You're viewing a single thread.
365x the average workers salary divided by 150,000 workers.
Like the math is written out.
The company can pay more for sure, but Reich should know enough to look at these publicly traded companies' cash-on-hand.
As an example:
According to Ford's latest financial reports the company has $42.82 B in cash and cash equivalents.
CEO pay needs a cap but not because workers are paid less. CEO pay is not that big a drain on these companies' resources.
Permanently Deleted
Seems like a pretty arbitrary number you picked there.
Permanently Deleted
CEO pay and worker pay aren't intrinsically linked. Paying a CEO less doesn't mean workers will magically get paid more.
Workers are paid based on the market value of their labor cost.
CEO pay should be capped, but because the market is unhinged from reality and needs a check for overall business health, not because of anything to do with worker salaries.
If CEOs made $0 there is no reason to assume employee wages would increase.
CEO pay should be capped
Probably the best way to do this is to have a union with a strong enough position within the company, forcing the owners to distribute the companies profits more equitably.
Permanently Deleted
They literally are. That's how labor markets work.
Permanently Deleted
Take a breath big guy. You're rambling.
This is you not liking the outcome of the existing labor market, not a denial of its reality.
Permanently Deleted
Whats the actual worth of a competent CEO? Do you think you can calculate his value after reading two articles and some arbitrary numbers?
I know I am stupid but not that stupid to think I can judge a persons salary within minutes.
Permanently Deleted
I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic, I think I agree with you for the most part here.
But how can you have an interpretation of math? Isn't math objective? Isn't math the key to all rationalization?I don't understand how there could be "neofeudalist" or capitalist or communist interpretations of math.
Permanently Deleted
Looks like I replied to the wrong comment here. Apologies.
Permanently Deleted
You're right, it's only the CEO that's overpaid, no one else.
I didn't specify that at all?
Do you understand what cash on hand is?
You say the math is written out, and then compare one overpaid person to the number of striking workers. Pretty dumb.
And you're the one that doesn't understand cash or shareholders.
#fuckyourdividends
I do exactly the opposite of that, actually.
You literally have as much time as you'd like to read and parse that post, and can even ask me questions if the words are too confusing.
Hint:
365x the average workers salary divided by 150,000 workers.
This is suggesting robbing the CEO to pay Paul is not the slam dunk win people (including NIMBY Robert Reich) think it is.
You don't even understand your own words, amazing.
Are you actually illiterate?
You're the one who thinks that the CEO to worker pay ratio is literally only about the CEO. You also think that cash on hand can be freely distributed to workers if that's what management wants. I'm not the idiot here. You are.
If you mean something other than CEO to worker pay, perhaps you should articulate that. You still have not made any sense whatsoever.
Cash on hand can absolutely be spent in a wide variety of ways, be it M&A, disaster scenarios, or sudden changes to business structure. That's one of the most significant purposes of cash on hand.
Have you ever worked in a senior position at a company? Ever run your own business?
Everyone who is not an idiot knows that it's about executive pay in general vs worker pay.
Way to not address the specific point I made about cash. But answer this instead: who owns the cash a company generates?
You two stop. You are acting like people who misunderstand each other because of words, but are flinging around attacks because the medium is restricting your ability to have a constructive discussion. Now kiss and make up
#fuckyourdividends
You're goddamn right, dividends and buybacks both.