top, he’s not literally arguing that redistributing CEO pay will somehow magically solve the problem.

      Your point is accurate, it’s just irrelevant nitpicking at the cost of grasping what’s really being said.

    • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Take all the stock held by those outside of the company and give it all to the workers. Problem solved. None of the CEO pay was touched; workers are invested in their own company; all are much wealthier without lising any value.

      • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seizing all the stock held by outside people would tank the value of the stock and company if it was legal which it isn’t.

        Stocks have value that increases or decreases because outside people can trade them. If you own a share of a business that you cannot sell then it will not provide you any value unless the company sells otherwise you just have a piece of paper stating you own a piece of that company which has no worth. .

        • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So what you’re telling me is that stocks have no relation to the value of the company, it’s production, or market share.

          • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not entirely as if you sold the company then you would receive a share of the profits as you are part owner so it does in a sense represent the value of a company but not really and only if sold. In your example they cannot sell so those specific shares wouod yave no value making getting investment difficult.

            • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If shares cant be sold then why are CEOs getting paid in stocks while claiming to only be paid $1/year? Are you saying that they.literally only work for a dollar? How is their house payment made? Yacht payment? Car payment? Children’s education? Can we get all that for $1 also?

              • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Shares right now can be sold, but if you stole all the stock from outside sources and gave it to the workers no one would purchase that stock ever again as there would be no reason to think you would not steal again.

                In CEO’s cases if they get paid $1 they either take loans against the value of the stock that they can later move or the business provides them a series of allowances and an expense account. It is usually the latter where the business gives them a home and a credit card that covers everything.

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

                  So, again, that sounds to me like stocks have no actual value and arent at all related to the health of the company.

                  As for “stealing”, that’s the risk an investor takes, isnt it? The company buys them back and redistributes it. Same stock, same value. Maybe the employee sells theirs again to buy a house or pay some bills. You’re making the hedge funder’s argument (which is a vile and corrupt fake industry that shouldn’t exist)

  • Vaggumon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    CEO’s are only good for one thing and one thing only. A balanced diet.

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

    Out of curiosity, how is worker pay being defined here? Is it just average salary of non-management employees?

  • InputZero@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember the CEO is the second most powerful position in a public Corporation. The major Shareholders and director boards are the top. The CEO is there to take crap so Shareholders and the board don’t have to. CEOs are the embodiment of corpo-shilling but they’re not the top.

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

    All three should be seized and the stock redistributed to the workers. Workers should own the companies they work for.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Workers owning the labor is at the center of communist theory. Socialism is just one part of communism, these aren’t two distinct theories.

          • dx1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to be confused with state management of the economy, the actual defining feature of real-life-not-in-theory “communism” that actually overrode worker control of anything in the first place.

    • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly this. And to all the “communist” shitheads, this was a normal scenario before Reagan destroyed America

  • transigence@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could if any of them made decent products. Out of all of the products that all of those companies offer, the only things worth half a shit are Ford’s F-150 and GM’s Vortec engine line-up.

  • aport@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you gave the Ford CEOs income evenly among all the employees, it would be an extra $200 a year.

    CEO-to-worker pay ratio isn’t a particularly useful metric but it does a good job making people rightfully angry.

      • bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough but the “we don’t have the money” part is what doesn’t really make sense. CEO compensation, however egregious, is still a very small part of total payroll.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok, now add in all the other C-suite execs and the board of directors

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

            The board of directors is not on payroll, they’re the owners, they get dividends or can sell part of the actions.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to show how ridiculously inverted the current distribution of wealth and resources is in virtually all major US industries. The point is that the money is there. It’s just getting sucked up to the top.

      • aport@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        nobody should be making that much money at a company

        I mean that’s kinda up to the board of directors, isn’t it?

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “It’s ok because other rich people are saying its fine to pay rich people a ton of money”

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

            CEOs shouldn’t be payed less, because I will be CEO of Apple in 10 years.

            • his thoughts probably
    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you’re saying we’d only need to sacrifice the pay of one guy to get free or mostly-paid-off utilities or groceries or gas for an entire month for hundreds of thousands of people? Seems like a worthy sacrifice.

      • Faresh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think @[email protected] is saying CEOs should be defended, but rather that their income isn’t a good measure for the rate of exploitation, because a great part of the companies profits that aren’t retained are divided among the shareholders, that is arguably where the greatest theft lies.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reich also went out his way to screw the working class. Citing him just shows someone is citing someone that is saying what they want to hear.

      He went out of his way to screw people when he was in power.

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

          He did not such thing. Congress has the power to set the minimum wage. Maybe you need to brush up on how bad this man destroyed the middle class.

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

            Sure, he didn’t specifically himself pass it, but he was Secretary of Labor and he lobbied for it. He’s also the reason we have FMLA.

            I don’t think it’s fair to say he “destroyed” the middle class.

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

        In what way did Robert Reich of all people “go out of his way to screw the working class”?

        This should be good…

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guessing it’s this:

          Throughout his first year in office, Reich was a leading proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration and supported by Clinton following two side agreements negotiated to satisfy labor and environmental groups. Reich served as leading public and private spokesman for the Clinton administration against organized labor, who continued to oppose the Agreement as a whole.

          In July 1993, Reich said that the unions were “just plain wrong” to suggest NAFTA would cause a loss of American employment and predicted that “given the pace of growth of the Mexican automobile market over the next 15 years, I would say that more automobile jobs would be created in the United States than would be lost to Mexico… [T]he American automobile industry will grow substantially, and the net effect will be an increase in automobile jobs.” He further argued that trade liberalization following World War II had led to the "biggest increase in jobs and standard of living among the industrialized nations [in] history. "[31]

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

            Sounds more like him being wrong and/or lied to by the Clinton administration that was mostly far to the right of him on just about anything than any sort of malice on his part, much less “going out of his way to screw the working class”…

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

                Not really, no. Would be extremely out of character and go against what he’s been doing for all the rest of career to deliberately hurt workers.

                He didn’t leave the Clinton administration because everyone agreed with him and let him do what he thought was best without undue influence…

                • dx1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, really, because you want to give him this huge benefit of the doubt when it’s one of the few things where he actually had influence and what he did was the opposite of all the principles he professes. Occam’s razor there is that it’s just classic political hypocrisy, waxing poetic all day about your principles but then doing the wrong thing any time it actually counts.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    1- make by law that the highest paid employee (or contractor) including bonuses and everything cannot earn more than 10 times as the lowest paid

    2- tax. Tax income for the lowest incomes at, say, 20% and then let it rise in steps, each step part will be taxed higher, until it hits a point where anything above a certain level is taxed 100%. You earn more than that? Cool you’re helping the government a great deal!

    3- use all thatoney for universal healthcare, universal housing (if you can’t buy a house, you’ll get one), universal income. Also infrastructure

    While we’re at it

    4- change political system from “winner takes all” to “each candidate with over 1% of the votes will get exactly that % of power but nobody gets more than 10% of power”

    5- companies care size limited. Canoe have more than 1000-1500 employees or they’ll be forcibly split

    6- redesign cities for people, not cars. All cities should be walkable and cyclable and have great public transportation. Cars won’t be prohibited but taxed higher. Nobody in cities wants cars anymore because they don’t need them

    Cities and the world in general would be NICE!