This isn't a useful metric as it's obviously bad for retail and service industries, and good for tech simply because of their business models. The median wages are really high when you outsource most of your labor and your actual "employees" are a handful of high level engineers. Spectrum for insurance is scummy but you can't just hire people in China to do service calls or upkeep infrastructure, ya know?
Also it doesn't include ownership. 1:1 with AirBnb is misleading for instance as it's probably mostly their execs on the team and their compensation is in stake at the company. Their business model also counts everyone as contractors, so there's that too.
If you outsource all your cleaning personnel, who have low paying jobs, you decrease the multiplier, even though nothing actually changed for the better.
Not to mention that the people doing most of the real labour to get e.g. clothes made and into shops work in sweatshops in poor countries and earn a tiny fraction of these salaries
{"code":"object-request-error","msg":"Invalid status 429 Too Many Requests for Some(\"01/93/a1/c7/6a/8f/7c/d9/b9/a4/352f309d98f9.png\") - {\n \"message\":\"Too many requests\"\n}"}
Yes but note the median pay is 300k. Most of the high ratios are retail and most of the low ratios are tech because of labor pay, not CEO. That said, Alphabet must be specific to an exec branch because there's no way the median is 300k counting all the outsourced labor they likely rely on (like to make Pixel phones).
The ratio between lowest paid and highest paid employee, in all forms of payment and benefits, to all employees (including contractors), should be capped. I'm thinking a ratio somewhere around 1:5 or so.
Have an employee paid only 20k per year? Congrats on your 100k salary Mr. CEO.
Might aswell just make it a multiple of the minimum wage, because somewhere in the chain there will always be someone scrubbing toilets earning next to nothing. Or you end up incentivizing complex structures that try to avoid this cap somehow.
That said i don't think this is the right solution anyways, since it only targets income and not wealth. As long as profit gets made it has to end up somewhere. And i feel like it is much more likely to end up in the owners pockets, than resulting in higher wages. It's similar to how the salaries of successful actors/athletes are obscene, but the alternative would be that the studio/club just makes more profit.
So the more important issue would be to improve mechanisms that redistribute money, from whereever large amounts of wealth accumulate. Like a wealth tax or higher inheritance taxes (or just closing all loopholes that help avoid/reduce it).
However i would definitely also support a higher maximum taxation rate for the super high earners.
Or you end up incentivizing complex structures that try to avoid this cap somehow.
They already do that with hiring employees as contractors, which is why I mentioned it. Any employee they hire gets counted.
That said i don’t think this is the right solution anyways, since it only targets income and not wealth.
Hence why I said payment in any form. That includes benefits, PTO, stocks, everything. The rich still have other shenanigans they pull, sure. But this would at least solve the problem on a salary level.
And i feel like it is much more likely to end up in the owners pockets, than resulting in higher wages.
Agreed, which is why the stock market needs to end. It's the primary means by which they rob the working class.
So the more important issue would be to improve mechanisms that redistribute money, from whereever large amounts of wealth accumulate. Like a wealth tax or higher inheritance taxes (or just closing all loopholes that help avoid/reduce it).
I'd recommend looking into a land value tax system.
The government could incentivize this by a tax formula. Highest paid employee divided by lowest paid employee sets the payroll tax rate for the whole business.
They could, but a lot of idiot children decided not to support the party that would have done that because unnamed randos on the interwebs told them not to. So that's not going to happen. Again.
I don't really mind a 50:1 cap, or even a 100:1 cap. I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
Even think about it from an age demographic/experience point of view. How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don't feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1. Now factor that into the consideration of the varying different positions, the ratio has got to be higher.
And in the face of abhorrent 2100:1 ratios, I think a 100:1 ratio is low enough to make a meaningful difference and high enough that no one can sensibly argue against it.
I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
I can't. Large scale multination corporations shouldn't exist. But that's a separate issue ultimately.
How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don’t feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1.
A company hiring somebody with 40 years of experience should be paying towards the higher end of the 1:5 ratio. It would ensure far more of the wealth goes to those who actually provide value.
Brian Chesky, the CEO, gets an annual bonus of around the average of all employees salary. This is completely irrelevant as he is a co-founder and owns 10.6% of the company or around 67 million shares. So at the most recent share price that's $9.17 billion, at least on paper.
Such arrangements are common among tech companies.
I know it's weird, because they have a lot of call center employees that handle various situations. Maybe those aren't counted in the graphic for some reason, because there's no way a call center employee is making close a quarter million dollars.
Let's talk about how the 'negligible' difference in pay of approximately 50k is more than a highly qualified teacher would make with ten years of experience in my state.
Savateev suggests(for director to teacher pay ratio in his education system reform), if I remember correctly, no more than 3 times lowest paid worker in top 80% of highest-paid workers.
As a CEO id be stupid to get a salary. Dividends and stocks are much better tax-wise. Well maybe id get a smaller salary for the advantages in retirement and tax-free accounts and everything, but not much more than whats needed.
Yeah people don't seem to understand taxes wrt stock at all. RSUs are definitely taxed!
Only thing I can think of is they're thinking of options? Afaik those can be advantageous, tax-wise, because you are taxed when you exercise, not when they're granted or when they vest (this is my understanding --- I could be wrong).
Super interesting and nice chart. I wonder if it is a bit misleading to include part-time employees at some of these retail locations. Maybe it should only compare full-time. I know there are a lot of employees at say Walmart who are capped at 30 hours a week so they don’t have to pay them benefits and highlighting that is important too. But if it includes employees that work 10 hours a week it might be inflating the ratios and that might be why so many retailers are at the top of the list.