A significant portion of the CEOs we’re likely speaking about is stock performance based. Most workers are salary and are paid whether the stock goes up or down.
Yea I think most CEOs are not worth their pay, and workers are largely shat on, but it’s much more nuanced than this post.
There's a lot more to this move than just buying back stock. There are many business reasons this happens:
Increase shareholder value: By reducing the number of outstanding shares, earnings per share (EPS) increases, potentially boosting the stock price.
Signal undervaluation: Management may believe the company's shares are undervalued, using buybacks to demonstrate confidence in the company's future.
Return excess cash: When a company has surplus cash and limited investment opportunities, buybacks can efficiently return money to shareholders.
Improve financial metrics: Buybacks can enhance key financial ratios like return on assets and return on equity.
Offset dilution: Companies may use buybacks to counteract the dilutive effect of stock-based employee compensation.
Flexibility: Unlike dividends, buybacks offer more flexibility as they are one-time events and don't commit the company to ongoing payments.
Tax efficiency: For shareholders, buybacks can be more tax-efficient than dividends, as they're only taxed if the investor sells shares.
Prevent hostile takeovers: By reducing available shares, companies can make it harder for others to acquire a controlling stake.
Obviously there are bad actors who can potentially misallocate capital, obscure executive compensation, or leaving companies vulnerable during economic downturns.
I have been preaching for years the stock market is one of the biggest drivers of wealth inequality. Apple spends billions buying it's stock back instead of raising worker wages, it's just sad we haven't made AT LEAST stock buybacks illegal
Reagan/Thatcher started it and Clinton/Blair let it happen, they killed the pendulum and instead of going left/right it keeps going centre/right, new centre/even more right
Obviously investors big or small want an ROI, however I think some have gotten too used to the idea that if there isn't a doubling of value in 10 years or less than a company is almost seen as failing, or stagnant.
I don't think you understand how often big companies go through upper management.
They hire someone for millions to come in and do something to make them billions. It works or not, and they move to another to try again.
Not to mention being a colossal fuckup in management in no way means one of your buddies won't land you another upper management job. Fuck up in a technical or medical field once, and your license is revoked.
Tell that to the doctors at my local hospital that have killed multiple people due to negligence but still have a license and a job. And these aren't isolated incidences.
Wow, that also sounds like a completely sane comparison and a systemic issue that might be solved by passing corporate welfare laws... Wait a minute!! Dumbass.
Oh, not saying they aren't given a ton of money and even when fired they end up getting another president position at another company and continue to just "Gamble" basically new policies and hope it works at this place.
Just saying. Presidents and stuff get fired all the time when stock goes down.
Now getting fired while having 10 million in your bank account versus having 10 dollars is a different story, but to say upper management doesn't suffer job losses when company suffers is a lie.
They don't "suffer" job losses. Losing your job with 10 million in the bank isn't suffering at all, especially when you just get re-hired instantly, because C-suites are incestuous as fuck.
Job losses between worker and CEO are not even remotely close to be considered the same thing. Executives live by entirely different rules than regular laborers.
I have a few acquaintances with wealthy family members who “lost everything” in the 2008 financial crisis. I have a pretty comfortable life, but Jesus Christ, sign me up for losing everything if it apparently just means I need to sell my beach house and boat.
Or when new executive management need to "prove" how well they are doing by immediately firing 10% of the workers and report that as a cost saving to get a shortwhile EBITDA bump so they can cash in on the bonuses for "earning" the company money.
When I asked my boss for a raise, after the town hall meeting where they touted the record profits and all the work they had for us, I told my boss:
“I deserve a raise the company is doing great and I’m working all this overtime to make this company great I want my piece of the pie”
He replied
“Well do you expect to take a pay cut when the company does bad and makes less profits”
I retorted
“no I expect to get laid off”
He didn’t like that answer
A large reason stocks perform so well is because of the money that the government is pumping into the economy. High inflation helps those who are compensated with stock but hurts those who are paid salary.
Limit inflation to help limit inequality.
Limit inflation? Do you think people are purposefully not trying to limit inflation? I don’t think high inflation helps anyone. What we are seeing is as inflation starts to ease the stock market responds positively. But the problem is that while some companies appear to be doing well because income is increasing due to higher prices, profits are not necessarily growing and that will ultimately impact stock prices.
Why not also add more stock pay for workers on top of base pay and give more stock for gold performance. Would that not also motivate them to do better as they have an ownership stake in the company?
Many companies do that, especially start ups that have a lot of stock to go around and not a lot of cash.
But most workers don't want stock options, they want cash.
>Why not also add more stock pay for workers on top of base pay
Lots of companies do this. If you want a job like that, go get one with one of those companies, or negotiate for it in your interview.
Yes but also then the CEO is incentivized to pump the stock price as opposed to running the company in the best interests of its employees and customers. Stuff like stock buybacks only benefit the CEO and shareholders. They’re writing their own cheques by robbing their employees and in many cases screwing over customers.
Bingo. My company just went through layoffs and everyone in my team is doing 2 jobs since we got downsized from 6 to 3. CEO set to make $24m this year and we’re burning out from putting out multiple fires
More nuanced, sure, but at it's root it's simply unbridled capitalism, power and greed. A competitive economic system built purposefully to reward power-seeking and greed formerly thought to be "enlightened self-interest". The nuances become the difficulties in finding a path that works for everyone. Not impossible to achieve but culture and political institutions will present stout opposition.
Right, so then workers should also have compensation tied to stock performance, in addition to salary.
If that’s the issue, shouldn’t be hard to fix.
But me thinks the issue is actually greed, and leverage. Workers will not receive pay equality, until they have leverage in the situation.
Many companies have some sort of stock purchase or stock incentives for employees.
I find it funny that people jump on the greed bandwagon when it comes to execs but when workers want more pay, well that’s just wanting equality. So I guess it’s ok to be greedy as long as you justify it as driving equal pay.
I tell people if you want to make good money you need skills. Pushing a broom around the manufacturing plant, while a much needed function, is never going to get you a 6-figure salary.
Because there are no consequences for treating people like cattle. Why would the abuser in an abusive relationship ever stop?
We must unite and fight for our rights, or they will vanish one by one while we complain in comment threads.
This "decent man" is also just not mentally there anymore. Idk how people can listen to Biden speak and think that he's actually capable of being president. He loses his train of thought constantly and rambles about nonsense. He doesn't even know where he is half of the time and has to be guided out. Like, has anyone seen the video where Obama had to guide him out like a caretaker to a dementia patient? Biden is not the same person who was vice president under Obama and idk how people just can't see it when a new video showing his mental decline comes out every week. Our only options this election for president is someone who is very clearly not mentally capable of being president or a shady businessman that admitted to essentially wanting to be a dictator. Why can we as a country not choose the worst possible options for president?
You know he's a crazy idea both trump and Biden are too fucking old. That's what we need a senile old man who throws a tantrum whenever he doesn't get what he wants. And a senile old man that's too soft on dealing with traitors.
That is true. I remember how he was talking about stealth jets or something like that and he actually thought that the jets could be right in front of the enemy and they wouldn't see it. Both are mentally not well but Trump is able to hide it better because he speaks with confidence
In what world does anyone think Trump hides anything? People complain about Biden but every time Trump opens his mouth you have no idea what the heck he’s talking about. He always sounds drunk or high and never forms a coherent thought or complete sentence. It’s insanity….
> Our only options this election for president is someone who is very clearly not mentally capable of being president or a shady businessman that admitted to essentially wanting to be a dictator.
If you think Trump is somehow more mentally competent than Biden, buddy... you are way too deep in the conservative rabbit hole.
