OK. Let's assume that the rest of the C-suite combines to give that number a solid 5x multiplier. How accurate that is is left as an exercise to the reader, but be aware that the CEO is almost always the highest-paid member of a C-suite.
That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-changing money for hundreds of thousands of people, right?
The point here is not that spreading the money from the C-suite to the workers is in any way a bad idea. The point is that it doesn't go nearly as far as we might like to think. We might want to adjust our policy preferences and goals to reflect reality instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite.
> instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite.
I thought the issue with such high/concentrated C-suite compensation isn't the envy (though that may be the case for some). The issue is that just by squeezing $116 per employee such a CEO can pay herself. Like if removing armrests from all employee chairs nets you a few additional millions of dollars, the temptation to do so exists.
If there was no such C-suite, there would be less incentives for pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.
If you look at sibling comments, you'll find a whole discussion where users talk about the major significance to many people of a different numerical estimate. With that in mind, I think that for many people the issue is indeed greater employee income instead of avoiding pennypinching over basic employee wellbeing.
How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?
This has nothing to do with class warfare. We're talking about individuals who make several orders of magnitude more money than regular employees, despite the impossibility of demonstrating that they add an equivalent amount of value to the organization. The idea isn't "everyone should make the same amount", the idea is that pay should be proportional to one's value add.
Lmao this is not marxism this is much much closer to falangism and Catholic Syndicalism.
Also answering to your comment
"How is it an attack? What would be a more accurate descriptor for someone who appears to subscribe to the idea of an oppressed class and an oppressor class?"
Nobody talked about that or said that they just asked to replicate the model in more industries, and seeing the sorry state of many products, that seems wise.
As someone that escaped a socialist country, I can and will have to ask you to take five minutes to enage with people comments instead of blindly barking.
Ask the average American worker if they'd like an extra $2300 a year. And yes I understand thats pre-tax. But even so, thats a non-negligible amount for a lot of people.
For whom $2,300 / year is meaningful is, dare I say, hard to answer question. Most of the people for whom an additional $2,300 / year is meaningful pay little to no taxes. However, a large chunk of these people also get Earning Income Credit. These people would lose at least part of this credit if their income increases. This question I believe can be answered by the bi-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office or U.S Treasury- they certainly have the income returns for all Americans.
Stepped tax thresholds are always a problem when they incentivise low-earners to keep their income below a certain, arbitrary level. However, it would be inappropriate to deny employees a raise based on the existence of tax levels - after all, wouldn't the employees pay exactly no tax at all if they weren't paid? The tax is also guaranteed in most cases to improve the economy of the local area. I don't know the specifics of how it works in the USA, but I am aware of 'buy American' policies for federal public spending and equivalent rules for local government.
Say an employee effectively gets $10 less money, but the company effectively now pays the government $1000 in the same period. That might mean new bus subsidies, legal aid, development grants... things which make everyone slightly better off in the long-term. I think that's a good trade-off.
> For whom $2,300 / year is meaningful is, dare I say, hard to answer question
There were many articles written on the impact of the 2021 Advance Child Tax Credit (up to $1,800 per child over a 6 month period). The impact was very significant on lower-income families - which makes sense because for those earning less than $40,000 per year, that amount is more than the amount in one's paystub.
Glassdoor tells me the salaries of JPMorgan tellers ranges from $38,000 - $62,000 with a median of $42,000. So without digging into salary distribution at the entire company, I can yell you with certainty that it's a non-zero fraction.
In all those countries, average salary for JP Morgan employees is significantly higher (especially if you include expats). Also I think you are significantly off with Nigeria avg salary - no way it's so high in such a poor country.
Nigeria is tricky - I've seen estimates ranging from $130-$750. World Bank classifies it as a "lower middle income" country at this point, which would suggest they at least think the median is <$4k or so per year, I think.
