6 ms·

The SEC requires companies to disclose the executive pay to median salary. It 2023 it was 312:1. Ok, but $500 000/year isnt a median salary. But Ford's CEO is

by shtzvhdx 10mo ago

The SEC requires companies to disclose the executive pay to median salary. It 2023 it was 312:1. Ok, but $500 000/year isnt a median salary. But Ford's CEO is $26.4 million, so 53:1. Gather up the rest of the C-suit at Ford and you got a couple hundred mechanics. Do that to Stellantis and GM and you're at about 500 mechanics. 10 per state is not an insignificant number of high paid mechanics. Add Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, GE, and all the other once great industrial American jewels run by idiots and you have financed the training of a large portion of the American workforce.

vitaflo 10mo ago
$20 million if the CEO’s pay is in stock not cash. Unless you want to pay mechanics in stock instead of salary there isn’t nearly enough cash saved to pay mechanics $500k.
- shtzvhdx 10mo ago
  Ford is not some Silicon Valley lusty phantom - I mean unicorn. Ford stock has real value. Pay the mechanic 70k cash, 500k in stock and the mechanic gets real compensation and, slowly, Ford becomes an employee owned company.
xp84 10mo ago
Except, now those companies have no leadership at all so just tell the workers to just do whatever seems like a good idea and hope for the best? Why haven't we seen a bunch of successful companies without any management if management is so useless/harmful? Just ICs self-organizing to run the whole business. Without any execs to pay they'd have a cost advantage running that way.
- mapontosevenths 10mo ago
  Why would they have no leadership at all? I suspect I can find a few willing to do it for a few paltry million, or maybe less.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > suspect I can find a few willing to do it for a few paltry million Run an automotive giant? We're still in the thread where the argument for acquiring talent is to pay more, right?
    - orwin 10mo ago
      'talent'. Talent here is very often having friends on the board, through common investments and co-ownership of those private jet/ luxury yacht/luxury hostel rentals that operates 'at a loss' (you only pay consumption taxes on your direct spending, if the company rent you the plane for the cost of kerosene, and you pay yearly through your holdings for fixed costs, you avoid a lot of taxes. Tips from a friend who works at one of those places).
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > Talent here is very often having friends on the board And the customers' boards and management teams. And the suppliers'. And the regulators' and electeds'.
        mapontosevenths 10mo ago
        This isn't a good thing. That network of insiders colluding behind the scenes are NOT providing optimal results for the shareholders, or for the market in general. They are instead optimizing their own short term gains at the expense of everyone else. A bunch of good old boys making handshake deals with their buddies aren't actually choosing the best products and services for the best price, and the companies they helm will eventually suffer for it as the entire market does each time it happens.
- OkayPhysicist 10mo ago
  Oh, yeah, because those companies have really proven that their leadership is so incredibly valuable. The problem with evaluating leadership is we almost always talk in terms of impact ("this decision saved/made/lost the company $X million/billion per year") as opposed to performance over replacement ("compared to an average person we could have hired to fulfill this role, how'd you do?"). The nature of a capitalist system is that large piles of money tend to get bigger, and companies are giant piles of money. If you are in a position of power, on average you're going to make the company more money. That doesn't make you exceptionally valuable, as pretty much anyone we could have put in that slot was going to make money.
- shtzvhdx 10mo ago
  I didn't say there should be no management and America's management class today is of terrible quality. Im just calling to modify and reduce c-suite compensation.
- queenkjuul 10mo ago
  What a slippery slope Editing to add a reminder of how many times the US government has had to bail out the entire US auto industry.

vitaflo 10mo ago

$20 million if the CEO’s pay is in stock not cash. Unless you want to pay mechanics in stock instead of salary there isn’t nearly enough cash saved to pay mechanics $500k.

shtzvhdx 10mo ago
Ford is not some Silicon Valley lusty phantom - I mean unicorn. Ford stock has real value. Pay the mechanic 70k cash, 500k in stock and the mechanic gets real compensation and, slowly, Ford becomes an employee owned company.

xp84 10mo ago

Except, now those companies have no leadership at all so just tell the workers to just do whatever seems like a good idea and hope for the best? Why haven't we seen a bunch of successful companies without any management if management is so useless/harmful? Just ICs self-organizing to run the whole business. Without any execs to pay they'd have a cost advantage running that way.

mapontosevenths 10mo ago
Why would they have no leadership at all? I suspect I can find a few willing to do it for a few paltry million, or maybe less.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > suspect I can find a few willing to do it for a few paltry million Run an automotive giant? We're still in the thread where the argument for acquiring talent is to pay more, right?
  - orwin 10mo ago
    'talent'. Talent here is very often having friends on the board, through common investments and co-ownership of those private jet/ luxury yacht/luxury hostel rentals that operates 'at a loss' (you only pay consumption taxes on your direct spending, if the company rent you the plane for the cost of kerosene, and you pay yearly through your holdings for fixed costs, you avoid a lot of taxes. Tips from a friend who works at one of those places).
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > Talent here is very often having friends on the board And the customers' boards and management teams. And the suppliers'. And the regulators' and electeds'.
      - mapontosevenths 10mo ago
        This isn't a good thing. That network of insiders colluding behind the scenes are NOT providing optimal results for the shareholders, or for the market in general. They are instead optimizing their own short term gains at the expense of everyone else. A bunch of good old boys making handshake deals with their buddies aren't actually choosing the best products and services for the best price, and the companies they helm will eventually suffer for it as the entire market does each time it happens.
OkayPhysicist 10mo ago
Oh, yeah, because those companies have really proven that their leadership is so incredibly valuable. The problem with evaluating leadership is we almost always talk in terms of impact ("this decision saved/made/lost the company $X million/billion per year") as opposed to performance over replacement ("compared to an average person we could have hired to fulfill this role, how'd you do?"). The nature of a capitalist system is that large piles of money tend to get bigger, and companies are giant piles of money. If you are in a position of power, on average you're going to make the company more money. That doesn't make you exceptionally valuable, as pretty much anyone we could have put in that slot was going to make money.
shtzvhdx 10mo ago
I didn't say there should be no management and America's management class today is of terrible quality. Im just calling to modify and reduce c-suite compensation.
queenkjuul 10mo ago
What a slippery slope Editing to add a reminder of how many times the US government has had to bail out the entire US auto industry.