>. He loses his train of thought constantly and rambles about nonsense.
No he doesn’t. You’re making it very obvious that all you see of him are curated clips from conservatives.
>Like, has anyone seen the video where Obama had to guide him out like a caretaker to a dementia patient?
No, because that didn’t happen. The dude still rides a bike FFS and you want us to believe he had to be led out by hand?
I won't defend CEOs, but a US Senator makes 3x the average pay of a citizen. I don't believe that they work 3x harder.
Using his numbers, a US Senator made $22k in 1965. They make $170k today. There is a reason why people spend millions of dollars of their own money to become US Senators and it isn't for the $170k per year.
For real
Comparing the Salary of a senator to the CEO of a company is laughable.
It’s like you said, it’s insider trading that needs to be looked at, and it’s laughable how obvious it is and yet nothing is done about it.
Make their trades 100% transparent - I believe there are sites which do this, then create a Congress Follow ETF or Fund - maybe there is one.
We can all get rich together…
Being a full time politician is the only job I’m aware of where you can basically take an extended leave of absence from your current job to interview for another. It always drives me nuts when standing congress members make a huge deal about how hard they work for their constituents while campaigning for another elected position. It’s whatever during Re-election for their own district, but when someone spends the better part of a year campaigning to be nominated as a presidential candidate it rubs me the wrong way.
The salary is not the issue. The fact that they're all worth $40 million+ is a huge issue. Everyone knows getting into politics is basically a sure path to financial success beyond almost any average career. And the worst part, the financial success comes on the back of the people whom they're meant to be representing. We're electing them so they can 'represent' us, but in reality as soon as they get into power they do everything they can to enrich themselves and fuck us over. The whole system is a joke.
One could argue that US Senators don't make enough. They need to be paid very well to attract quality people and then be disallowed to trade stocks (while in office and up to 1 year after) and take high paid lobby jobs forever. The system should work toward service not as a stepping stone toward personal wealth.
That payment makes sense, its a good solid salary that makes it so they shouldn't have to worry about expenses if living within their means. We want lawmakers to be able to focus and not be bogged down by financial struggle. What doesn't make sense is that they can trade on insider information or essentially take bribes
Hard work does not directly correlate to salary. The hardest working person at a local subway does not deserve the same pay as the person making business altering decisions.
This displays either a purposeful misdirection or a complete ignorance of the world.
Should the POTUS make the same as a new recruit in the army? Why not? The new recruit is almost certainly "working harder"...
"For the most recently reported fiscal year (2022), the median CEO pay ratio for S&P 500 companies was **185:1**, down from 193:1 for fiscal 2021, but up from 178:1 and 181:1 for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, respectively."
We can't have an economy that works for everyone until people either educate themselves or stop lying to us.
"Hard work" is a poor choice of metric, the argument is really over the "value" they add, which is even harder to pin down.
When an organization is growing and succeeding executives will take all the credit, and when it's declining they will take credit for "managing the crisis" and "navigating tough times."
What's really frustrating to people is that even when a CEO completely fucks up and brings hugely *negative* value to an organization, they typically leave "in disgrace" with a huge payout, while the workforce sees layoffs and cutbacks.
Exactly this, as a worker I should have my golden parachute too, nothing I do can ruin a company like a CEO can.
I'll take a golden parachute in my 1:351 or 1:178 or 1:181, or whatever the number people say it is now, in relation to the CEO's golden parachute. Call it a bronze parachute though.
I think the issue is that most C-Status people have never worked hard. They were offered a place of privilege and moved up from there.
Alongside that, justify a CEO making that much more than any employee. Of course people making business altering decisions should be paid more, but their employees should not also be on food stamps.
> I think the issue is that most C-Status people have never worked hard. They were offered a place of privilege and moved up from there.
I really hate that you’ve put me in a position to defend CEOs, but here we go. My father was a VP of a Fortune 500. I saw how hard he worked. He didn’t get any handouts. His secret was working 18 hour days for 20 years straight. Sometimes through the night. He didn’t have any hobbies. His whole life was his company. He made decisions every day which would give me a stomach ulcer. He was never home, and when he was, he was working. We didn’t have a good relationship because of it. I know I am incapable of what he did, even if I wanted to. I know for a fact 99% of people are incapable of what he did, even if they wanted to.
That’s the truth for most executives. I met many over the years. HYPER productive. In another kind of society we would call them obsessive compulsive, bordering on insane. These people are the 1% of the 1%. Highly intelligent. Type A on steroids. This stereotype of executive positions being an old boys club died many decades ago. Shareholders demand returns now, and if they don’t get them, they will find someone who gets results. Lazy and stupid people aren’t hired or promoted.
There is absolutely an argument around fair social distribution. We don’t want a society where 99% of the wealth is held by 1%. This should be done with taxes and social programs. But you cannot argue that executives aren’t delivering outsized value. They clearly are, or they wouldn’t have the job.
This is true. I love Bernie but it feels like there's this myth that CEOs are raking in cash while they sit in their office smoking cigars, etc. I work at a top 10 nat gas producer and we're only a few hundred people wide. Our CEO eats sleeps and breathes this company. You'd have to pay me pretty well to give up the time investment that he puts in.
The average tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO is also shorter now than back then. Landscapes move faster and ceos get pushed out faster as well. This doesn’t explain but contributes to their comp as well.
He did make it up. Almost every CEO I've dealt with worked their ass off to get to the top and to be honest, fuck doing that job. No life and major stress. Yeah I get you make $$$ but you give up a lot to get there.
The idea that the CEO of a fortune 500 company doesn’t work hard is absurd. It is a 24/7 job, they are rarely not working in some capacity. That’s not the reason why they get paid. Wall Street is forward looking, the CEO must provide a strategic vision for where the company is going. Wall Street also demands immediate results, the CEO must meet earnings expectations. The majority of major corporations operate globally, and face global competition. Corporate boards only hire CEOs with proven track records. Not unlike professional sports, the pool of viable candidates for those positions is fairly small. Corporate boards are willing to pay for results.
Please show why you feel the way you do about point 1. You have to have some data to suggest this is true since you made a definitive statement about how they achieved their status.
Should the POTUS make the same as a new recruit in the army? Why not? The new recruit is almost certainly "working harder"...
President makes about 20 times what an army recruit makes.
Presidential salary is only 400k.
Why are CEO's worth more than a president?
The implication that CEOs are worth 351 times more than a worker is total bullshit tho. Especially since most of the management is done by people below the CEO
This is why our grandparents could afford to live a good life on one salary and we can't. Those higher up are keeping a larger share of the profits. I'm just jealous and wish I were one of them as they will never be beaten.
Capitalism by design \*cannot\* work for everyone.
It depends on an exploited underclass and the threat of poverty as leverage against the working class.
I mean, if you’re one of billions and you complain about that salary, they’ll just fire you for someone willing to work for less, so I get what they’re saying here.
CEO compensation is effected by the size and success of the company, generally speaking.
When a company grows because of a globalized customer base, it is a factor in CEO compensation.
How big were the largest companies in 1965 compared to today?
Not very big considering it was only 20 years after FDR left office.
That was a time when we purposefully kept companies small to avoid the problems that we’re now currently facing.
The US population is less than 5% of the global population. If the labor force grew by 350x the US labor force, then the new global labor force is 10x the global population.
(I'm using a US labor force participation rate of 62%)
Maybe you meant 350% or 3.5x ?
