2y ago

CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds

www.theguardian.com CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds

These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m

News @kbin.social

Haus @kbin.social

2y ago

CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2023/aug/24/ceos-100-low-wage-companies-income

62 6

Antiwork: Unemployment for all, not just the rich! @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

2y ago

CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2023/aug/24/ceos-100-low-wage-companies-income

1 0

101 comments

A good reason to have laws regulating the maximum pay gap between executive and the lowest paid peon. And make sure to include all types of pay like stock options so companies can't squirm out of it.
- Sounds great, and sure might as well pass it, but there's a lot of ways to get around it
  Shell companies
  TC in stock/bonuses
  Outsourcing to contractors
  Utilizing foreign jurisdictions
  
  Ok, let's do it anyway and make them work for their wealth. Instead of doing nothing, and letting them also do nothing to keep their wealth.
  
  There are solutions for all of those loopholes, but it will hurt our congresspeople's investments so it will get shot down
  
  Whatever.
  It starts with paying their employees a dignified wage.
- I'm ok with this, but it's essentially just a step toward socialism which is the better option (but will never happen). Because all this will do is make CEOs less wealthy from the company itself. The investors still make tons more than the CEOs already and they don't do anything. You need to force revenue sharing essentially which is just socialism with extra steps. Cause CEOs will just end up investing in other companies and still be wealthy and get less compensation from the company itself.
  
  I mean, it's a pretty big step. It would basically make it such that a company has to expand it's footprint to grow revenue.
  
  Exactly. Increasing pay would be really, really nice. But we can do that and have more control over our workplaces. Worker owned companies would prevent huge disparities in pay from reoccurring, regardless of what the government does.
  Like a wise and angry man once said: "Fuck the G rides, I want the machines that are making them."
  
  I don't think the point is for them to be less wealthy, the point is you shouldn't make more than 600 times what half your employees make.
  
  Socialism is the abolition of social classes. Regulating capital is usually called Social Democracy, or Marxism. Honestly, sieze the means of production.
- Hey I said this like 6 years ago on Reddit and I got downvoted and called a fucking idiot lol
- Why do we not have a maximum wage when we have a minimum wage?
  
  Because this is America and if you make rules like that you'll crush the American Dream ^tm and no one will want to work at all because you've taken away their ability to daydream about one day being the disgustingly rich person doing the trickling instead of the disgustingly poor person waiting to be trickled on.
- I'd be absolutely ecstatic for a 1:4 ratio.
  
  That's just bringing down the top without helping anyone. Need to lift from the bottom instead

if you've ever worked food service in your life you should instantly be able to calculate how fucked wages are. in 1 hour you make dozens of meals that cost $10+ while getting paid maybe $10 or $15 per hour. it's obscene
- Good sentiment but not really a true conclusion. Most restaurants sell their food for a little over cost. The majority of their sales profits come from the drinks. It's insane. A 5 gallon bag of Coke syrup is good for $1,000+ in drink sales but costs most businesses less than $100. Regardless, I agree that workers should be paid more, but not because the food is so expensive.

Here's the list of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms that are fucking over their employees (listed in the full 'Institute for Policy Studies' report):
Lowe's
Home Depot
Walmart
S&P Global
Linde Plc
Autozone
O'Reilly Automotive
Nike
Target
Dollar General
Analog Devices
Sherwin-Williams
McDonald's
Mondelez Intl
Amazon.com
TJX
MGM Resorts Intl
Best Buy
Starbucks
Kroger
Johnson Controls
Seagate Technology
Colgate-Palmolive
Philip Morris Intl
Marriott Intl
Cognizant Tech
Solutions
Fleetcor Technologies
FedEx
Estee Lauder
TE Connectivity
Domino's Pizza
Constellation Brands
YUM Brands
Ulta Beauty
Coca-Cola
Stanley Black &
Decker
Mosaic
Ross Stores
Hilton Worldwide
Bath & Body Works
Corning
Becton Dickinson & Co
Amphenol
Dollar Tree
Tractor Supply
Tapestry
Whirlpool
LKQ
Skyworks Solutions
Advance Auto Parts
Carrier Global
Amcor Plc
Assurant
Darden Restaurants
Walgreens Boots
Alliance
Costco Wholesale
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Mohawk Industries
Microchip Technology
DXC Technology
ON Semiconductor
Hershey
Kimberly-Clark
Ralph Lauren
Tyson Foods
Wabtec
Baxter Intl
Align Technology
Smith (A.O.)
VF
Robert Half Intl
Genuine Parts
Avery Dennison
Kraft Heinz
Borgwarner
Factset Research
Systems
PPG Industries
Newell Brands
Fastenal
Carnival
Viatris
Live Nation
Entertainment
Wynn Resorts
Garmin
Cooper Cos
Extra Space Storage
Aptiv
Mccormick & Co
Epam Systems
Royal Caribbean
Group
Norwegian Cruise Line
Iron Mountain
AES
Teleflex
Western Digital
Caesars Entertainment
Copart
Las Vegas Sands
Monolithic Power
Systems
Public Storage
- They are not only fucking over their employees. They're fucking over all tax payers and straining the countries they are allowed to operate in, while funneling those dollars to top executives and shareholders.
  These companies rely on social programs like welfare and food stamps to support their front line staff. They drain those programs for their own profits, and leave the governments less able to help their people. This is vampire capitalism.
- Hey my company is on this list. Can confirm it fucking sucks. Where did you source this from?
  
