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.
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.
Even if you take the whole executive suite it isn’t going to amount to much. The real areas to focus on are the perks, the projects that get handled by “consultants” that were ex-employees who did that same job for less before etc. If they really want to pay these workers it’s going to make more sense togo after other things in addition to high pay.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
If the company bought back the shares that could destroy most companies as it is almost impossible to have enough cash reserves to cover the value of your company. You can’t get loans for it because you would have to give up stock as collateral which would defeat the purpose of the buyback.
If the stock is bought back then those shares will have lost value as the company has less cash in reserve and is clearly worth less than it was before.
If the shares can only be held by employees they would have no real value. getting a job at that company would likely be very expensive as you would have to buy in and there would be little incentive to do so.
Basically your idea won’t work IRL in any form and would likely destroy the company really quickly. Is it safe to presume you have no formal education in economics because this is intro level stuff.
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.
CEO pay, stock buybacks, likely a large company savings, all the C-suite executives, and more im sure.
One of the UAW’s demands is $2 per employee for every 1 million in stock buybacks.
This is what should be talked about. Cash-on-hand is public knowledge of publicly traded companies.
Ford has north of $40B in the bank.
Now do that for the president, vp, directors, and board, hell the whole Suite is over payed, not just the ceo
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.
Sure, but the point still is valid, the difference is shameful
While the OP is about CEO to lowest employee pay, they are hardly the only overpaid people.
Even if you take the whole executive suite it isn’t going to amount to much. The real areas to focus on are the perks, the projects that get handled by “consultants” that were ex-employees who did that same job for less before etc. If they really want to pay these workers it’s going to make more sense togo after other things in addition to high pay.
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.
deleted by creator
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. .
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Stocks have value but part of it is speculative.
If the company bought back the shares that could destroy most companies as it is almost impossible to have enough cash reserves to cover the value of your company. You can’t get loans for it because you would have to give up stock as collateral which would defeat the purpose of the buyback.
If the stock is bought back then those shares will have lost value as the company has less cash in reserve and is clearly worth less than it was before.
If the shares can only be held by employees they would have no real value. getting a job at that company would likely be very expensive as you would have to buy in and there would be little incentive to do so.
Basically your idea won’t work IRL in any form and would likely destroy the company really quickly. Is it safe to presume you have no formal education in economics because this is intro level stuff.
deleted by creator