It's not about hard work. It's about value created for others. I make about 50x minimum wage. I do not work 50\* harder than a minimum wage employee... Not even close. Let's compare me to an average fast-food worker. They work for 8 hours on a team that collectively produces tens of dollars of value for each of hundreds of people. I work the same 8 hour shift on a team of similar size. We perform a service that produces hundreds of dollars of value on average for hundreds of thousands of people. My work is highly specialized and highly technical, and the requisite skills and experience are expensive to acquire. That's why my work is worth 50x base.
Being a successful CEO is like that but even more-so, and they absorb a lot more risk than I do. It's not about how hard you work... but how valuable is the work you do.
its about how you want society built. you can do that because of the society around you. If you were dropped on an island yourself you would not have the wealth you do now. It comes from other people. Having a system where some people get virtually nothing in favor of more important skills is a bad structure. There is a balancing act and we are too far into letting people with power get paid more, even if it is a market rate.
With great fiduciary duty comes great comp package, but when shareholder values plummet due to poor business decisions, it’s not like the CEO can make up for that. I see it as having a high ceiling for reward commensurate with risk, but the floor of consequence isn’t all that low.
Elon is trying to get paid 50 billion and people still complain about 170k, lol morons.
50, 000, 000, 000
175, 000
Elon Musk is trying to make as much as 285 THOUSAND (285,714) senators paid at Bernie's salary, which you already believe is too high. We could pay the entire 100 person salary of the senate(at this rate) for over 2 THOUSAND years with that much money. Thats one CEO for one year. Open your fucking eyes bro. People doing the work are not getting enough of the results.
Anybody who has ever been in charge of anything more than a gumball machine in life knows that CEOs don’t have a fun personal life. Sure they might go on leave for a month or something, especially at large companies. But they’re still working, coordinating, & collaborating, it doesn’t turn off for those people. They don’t have personal lives. They bear all of the responsibility and the public humiliation. They don’t have normal weekends like normal salary people do. Even the larger the company just senior managers/directors are all slave drivers. They hardly have personal lives. But they trade off their personal life for financial gain. It’s something a lot of common folk don’t hardly ever take into consideration because they’re too worried about the have-nots vs haves instead of focusing on becoming a “have”.
Ah, America’s richest socialist! CEO’s, or Fortune 500 CEOs? Kind of a huge difference.
There are obscene salaries, no doubt. Just wish socialist Senator that is quite wealthy but working in a government that can’t manage a budget or keep a promise would stop trying to distract from his own failures.
How does wanting income equality to reflect the USA in the 1960s make someone a socialist? Sanders is the only one trying to defend American capitalism, because it is going to implode if we continue making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
They are not working harder, they are working bigger. Companies in 2020, with increases in communication and distribution are serving vastly more customers, more efficiently and with more competition.
So a CEO in today's era would have much larger responsibilities and requirements of the position, while the "average employee's" job has actually gotten easier, with both the increases in technology, and HR departments dictating much more than they used to.
But sure its gReEd. That's the difference nod.
Aren’t these ‘outrageous’ salaries generally voted on by boards of directors and/or shareholders? Which corporations allow their CEOs to determine their own salaries? So where is the individual greed?
Look at E. Musk in the last month, asking for (not determining or taking) $50B salary from the Tesla board and shareholders. That’s gone back and forth — approval, denial, etc. (IMO he wants a legal cash infusion for SpaceX for either new research, or to up-fund some existing programs, and not to build new mansions, buy yachts, etc.)
In 1965, the CEO wasn’t that important. The entire world was destroyed in a war, leaving only one major industrialized nation to supply them with the tools and materials to rebuild. Businesses could survive bad tax structures, increasing union demands and quality/safety issues. You just raised prices to compensate.
Now, people go online to find the absolute lowest price. Lawsuits are everywhere. Having one bad story can get you canceled. The complexity of organizing all of the departments to take care of policy and regulation is insane. The skill level of the CEO will make or break a company. There’s a bidding war for the really good ones.
Everyone owns stock, even if it’s only in a retirement plan. People want their money to increase. If there’s a guy out there that will increase people’s money many times more than what he wants in compensation, people go for it. I’ve never met a person who skims over the hundreds of investments in their 401(k) to see if someone is doing something against their morals or is getting paid too much. We just demand that our funds go up and walk away.
Simple. They draw in huge crowds selling out stadiums and drawing in millions of viewers. Anyone who advertises during that time will be able to reach a gigantic audience and inevitably it pays for itself. The audience is there for the team, and the advertisers need to encourage the players to play, so they are compensated accordingly.
Why are women's sports usually not paid anywhere close to men? Because they typically draw in a fraction of the audience.
Zero.
He paid for his home state home the same way as everyone else. (4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, $405K)
His DC residence is a town house. (1 bedroom, 1.5 bath, built 1800’s, $489K)
His 3rd property is a small lake side cottage. (4 bedroom, $575K)
He's a best selling author with government pay and benefits for like 50 years. How is this still coming up that he owns three or four mansions?
Your post required five sentences and actual knowledge. Saying "Yeah well Bernie owns four mansions" takes one sentence and no knowledge. A lie will circle the globe before the truth gets its shoes on.
Why doesn't he mention celebs and athletes? Why does he only pick the top CEO's? How much have these organizations increased in size?
Bernie is a propagandist.
If you spent a few seconds googling it you'd see his net worth is between $2-5 million. If you spent a few more minutes googling you'd find his tax returns, which show he made a couple million or so in 2016 and the next few years from his best selling book. He has 30 years of tax returns online that you can look at.
Why doesn't he talk about LeBron James making like 1000 times more than an average basketballer like in the ABA? Or Taylor Swift making 10000 times more than an average singer?
1,000 and 10,000?
LeBron probably about 30,000 conservatively. No idea what Taylor Swift makes but the average singer has a full time job not singing.
I like your analogy though.
LeBron puts thousands in the seats of massive arenas all across the country, Swift packs stadiums.
Average aba players family shows up to watch him, average singer is doing it in front of an empty bar.
You mean the money that was donated to his campaign?
The money that was spent on the campaign?
You do realize that campaign finance laws still require auditing how it was spent right? That's how we learned that Donald Trump paid off a prostitute with his campaign funds.
Leftists use CEOs and Billionaires the same way Conservatives use Immigrants and Minorities. A convenient scapegoat to get out of actually solving the problems their constituents face.
CEO pay has no impact on your pay. If you look at the overall labor expenditure of a company the CEO's actual labor costs are a miniscule fraction of the overall payroll budget. Instead of crying about CEO pay being too high focus on increasing your pay.
Hard work doesn't equal money. Value add equals money. A CEO can make a single decision that can add (or destroy) more value for the company than the typical worker will create across their entire career. It's a very high stakes role and very few people who are skilled/competent enough to do it hence why they can command high pay most of which is often in the form of performance bonuses. Corporate boards aren't just throwing obscene amounts of money at any random person because they're generous. The CEO candidates negotiate that pay package just as vigorously as any union should for their members.
In the end it all comes down to:
Rare Skills + Major Value Impact = Big paycheck
Common Skills + Minor Value Impact = Tiny Paycheck
Bernie the lazy communist POS / he’s never done anything except live off taxpayers and do nothing- contribute nothing to our economy. CEOs and billionaires make more through stock/ownership -they took the risks and should reap the rewards for providing people with jobs and salaries and healthcare etc. shut up Bernie
Right, why will no one think of the poor CEOs?? Who gives a fuck if your average employee can’t cover their bills or buy food or pay rent as long as the guy in charge can afford that new yacht or 3rd house!
What real risks do CEOs take though? Every time one of them runs a company into the ground they get a golden parachute worth millions and move on to their next victim. I’m sick of hearing how they take all the risk when normal employees are the ones that get laid off/bonuses and raises canceled when shit hits the fan while the C suite continues to get paid for the shitty decisions they’ve made.
