CEO: We need to cut costs.
Accountant: Okay. We paid you $50 million last year. We spent $10 million on your private jet flights and luxury hotel accommodations. For some reason you are being paid $1 million for this 45 minute meeting.
CEO: I see. Who's that in the hallway?
Accountant: That's Greg. He is the only thing keeping this company from falling apart. We pay him in nickels and Grubhub gift cards.
CEO: Fire Greg.
🇳🇱
CEO of amazon makes 1.3 million a year thats on the low end, Apple is about 50 million. So lets go with apple, they employ 165,000 people but counting contractors and factory workers they actually employ 1.5 million people.
So if you fired the CEO of apple, one of the most highly paid CEO in history, you wouldnt even make back enough money to give every contractor and employee they hire a single penny more per year, not even a penny.
Sorry buddy but the "CEO are greedy and not worth their pay" narrative is getting old and tripe.
@freemo @lowqualityfacts
The maths on that doesn't add (or rather divide) up to me. You're saying that 50,000,000 divided by 1,500,000 is less than 0.01?
Firing the CEO would give the workers about 33 dollars a year; still not very much. Comparing the profits of the company to the wages should paint a better picture. With a net profit of $383 billion in 2023, that would be enough to pay the 1.5 million people over $250,000 per year. And the shareholders do even less than the CEO.
Sorry your right, I meant an additional penny per hour, not per year. My fault.
> Comparing the profits of the company to the wages should paint a better picture.
Why would anyone think a company owes its profits to its employees... employees are paid their market value, not based on the success of the company... Now im all for out of kindness being generous with your employees, I think its good for business. But not that it should be an obligation.
@freemo @lowqualityfacts The employees... make the goods and services? they make the stuff and sell the stuff; they do all the work, that's why they should get the profits. Anyway, this ultimately comes down to whether or not you think exploitation of labor is immoral, and obviously you don't, so there's no point in me arguing with you over this.
> The employees... make the goods and services? they make the stuff and sell the stuff; they do all the work, that's why they should get the profits.
None of which would produce any profits at all if it werent for the investors, CEO, management, sales, etc. Simply providing one element of 100 needed to make profit doesnt mean you deserve all the profit.
> Anyway, this ultimately comes down to whether or not you think exploitation of labor is immoral, and obviously you don't, so there's no point in me arguing with you over this
Exploitation of people, labor or otherwise, should be illegal. We dont disagree on that, though if you think not giving 100% of the profits over to labor is exploitation then where we disagree is what is exploitation, not if it is moral to do.
Products != profits. But yes, we agree, the entrepreneur obviously plays a vital role in ensuring those products come into existance at all. But even then that isnt the full picture when it comes to profit.
@freemo @admin @lowqualityfacts “Products result from the collaboration between labor and the tools and other capital goods that **foresighted planning by the entrepreneur has brought together**.” Ludwig von Mises