  The article is about a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies which identifies the top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms. The full report is linked from the article to here: https://ips-dc.org/report-executive-excess-2023/ , I opened the PDF and pulled out the full list.
  
  Same and same!
- Fucking Kroger, man
- Why is epam on this list? They charge more than most other contracting firms
  
  That just means more profits. How does your brain operate.
  
  I mean charging customers more does not mean they are paying their workers more.

But they bring so much value for that $601. Like figuring out how many people to fire to maximize revenue for shareholders. Come on, doesn't that deserve a $15 million salary?!
- It's ironic, they're the one position that I think at most companies provides no value at all. They think they'll be the ruling class in an apocalypse, but they don't realize that they have no marketable skills whatsoever.
  
  Yes and no. They can't do what everyone else can do and not many can do what they do. You only see the darker side of thing and yes most are incredibly evil in many ways.
  However, someone has to organize. Someone has to delegate. Someone has to decide. Do they deserve that much money? No. Does the position need to exist? In many ways it seems so.

Feels like this is actually a way to make it seem like less of a gap? Hourly workers (the workers discussed here for the most part) think of wages in, you guessed it.... hours. To keep it clear, tell them, "You make $10 an hour, but your CEO makes $6,000 an hour."
Or even better, "Your CEO makes more in a single day than you do in an entire year of full time work - Almost double what you make in a year in fact. And that day your CEO 'works' is a fairly relaxing day with a long lunch break, a private office and air conditioning,"

Disgusting.

If the CEO is making that much wait'll you find out how much the shareholders are making off those employees!
It makes for a decent example I guess, but it's really silly how fixated on CEOs Joe Public is. They're hired by the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. It's not like the CEO straight up owns the company (usually).

#abolishWageSlavery
- Unemployment for all

Ugh. I forgot to apply for the CEO position again!

Everyone in the country should strike, keep your homes and others should take them from corporations . Move in and squat, literally millions of us.

They all just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become CEOs. Doesn’t anyone want to work anymore? When I became a CEO I had to walk up hill both ways and put in 2,000 hours a week. Just kidding, I got a loan from daddy. /s

I'm sure this is even less awful than the disparity with Big Lots employees and employers. Store managers make 100k a year, most employees are making less than 15 an hour. Absolutely the worst conditions and employment terms of any retail I've ever worked.
- Which side of the fence are you putting store managers on? At a minimum that's $48 an hour (or a little over $3 for every $1 by the lower employee), but it's likely worse than that as often store managers work more than 40 hours a week and are not allowed overtime, so their pay doesn't change. Just saying I can't tell based on your wording if you think the gap between managers and employees is a problem, as I guess it's debatable, but definitely nowhere near the numbers above. So just wondering if you could clarify your point a bit.
  
  The Home Depot here in Montana pays the store manager more than that and hes raped an underaged cashier and was protected by corporate.
  Fuck all corporations and their enablers.

What percentage of the US economy is low wage firms?
- Yes

By their metrics that's a resounding success.

So what dollar amount is acceptable between the person whose responsibility is a broom and the person that has hundreds of people's livelihoods at stake and dozens of stores to maintain?
- When was the last time a CEO was held personally responsible for a workers safety or the death of an employee?
  A CEO answers to the shareholders or a board of directors and do not concern themselves with their employees livelihoods or maintaining stores.
  They may very well provide a valuable service to a company but not for the reasons you mention.
  
  So they aren't responsible for making sure stores stay profitable enough to stay open, providing a job for people? Because that's exactly what I said.
- Bootlicker is what you are. Go back to truth social.
- Well I could do that job, too. But I won't be allowed. Because I couldn't go to the right school. Because I wasn't born to rich parents. Because I'm working class, and they are owner class.
  
  I mean that's just a long list if excuses. It's that mentality that keeps you back. Our outcomes in life are a direct reflection of our choices. It might take a lot of sacrifice but easy and successful are not synonymous.
- None. Quality of life is already a huge bonus.
  
  None? So you think the janitor and CEO should have the same wage?

101 comments