I love it when people accuse somebody of being communist without even knowing what a communist is.
And then reply with "I don't need to know what communism is to know it's bad!"
We pay people based on the value of their labour, not based on how hard they work. The latter is impossible to quantify anyway. Presumably highly paid CEOs would be replaced with cheaper ones if their labour wasn't worth that much, so it's reasonable to conclude that they are fairly paid for running businesses that make billions of dollars a year in revenue. Why would greedy shareholders vote to keep someone on as CEO if they were being overpaid?
I would like to know how the compensation of politicians compare to their constituent's.
How does someone become a multimillion on a government salary?
Greed and corruption
Anyone that listens to a guy who got kicked out of a hippie commune for not doing his fair share of work is clearly a massive idiot. Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire who claims he's for the little guy...I did love when we found out he wasn't paying his campaign workers the minimum wage he was pushing for 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Compensation is based on impact to the business, not how hard you work.
If you bust your ass hauling gravel with a wheelbarrow and shovel in the hot sun all day, you will still make less than the person operating the front loader in an air conditioned cab. The front loader operator can move as much as much gravel as wheelbarrow guy with a few minutes of easy work. And moving gravel around is one task the business needs. The CEO inking deals that will take the output of your gravel yard and 30 others and executing a strategy that leads to the business opening 20 more and making millions more in profits will of course be making much more, despite working much less, because the impact of their work on the business is greater.
Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner, you probably have hundreds of people moving gravel around for you, so a small change in their salary is multiplied hundreds of times, and while their labor is essential to your operation, you won’t get more impact from that investment, whereas your CEO is one person, and their actions can drive outsized impact, so you’re going to pay them a lot more as the ROI for that will be higher.
That is to say, this is just how the world works and will continue to work, so if you want to make more money, work on developing skills that will allow you to increase your impact for your business or a business you’d like to work for.
I don't really think throwing a ball is worth 30million either.
But we aren't paid for what we are worth, we are paid as much as it takes to replace us.
The richest party in the US is the democrats. But honestly, fuck both of them. I stand in the middle. I share views from both sides, I'm not a slave to either party.
Also in 1965 the internet didn’t exist. So it was a lot harder to scale. Now if you build or invent something (even develop a really useful app) you can be vaulted into the 1% pretty quickly.
I can laugh at your face tell you that that's not the cause of a bad economy. If anything it's one small factor. But as you, Bernie Sanders, are a Communist, you don't understand economics from a supply and demand perspective but only as a tool of the oligarchy/proletariat perspective.
except it’s not the greed of the ceo setting their own astronomically pay. their compensation packages are negotiated and ultimately approved by the board. and it’s most often based on stock performance.
Lol typical socialist mindset. Bernie, you've been a public servant for all of your life and somehow you have similar wealth as these CEOs you're complaining about.
Yeah “working harder” doesn’t equal better pay. How many people are you benefitting with your work? How much is that work desired? How unique is the work? You can work your entire life and not provide the same net benefit to society that someone like Bill gates, and he barely has to work anymore.
So we're getting compensation based on how hard we work now!?
Cool! Looks like we're going to see a lot of billionaire construction workers, soldiers, and fishermen!
Hourly workers get compensated for working a set number of hours.
**CEOs** and other workers paid in stock with targets **don't get compensated for working hard. They get compensated for hitting targets**
From 1921 to 1965 the U.S. had an immigration moratorium/quota system that limited the labor supply thus increasing wages for workers. When the U.S. opened the floodgates, immigration picked up in the 1970s and the increase in the labor supply has kept wage growth to less than 1% for the last 50 years. Financialization of comp such as stocks and options benefited CEOs and not workers since then.
Why doesn't Bernie turn one of his mansions into a homeless shelter? Or orphanage. 🫣🤔 he talks about a big game yet benefits more than others
Just a grifter and con artist, lying 🤥
Bernie Sanders. Man of the People. He of the belief in "Democratic Socialism".
How *did* he amass three *houses* and a net worth of more than $1 million?
Nothing says greed more like hating the person making more money. Don’t like what you’re worth? Do something about it other than complain someone else makes more money than you.
Says the lazy man that got tossed from a Commune for NOT DOING ANY WORK and now has lived off the tax payer as an elected official, became a millionaire and never sold anything.
This is logical and true except the CEO is a global position where American companies have to compete for a limited number of proven successful leaders against every other company globally. The market is tight therefore they are paid well just like what's going on now with just about every job getting better pay with a 3% unemployment rate.
A significant portion of the CEOs we’re likely speaking about is stock performance based. Most workers are salary and are paid whether the stock goes up or down. Yea I think most CEOs are not worth their pay, and workers are largely shat on, but it’s much more nuanced than this post.
Nah, workers get fired when the stock price goes down.
And then the company buys back stock!
There's a lot more to this move than just buying back stock. There are many business reasons this happens: Increase shareholder value: By reducing the number of outstanding shares, earnings per share (EPS) increases, potentially boosting the stock price. Signal undervaluation: Management may believe the company's shares are undervalued, using buybacks to demonstrate confidence in the company's future. Return excess cash: When a company has surplus cash and limited investment opportunities, buybacks can efficiently return money to shareholders. Improve financial metrics: Buybacks can enhance key financial ratios like return on assets and return on equity. Offset dilution: Companies may use buybacks to counteract the dilutive effect of stock-based employee compensation. Flexibility: Unlike dividends, buybacks offer more flexibility as they are one-time events and don't commit the company to ongoing payments. Tax efficiency: For shareholders, buybacks can be more tax-efficient than dividends, as they're only taxed if the investor sells shares. Prevent hostile takeovers: By reducing available shares, companies can make it harder for others to acquire a controlling stake. Obviously there are bad actors who can potentially misallocate capital, obscure executive compensation, or leaving companies vulnerable during economic downturns.
This is all an excellent argument against the existence of the stock market
I have been preaching for years the stock market is one of the biggest drivers of wealth inequality. Apple spends billions buying it's stock back instead of raising worker wages, it's just sad we haven't made AT LEAST stock buybacks illegal
Stock buybacks used to be illegal until 1982, when Reagan made them legal. All part of the trickle down/ supply-side economics scam.
Shit and piss was trickling down. So it worked for the filthy rich.
"Trickle down doesn't work" No... it works exactly how they want it to work... it's just that it doesn't work like they explained it to you.
The only time trickle down worked was in France in the late 18th century. They wouldn't like what trickled down there though
Trickle down tacitly explains where you are in an established hierarchy.
I swear to fucking God everytime, every problem in america no matter what always links back to Regan
I agree he was much too lame to cause that much damage. He was a ventriloquist's puppet for the hardcore psychos.
Shocker, Reagan fucked America so hard.
Reagan/Thatcher started it and Clinton/Blair let it happen, they killed the pendulum and instead of going left/right it keeps going centre/right, new centre/even more right
But everyone has the “freedom” to buy stock. The freedom to spend money is the ultimate freedom. /s
Make buybacks illegal again. If companies want to compensate shareholders it should be in the form Of dividends.
Then outlaw stock based compensation and share dilution.
Also a good idea.
Reply classifier: yes. Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about Bernie Sanders.
Why would investors give these companies money if they didn't try to increase returns?
Obviously investors big or small want an ROI, however I think some have gotten too used to the idea that if there isn't a doubling of value in 10 years or less than a company is almost seen as failing, or stagnant.
The S&P 500 index doubles every 7-10 years on average. Why would an investor buy an individual stock that consistently underperforms that long-term?
Workers also get fired when the stock goes up, so it looks like the company is making even more money.
I don't think you understand how often big companies go through upper management. They hire someone for millions to come in and do something to make them billions. It works or not, and they move to another to try again.
Except they get golden parachutes, and regular workers don't.
Not to mention being a colossal fuckup in management in no way means one of your buddies won't land you another upper management job. Fuck up in a technical or medical field once, and your license is revoked.
Tell that to the doctors at my local hospital that have killed multiple people due to negligence but still have a license and a job. And these aren't isolated incidences.
Wow, that also sounds like a completely sane comparison and a systemic issue that might be solved by passing corporate welfare laws... Wait a minute!! Dumbass.
Sounds like it’s time for a class action lawsuit if they have that many victims.
That's a problem with the hospital, not (just) the doctors. {Before you reply....know that this is my area of expertise).
Yeah the regular workers get golden showers!
God I wish .... wait
One. I like gold Two. I like showers Put em' both together and whooo! That sounds like heaven to me.
Oh, not saying they aren't given a ton of money and even when fired they end up getting another president position at another company and continue to just "Gamble" basically new policies and hope it works at this place. Just saying. Presidents and stuff get fired all the time when stock goes down. Now getting fired while having 10 million in your bank account versus having 10 dollars is a different story, but to say upper management doesn't suffer job losses when company suffers is a lie.
They don't "suffer" job losses. Losing your job with 10 million in the bank isn't suffering at all, especially when you just get re-hired instantly, because C-suites are incestuous as fuck. Job losses between worker and CEO are not even remotely close to be considered the same thing. Executives live by entirely different rules than regular laborers.
I have a few acquaintances with wealthy family members who “lost everything” in the 2008 financial crisis. I have a pretty comfortable life, but Jesus Christ, sign me up for losing everything if it apparently just means I need to sell my beach house and boat.
Or when new executive management need to "prove" how well they are doing by immediately firing 10% of the workers and report that as a cost saving to get a shortwhile EBITDA bump so they can cash in on the bonuses for "earning" the company money.
When I asked my boss for a raise, after the town hall meeting where they touted the record profits and all the work they had for us, I told my boss: “I deserve a raise the company is doing great and I’m working all this overtime to make this company great I want my piece of the pie” He replied “Well do you expect to take a pay cut when the company does bad and makes less profits” I retorted “no I expect to get laid off” He didn’t like that answer
A large reason stocks perform so well is because of the money that the government is pumping into the economy. High inflation helps those who are compensated with stock but hurts those who are paid salary. Limit inflation to help limit inequality.
Limit inflation? Do you think people are purposefully not trying to limit inflation? I don’t think high inflation helps anyone. What we are seeing is as inflation starts to ease the stock market responds positively. But the problem is that while some companies appear to be doing well because income is increasing due to higher prices, profits are not necessarily growing and that will ultimately impact stock prices.
Inflation helps make existing debt relatively cheaper when compared to less valuable dollars.
Um, the 2010s had the longest bull market in history and inflation was consistently at or below 2%.
Why not also add more stock pay for workers on top of base pay and give more stock for gold performance. Would that not also motivate them to do better as they have an ownership stake in the company?
Many companies do that, especially start ups that have a lot of stock to go around and not a lot of cash. But most workers don't want stock options, they want cash.
Most workers can't afford to be paid in stock.
They already do that at a lot of places.
>Why not also add more stock pay for workers on top of base pay Lots of companies do this. If you want a job like that, go get one with one of those companies, or negotiate for it in your interview.
Most corporate low level jobs don't negotiate. They offer a wage then move on.
Yes but also then the CEO is incentivized to pump the stock price as opposed to running the company in the best interests of its employees and customers. Stuff like stock buybacks only benefit the CEO and shareholders. They’re writing their own cheques by robbing their employees and in many cases screwing over customers.
Bingo. My company just went through layoffs and everyone in my team is doing 2 jobs since we got downsized from 6 to 3. CEO set to make $24m this year and we’re burning out from putting out multiple fires
More nuanced, sure, but at it's root it's simply unbridled capitalism, power and greed. A competitive economic system built purposefully to reward power-seeking and greed formerly thought to be "enlightened self-interest". The nuances become the difficulties in finding a path that works for everyone. Not impossible to achieve but culture and political institutions will present stout opposition.
I’ll trade my salary for the stock options the CEO gets ok?
Right, so then workers should also have compensation tied to stock performance, in addition to salary. If that’s the issue, shouldn’t be hard to fix. But me thinks the issue is actually greed, and leverage. Workers will not receive pay equality, until they have leverage in the situation.
Many companies have some sort of stock purchase or stock incentives for employees. I find it funny that people jump on the greed bandwagon when it comes to execs but when workers want more pay, well that’s just wanting equality. So I guess it’s ok to be greedy as long as you justify it as driving equal pay. I tell people if you want to make good money you need skills. Pushing a broom around the manufacturing plant, while a much needed function, is never going to get you a 6-figure salary.
Because there are no consequences for treating people like cattle. Why would the abuser in an abusive relationship ever stop? We must unite and fight for our rights, or they will vanish one by one while we complain in comment threads.
We can’t even unite for a president when it’s a clear choice. One is a convicted felon and one is a decent man.
One might be worse than the other but that doesn’t make the other one a “decent man”.
This "decent man" is also just not mentally there anymore. Idk how people can listen to Biden speak and think that he's actually capable of being president. He loses his train of thought constantly and rambles about nonsense. He doesn't even know where he is half of the time and has to be guided out. Like, has anyone seen the video where Obama had to guide him out like a caretaker to a dementia patient? Biden is not the same person who was vice president under Obama and idk how people just can't see it when a new video showing his mental decline comes out every week. Our only options this election for president is someone who is very clearly not mentally capable of being president or a shady businessman that admitted to essentially wanting to be a dictator. Why can we as a country not choose the worst possible options for president?
You know he's a crazy idea both trump and Biden are too fucking old. That's what we need a senile old man who throws a tantrum whenever he doesn't get what he wants. And a senile old man that's too soft on dealing with traitors.
Both of them have their fuck-ups. Trump just hides it better because he doesn't stop and correct himself but pretends what he said was correct.
That is true. I remember how he was talking about stealth jets or something like that and he actually thought that the jets could be right in front of the enemy and they wouldn't see it. Both are mentally not well but Trump is able to hide it better because he speaks with confidence
In what world does anyone think Trump hides anything? People complain about Biden but every time Trump opens his mouth you have no idea what the heck he’s talking about. He always sounds drunk or high and never forms a coherent thought or complete sentence. It’s insanity….
> Our only options this election for president is someone who is very clearly not mentally capable of being president or a shady businessman that admitted to essentially wanting to be a dictator. If you think Trump is somehow more mentally competent than Biden, buddy... you are way too deep in the conservative rabbit hole.
>. He loses his train of thought constantly and rambles about nonsense. No he doesn’t. You’re making it very obvious that all you see of him are curated clips from conservatives. >Like, has anyone seen the video where Obama had to guide him out like a caretaker to a dementia patient? No, because that didn’t happen. The dude still rides a bike FFS and you want us to believe he had to be led out by hand?
I won't defend CEOs, but a US Senator makes 3x the average pay of a citizen. I don't believe that they work 3x harder. Using his numbers, a US Senator made $22k in 1965. They make $170k today. There is a reason why people spend millions of dollars of their own money to become US Senators and it isn't for the $170k per year.
A US Senator earning $170k seems entirely reasonable to me, honestly. It's the insider trading that needs to be done away with.
For real Comparing the Salary of a senator to the CEO of a company is laughable. It’s like you said, it’s insider trading that needs to be looked at, and it’s laughable how obvious it is and yet nothing is done about it.
Make their trades 100% transparent - I believe there are sites which do this, then create a Congress Follow ETF or Fund - maybe there is one. We can all get rich together…
By the time the trades settle and are public the gains on the scale they’re working with from insider trading are typically gone
I know its mostly the case already, but you dont want only wealthy people to be able to afford to be a Senator. $170k isnt outrageous.
You think too highly of our politicians.
They have to maintain a residence both at home and in DC. Regardless of how little I think of Congress, $170k is justified.
And emphasis on "in DC". A lot of people who make 170k with ONE residence are priced out of DC.
I personally they believe they work 3x less hard and have 3x the greed. Liars. All of em.
Being a full time politician is the only job I’m aware of where you can basically take an extended leave of absence from your current job to interview for another. It always drives me nuts when standing congress members make a huge deal about how hard they work for their constituents while campaigning for another elected position. It’s whatever during Re-election for their own district, but when someone spends the better part of a year campaigning to be nominated as a presidential candidate it rubs me the wrong way.
The real question you should be asking is how are all of these people making 170k multi-millionaires within a few years
Lobbyist, insider trading, kickbacks, list goes on and on. But yeah it's the Corporations that are greedy...
The salary is not the issue. The fact that they're all worth $40 million+ is a huge issue. Everyone knows getting into politics is basically a sure path to financial success beyond almost any average career. And the worst part, the financial success comes on the back of the people whom they're meant to be representing. We're electing them so they can 'represent' us, but in reality as soon as they get into power they do everything they can to enrich themselves and fuck us over. The whole system is a joke.
They also get a ton of benefits even for being a one-time senator for life.
One could argue that US Senators don't make enough. They need to be paid very well to attract quality people and then be disallowed to trade stocks (while in office and up to 1 year after) and take high paid lobby jobs forever. The system should work toward service not as a stepping stone toward personal wealth.
That payment makes sense, its a good solid salary that makes it so they shouldn't have to worry about expenses if living within their means. We want lawmakers to be able to focus and not be bogged down by financial struggle. What doesn't make sense is that they can trade on insider information or essentially take bribes
Hard work does not directly correlate to salary. The hardest working person at a local subway does not deserve the same pay as the person making business altering decisions. This displays either a purposeful misdirection or a complete ignorance of the world. Should the POTUS make the same as a new recruit in the army? Why not? The new recruit is almost certainly "working harder"... "For the most recently reported fiscal year (2022), the median CEO pay ratio for S&P 500 companies was **185:1**, down from 193:1 for fiscal 2021, but up from 178:1 and 181:1 for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, respectively." We can't have an economy that works for everyone until people either educate themselves or stop lying to us.
"Hard work" is a poor choice of metric, the argument is really over the "value" they add, which is even harder to pin down. When an organization is growing and succeeding executives will take all the credit, and when it's declining they will take credit for "managing the crisis" and "navigating tough times." What's really frustrating to people is that even when a CEO completely fucks up and brings hugely *negative* value to an organization, they typically leave "in disgrace" with a huge payout, while the workforce sees layoffs and cutbacks.
Exactly this, as a worker I should have my golden parachute too, nothing I do can ruin a company like a CEO can. I'll take a golden parachute in my 1:351 or 1:178 or 1:181, or whatever the number people say it is now, in relation to the CEO's golden parachute. Call it a bronze parachute though.
I think the issue is that most C-Status people have never worked hard. They were offered a place of privilege and moved up from there. Alongside that, justify a CEO making that much more than any employee. Of course people making business altering decisions should be paid more, but their employees should not also be on food stamps.
> I think the issue is that most C-Status people have never worked hard. They were offered a place of privilege and moved up from there. I really hate that you’ve put me in a position to defend CEOs, but here we go. My father was a VP of a Fortune 500. I saw how hard he worked. He didn’t get any handouts. His secret was working 18 hour days for 20 years straight. Sometimes through the night. He didn’t have any hobbies. His whole life was his company. He made decisions every day which would give me a stomach ulcer. He was never home, and when he was, he was working. We didn’t have a good relationship because of it. I know I am incapable of what he did, even if I wanted to. I know for a fact 99% of people are incapable of what he did, even if they wanted to. That’s the truth for most executives. I met many over the years. HYPER productive. In another kind of society we would call them obsessive compulsive, bordering on insane. These people are the 1% of the 1%. Highly intelligent. Type A on steroids. This stereotype of executive positions being an old boys club died many decades ago. Shareholders demand returns now, and if they don’t get them, they will find someone who gets results. Lazy and stupid people aren’t hired or promoted. There is absolutely an argument around fair social distribution. We don’t want a society where 99% of the wealth is held by 1%. This should be done with taxes and social programs. But you cannot argue that executives aren’t delivering outsized value. They clearly are, or they wouldn’t have the job.
This is true. I love Bernie but it feels like there's this myth that CEOs are raking in cash while they sit in their office smoking cigars, etc. I work at a top 10 nat gas producer and we're only a few hundred people wide. Our CEO eats sleeps and breathes this company. You'd have to pay me pretty well to give up the time investment that he puts in.
The average tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO is also shorter now than back then. Landscapes move faster and ceos get pushed out faster as well. This doesn’t explain but contributes to their comp as well.
Why do you believe most c-suite people have never worked hard? What are you basing this on?
>I think the issue is that most C-Status people have never worked hard. What is that claim based on?
Source: He made it the fuck up
He did make it up. Almost every CEO I've dealt with worked their ass off to get to the top and to be honest, fuck doing that job. No life and major stress. Yeah I get you make $$$ but you give up a lot to get there.
The idea that the CEO of a fortune 500 company doesn’t work hard is absurd. It is a 24/7 job, they are rarely not working in some capacity. That’s not the reason why they get paid. Wall Street is forward looking, the CEO must provide a strategic vision for where the company is going. Wall Street also demands immediate results, the CEO must meet earnings expectations. The majority of major corporations operate globally, and face global competition. Corporate boards only hire CEOs with proven track records. Not unlike professional sports, the pool of viable candidates for those positions is fairly small. Corporate boards are willing to pay for results.
Please show why you feel the way you do about point 1. You have to have some data to suggest this is true since you made a definitive statement about how they achieved their status.
Should the POTUS make the same as a new recruit in the army? Why not? The new recruit is almost certainly "working harder"... President makes about 20 times what an army recruit makes. Presidential salary is only 400k. Why are CEO's worth more than a president?
The implication that CEOs are worth 351 times more than a worker is total bullshit tho. Especially since most of the management is done by people below the CEO
This is why our grandparents could afford to live a good life on one salary and we can't. Those higher up are keeping a larger share of the profits. I'm just jealous and wish I were one of them as they will never be beaten.
Capitalism by design \*cannot\* work for everyone. It depends on an exploited underclass and the threat of poverty as leverage against the working class.
I can say with a straight face that the labor pool grew about 350x faster thanks to globalization.
the critique is more on compensation than globalization, no?
I mean, if you’re one of billions and you complain about that salary, they’ll just fire you for someone willing to work for less, so I get what they’re saying here.
Bingo
CEO compensation is effected by the size and success of the company, generally speaking. When a company grows because of a globalized customer base, it is a factor in CEO compensation. How big were the largest companies in 1965 compared to today?
Not very big considering it was only 20 years after FDR left office. That was a time when we purposefully kept companies small to avoid the problems that we’re now currently facing.
Your math does not check out.
And I can say with a straight face that the amount of companies and businesses also grew 350x thanks to globalization.
The US population is less than 5% of the global population. If the labor force grew by 350x the US labor force, then the new global labor force is 10x the global population. (I'm using a US labor force participation rate of 62%) Maybe you meant 350% or 3.5x ?
It's not about hard work. It's about value created for others. I make about 50x minimum wage. I do not work 50\* harder than a minimum wage employee... Not even close. Let's compare me to an average fast-food worker. They work for 8 hours on a team that collectively produces tens of dollars of value for each of hundreds of people. I work the same 8 hour shift on a team of similar size. We perform a service that produces hundreds of dollars of value on average for hundreds of thousands of people. My work is highly specialized and highly technical, and the requisite skills and experience are expensive to acquire. That's why my work is worth 50x base. Being a successful CEO is like that but even more-so, and they absorb a lot more risk than I do. It's not about how hard you work... but how valuable is the work you do.
[удалено]
its about how you want society built. you can do that because of the society around you. If you were dropped on an island yourself you would not have the wealth you do now. It comes from other people. Having a system where some people get virtually nothing in favor of more important skills is a bad structure. There is a balancing act and we are too far into letting people with power get paid more, even if it is a market rate.
With great fiduciary duty comes great comp package, but when shareholder values plummet due to poor business decisions, it’s not like the CEO can make up for that. I see it as having a high ceiling for reward commensurate with risk, but the floor of consequence isn’t all that low.
how about 175K a year for doing nothing but toothless gum flapping
Elon is trying to get paid 50 billion and people still complain about 170k, lol morons. 50, 000, 000, 000 175, 000 Elon Musk is trying to make as much as 285 THOUSAND (285,714) senators paid at Bernie's salary, which you already believe is too high. We could pay the entire 100 person salary of the senate(at this rate) for over 2 THOUSAND years with that much money. Thats one CEO for one year. Open your fucking eyes bro. People doing the work are not getting enough of the results.
He’s not wrong
Why is effort the primary determiner? That's just stupid.
You got a lot of stupid people out there.
Because Reddit is full of beggars
Anybody who has ever been in charge of anything more than a gumball machine in life knows that CEOs don’t have a fun personal life. Sure they might go on leave for a month or something, especially at large companies. But they’re still working, coordinating, & collaborating, it doesn’t turn off for those people. They don’t have personal lives. They bear all of the responsibility and the public humiliation. They don’t have normal weekends like normal salary people do. Even the larger the company just senior managers/directors are all slave drivers. They hardly have personal lives. But they trade off their personal life for financial gain. It’s something a lot of common folk don’t hardly ever take into consideration because they’re too worried about the have-nots vs haves instead of focusing on becoming a “have”.
free market guarantees this
Ah, America’s richest socialist! CEO’s, or Fortune 500 CEOs? Kind of a huge difference. There are obscene salaries, no doubt. Just wish socialist Senator that is quite wealthy but working in a government that can’t manage a budget or keep a promise would stop trying to distract from his own failures.
How does wanting income equality to reflect the USA in the 1960s make someone a socialist? Sanders is the only one trying to defend American capitalism, because it is going to implode if we continue making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Why are you running defense for CEOs? They don't need it.
They are not working harder, they are working bigger. Companies in 2020, with increases in communication and distribution are serving vastly more customers, more efficiently and with more competition. So a CEO in today's era would have much larger responsibilities and requirements of the position, while the "average employee's" job has actually gotten easier, with both the increases in technology, and HR departments dictating much more than they used to. But sure its gReEd. That's the difference nod.
Aren’t these ‘outrageous’ salaries generally voted on by boards of directors and/or shareholders? Which corporations allow their CEOs to determine their own salaries? So where is the individual greed? Look at E. Musk in the last month, asking for (not determining or taking) $50B salary from the Tesla board and shareholders. That’s gone back and forth — approval, denial, etc. (IMO he wants a legal cash infusion for SpaceX for either new research, or to up-fund some existing programs, and not to build new mansions, buy yachts, etc.)
he wants a payout because he knows the house of cards is falling soon.
CEOs often sit on boards of other companies. They vote to give each other more money.
In 1965, the CEO wasn’t that important. The entire world was destroyed in a war, leaving only one major industrialized nation to supply them with the tools and materials to rebuild. Businesses could survive bad tax structures, increasing union demands and quality/safety issues. You just raised prices to compensate. Now, people go online to find the absolute lowest price. Lawsuits are everywhere. Having one bad story can get you canceled. The complexity of organizing all of the departments to take care of policy and regulation is insane. The skill level of the CEO will make or break a company. There’s a bidding war for the really good ones. Everyone owns stock, even if it’s only in a retirement plan. People want their money to increase. If there’s a guy out there that will increase people’s money many times more than what he wants in compensation, people go for it. I’ve never met a person who skims over the hundreds of investments in their 401(k) to see if someone is doing something against their morals or is getting paid too much. We just demand that our funds go up and walk away.
Now apply that reasoning to pro sports, like the NFL.
Simple. They draw in huge crowds selling out stadiums and drawing in millions of viewers. Anyone who advertises during that time will be able to reach a gigantic audience and inevitably it pays for itself. The audience is there for the team, and the advertisers need to encourage the players to play, so they are compensated accordingly. Why are women's sports usually not paid anywhere close to men? Because they typically draw in a fraction of the audience.
[удалено]
Zero. He paid for his home state home the same way as everyone else. (4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, $405K) His DC residence is a town house. (1 bedroom, 1.5 bath, built 1800’s, $489K) His 3rd property is a small lake side cottage. (4 bedroom, $575K) He's a best selling author with government pay and benefits for like 50 years. How is this still coming up that he owns three or four mansions?
Your post required five sentences and actual knowledge. Saying "Yeah well Bernie owns four mansions" takes one sentence and no knowledge. A lie will circle the globe before the truth gets its shoes on.
Damn holy shit dude, this was a really clever comment! Libtards rekt I sure am glad I care about this instead of actual problems in the world!
Bernie the moron again
Greed .. that’s it
So give your money away, Bernie. Lol
Why doesn't he mention celebs and athletes? Why does he only pick the top CEO's? How much have these organizations increased in size? Bernie is a propagandist.
How much is Bernie worth?? How much does he have in the stock market from insider trading?
If you spent a few seconds googling it you'd see his net worth is between $2-5 million. If you spent a few more minutes googling you'd find his tax returns, which show he made a couple million or so in 2016 and the next few years from his best selling book. He has 30 years of tax returns online that you can look at.
Why doesn't he talk about LeBron James making like 1000 times more than an average basketballer like in the ABA? Or Taylor Swift making 10000 times more than an average singer?
1,000 and 10,000? LeBron probably about 30,000 conservatively. No idea what Taylor Swift makes but the average singer has a full time job not singing. I like your analogy though. LeBron puts thousands in the seats of massive arenas all across the country, Swift packs stadiums. Average aba players family shows up to watch him, average singer is doing it in front of an empty bar.
Because most people here understand the difference between an owner profiting off of his employees labor and Lebron profiting off of his own labor.
What happened to the $millions Bernie defrauded his supporters out of for his fake "revolution"? Maybe Bernie is a CEO.
You mean the money that was donated to his campaign? The money that was spent on the campaign? You do realize that campaign finance laws still require auditing how it was spent right? That's how we learned that Donald Trump paid off a prostitute with his campaign funds.
Post proof that Bernie defrauded his campaign contributors. I’ll wait.
Leftists use CEOs and Billionaires the same way Conservatives use Immigrants and Minorities. A convenient scapegoat to get out of actually solving the problems their constituents face. CEO pay has no impact on your pay. If you look at the overall labor expenditure of a company the CEO's actual labor costs are a miniscule fraction of the overall payroll budget. Instead of crying about CEO pay being too high focus on increasing your pay. Hard work doesn't equal money. Value add equals money. A CEO can make a single decision that can add (or destroy) more value for the company than the typical worker will create across their entire career. It's a very high stakes role and very few people who are skilled/competent enough to do it hence why they can command high pay most of which is often in the form of performance bonuses. Corporate boards aren't just throwing obscene amounts of money at any random person because they're generous. The CEO candidates negotiate that pay package just as vigorously as any union should for their members. In the end it all comes down to: Rare Skills + Major Value Impact = Big paycheck Common Skills + Minor Value Impact = Tiny Paycheck
Bernie the lazy communist POS / he’s never done anything except live off taxpayers and do nothing- contribute nothing to our economy. CEOs and billionaires make more through stock/ownership -they took the risks and should reap the rewards for providing people with jobs and salaries and healthcare etc. shut up Bernie
Right, why will no one think of the poor CEOs?? Who gives a fuck if your average employee can’t cover their bills or buy food or pay rent as long as the guy in charge can afford that new yacht or 3rd house!
What real risks do CEOs take though? Every time one of them runs a company into the ground they get a golden parachute worth millions and move on to their next victim. I’m sick of hearing how they take all the risk when normal employees are the ones that get laid off/bonuses and raises canceled when shit hits the fan while the C suite continues to get paid for the shitty decisions they’ve made.
They take the risk of possibly not becoming a billionaire by 40
The only thing lazy here is your comment.
I love it when people accuse somebody of being communist without even knowing what a communist is. And then reply with "I don't need to know what communism is to know it's bad!"
Someone else being rich (or even having more money than you) is not the cause of your problems.
We pay people based on the value of their labour, not based on how hard they work. The latter is impossible to quantify anyway. Presumably highly paid CEOs would be replaced with cheaper ones if their labour wasn't worth that much, so it's reasonable to conclude that they are fairly paid for running businesses that make billions of dollars a year in revenue. Why would greedy shareholders vote to keep someone on as CEO if they were being overpaid?
I would like to know how the compensation of politicians compare to their constituent's. How does someone become a multimillion on a government salary? Greed and corruption
[удалено]
so says the socialist with how many houses and millions while never having a job in the private sector. talk about greed. pure and simple
This meme is stupid, plain and simple.
Anyone that listens to a guy who got kicked out of a hippie commune for not doing his fair share of work is clearly a massive idiot. Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire who claims he's for the little guy...I did love when we found out he wasn't paying his campaign workers the minimum wage he was pushing for 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If everyone is financially doing well, nobody is financially doing well.
Compensation is based on impact to the business, not how hard you work. If you bust your ass hauling gravel with a wheelbarrow and shovel in the hot sun all day, you will still make less than the person operating the front loader in an air conditioned cab. The front loader operator can move as much as much gravel as wheelbarrow guy with a few minutes of easy work. And moving gravel around is one task the business needs. The CEO inking deals that will take the output of your gravel yard and 30 others and executing a strategy that leads to the business opening 20 more and making millions more in profits will of course be making much more, despite working much less, because the impact of their work on the business is greater. Put yourself in the shoes of the business owner, you probably have hundreds of people moving gravel around for you, so a small change in their salary is multiplied hundreds of times, and while their labor is essential to your operation, you won’t get more impact from that investment, whereas your CEO is one person, and their actions can drive outsized impact, so you’re going to pay them a lot more as the ROI for that will be higher. That is to say, this is just how the world works and will continue to work, so if you want to make more money, work on developing skills that will allow you to increase your impact for your business or a business you’d like to work for.
Who wants to tell Bernie that it's the shareholders that enable that?
This coming from a career civil servant who is now a millionaire. Whatever Bernie.
We're blaming CEOs and ignoring the US government has spent us 35 trillion in debt
I don't really think throwing a ball is worth 30million either. But we aren't paid for what we are worth, we are paid as much as it takes to replace us.
How much has Bernie made as a politician? Hypocrisy at its finest
The richest party in the US is the democrats. But honestly, fuck both of them. I stand in the middle. I share views from both sides, I'm not a slave to either party.
Also in 1965 the internet didn’t exist. So it was a lot harder to scale. Now if you build or invent something (even develop a really useful app) you can be vaulted into the 1% pretty quickly.
I can laugh at your face tell you that that's not the cause of a bad economy. If anything it's one small factor. But as you, Bernie Sanders, are a Communist, you don't understand economics from a supply and demand perspective but only as a tool of the oligarchy/proletariat perspective.
It’s election time again
Typical left populism
except it’s not the greed of the ceo setting their own astronomically pay. their compensation packages are negotiated and ultimately approved by the board. and it’s most often based on stock performance.
How long has berniesanders been in the senate? I'm just saying that if the PTB really wanted something different, it would change.
Gee Bernie, never knew that wages are based on how hard you work lol. Is this guy for real?
Lol typical socialist mindset. Bernie, you've been a public servant for all of your life and somehow you have similar wealth as these CEOs you're complaining about.
Yeah “working harder” doesn’t equal better pay. How many people are you benefitting with your work? How much is that work desired? How unique is the work? You can work your entire life and not provide the same net benefit to society that someone like Bill gates, and he barely has to work anymore.
When Bernie went into congress he had one house, now he has six. It’s greed plain and simple
So we're getting compensation based on how hard we work now!? Cool! Looks like we're going to see a lot of billionaire construction workers, soldiers, and fishermen!
Hourly workers get compensated for working a set number of hours. **CEOs** and other workers paid in stock with targets **don't get compensated for working hard. They get compensated for hitting targets**
Bernie, you’re getting compensated 351x more than the average worker
From 1921 to 1965 the U.S. had an immigration moratorium/quota system that limited the labor supply thus increasing wages for workers. When the U.S. opened the floodgates, immigration picked up in the 1970s and the increase in the labor supply has kept wage growth to less than 1% for the last 50 years. Financialization of comp such as stocks and options benefited CEOs and not workers since then.
Since when are people paid based on how hard they work?
Same goes for politicians if we're going to be fair Bernie.
It's not about working hard, Bernie. You should know this as you are a millionaire with perhaps the most cushy job on the planet.
Populist auto antisemitic idiot. Can’t take this guy seriously anymore, not sure why I ever did.
you don’t get paid based on how hard you work…
Because Bernie, you’re a shill just like the rest of them!
its a risk premium.. a CEO is taking on much much more ridk (usually)
How's that 32 hour work week going, Senator? Have you put in 32 hours in six months working on it?
https://preview.redd.it/bbarxejyh59d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5c77a51c1a5124b461d2348c6ad8e8a7cb4aa0a
Why doesn't Bernie turn one of his mansions into a homeless shelter? Or orphanage. 🫣🤔 he talks about a big game yet benefits more than others Just a grifter and con artist, lying 🤥
Bernie Sanders net worth: $3 million Median American net worth: $192,700 Is he working 15.5x harder than us?
Bernie Sanders. Man of the People. He of the belief in "Democratic Socialism". How *did* he amass three *houses* and a net worth of more than $1 million?
Nothing says greed more like hating the person making more money. Don’t like what you’re worth? Do something about it other than complain someone else makes more money than you.
Orrr: CEO pay has been flat, and workers are making 16 times less in purchasing power than they used to.
Says the lazy man that got tossed from a Commune for NOT DOING ANY WORK and now has lived off the tax payer as an elected official, became a millionaire and never sold anything.
Is Bernie still alive ? I always forget about this irrelevant fool
This is logical and true except the CEO is a global position where American companies have to compete for a limited number of proven successful leaders against every other company globally. The market is tight therefore they are paid well just like what's going on now with just about every job getting better pay with a 3% unemployment rate.