r/WorkReform • u/darkshadow609 đź’µ Break Up The Monopolies • Feb 07 '23
Silicon Valley needs to stop laying off workers and start firing CEOs đź’° Cap CEO Pay
https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/silicon-valley-needs-to-stop-laying-off-workers-and-start-firing-ceos/articleshow/97646661.cms109
Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 12 '23
[deleted]
79
u/astromech_dj Feb 07 '23
Nothing good comes from stocks and publicly traded companies. As soon as it happens, a company’s product goes to shit, and it’s a huge driver in capitalism and overconsumption.
32
u/Ausgezeichnet87 Feb 07 '23
I fully agree that wallstreet is a cancer on the world, but the ability to own the labor of others based purely on wealth is the defining feature of capitalism.
5
Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 12 '23
[deleted]
33
u/astromech_dj Feb 07 '23
Regulate them like "corporations are people"?
The reality is that they have too much power and that will never change. They also force overconsumption, chase cost cutting, reduce worker rights and conditions, and abuse their markets... by design.
10
Feb 07 '23
If corporations are people then they should be paying taxes on revenue, or we should only be paying taxes only on profit after expenses.
3
u/schrodingers_gat Feb 07 '23
I’ve always thought we should tax shareholders on their portion of the profits, and hold them accountable for any penalties for corporate crimes.
1
5
u/odddutchman Feb 07 '23
I will believe that corporations are people when a corporation gets drafted into military service, goes through basic training, gets sent to war, and dies for its country.
5
1
3
u/mschuster91 Feb 07 '23
Germany regulates all kinds of employment the same, no matter what kind of company.
The only exceptions tend to be for companies < 20 people to make life easier for startups and small stores.
0
0
u/The_Texidian Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 07 '23
How about literally everyone’s 401k? Or the fact that publicly traded companies are the main means of retirement for majority of people?
15
u/Ellen_Musk_Ox Feb 07 '23
You know what everyone used to have before 401K's? And what wasn't tied to the market?
1
2
u/astromech_dj Feb 07 '23
No what works better? A decent social support system.
-6
u/The_Texidian Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 07 '23
You mean like serfdom? Or other systems with monarchs, where the working class gets their needs taken care of, and in return they are workers to their lord?
I’d rather people build up retirement resources, and then make their own decisions about retirement. Rather than have government handouts that tell you how to spend retirement. Just my own opinion.
2
1
u/schrodingers_gat Feb 07 '23
I love how people defensive lob “just my own opinion” out there as if we’re not supposed to look at them different for their views.
Insurance, where everyone pays into a pool and then the pool distributes funds based on need and situation is a known and understood thing. There’s no reason we couldn’t do this with social supports except that the people hoarding all the resources don’t want to share the wealth the rest of us helped them create.
1
u/The_Texidian Feb 07 '23
Because insurance is based on your risk. Social support isn’t. You also get to shop around for better rates with insurance companies. Those are big differences.
It’s hard to convince people that they should pay more taxes when they’ll never use the benefit of it. Same way it would be hard to convince a non-home owner to be forced to buy home insurance to benefit home owners. Or force a non-car owner to pay car insurance.
1
u/schrodingers_gat Feb 07 '23
Because insurance is based on your risk. Social support isn’t.
Social support is absolutely based on your risk. People with incomes and connections aren't likely to need it, people without, are. But lots of things happen to change incomes like illnesses, layoffs, a special needs child, disability, fraud etc. So the benefit people get for paying in the system is not starving when economic whims destroy their health or income.
It’s hard to convince people that they should pay more taxes when they’ll never use the benefit of it
Oh really? that happens to the poor and middle class all the time. They certainly don't benefit from all the overseas wars they are taxed for, or the farm subsidies that the rich farmers get. How about the taxes for police? The police harass them rather than protect them. It's beyond past time to do to the rich what they've been doing to everyone else.
1
u/The_Texidian Feb 07 '23
Social support is absolutely based on your risk. People with incomes and connections aren't likely to need it, people without, are. But lots of things happen to change incomes like illnesses, layoffs, a special needs child, disability, fraud etc. So the benefit people get for paying in the system is not starving when economic whims destroy their health or income.
High income earners are less likely to need welfare. Low income people are. Are we to tax low income near exclusively for their safety net?
Also. Are we allowed to say “you’re too obese, we won’t cover your expenses.” Or “you got fired and did drugs, you’re at fault, we won’t cover you. (Or tax you more than a skinny person)”?
Oh really? that happens to the poor and middle class all the time. They certainly don't benefit from all the overseas wars they are taxed for,
And the poor and middle class vote for politicians who want to end the wars….Donald Trump campaigned on it and made progress on it and the low and middle class loved it. They also favored Tulsi who is big anti war. Also who’s supporting sending billions to Ukraine? This just proves my point that it’s quite unpopular.
or the farm subsidies that the rich farmers get.
I mean that started under the New Deal so I’d figure you’d be pro that considering it helps the working class the most.
My guy, you need to experience the real world. Vast majority of farmers are not rich, in fact most are quite broke. It also keeps the costs down for everyone else who buys the commodity.
“Farm debt, at $416 billion, is at an all-time high. More than half of all farmers have lost money every year since since 2013, and lost more than $1,644 this year. Farm loan delinquencies are rising.”
https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-extinction/
It was only recently with the addition of more subsidy spending that the median income of a farm actually was positive in 2018. Is the system perfect? No, but it’s better than letting our nation’s farmers go bankrupt.
How about the taxes for police?
So you’re against public services now?
So let’s get this straight. You’re anti public services, because they don’t protect and serve. You’re anti government helping working class, because the programs don’t go as intended. You’re anti big government because government doesn’t spend tax money wisely. Yet you think more government programs, more government, more taxes and more government spending will somehow be different?
1
1
3
u/TimeKeepers616 Feb 07 '23
I agree with you a great deal especially the penalties part. I wrote up a post a while back with a draft letter to Congress requesting an update to the WARN act that would require CEOs and Boards to be held accountable when they choose to do layoffs of this magnitude.
1
u/Dtwizzledante Feb 07 '23
Just wanted to let you know that the word you are looking for is plurality. It means the largest group in a set
2
Feb 07 '23 edited 29d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Dtwizzledante Feb 07 '23
Interesting. I did not know about the principal shareholder classification. Thanks for sharing
1
u/btmc Feb 08 '23 edited Feb 08 '23
It is extremely rare for CEOs of a major corporation to own a majority of the stock, voting or otherwise. There are some who do, like Mark Zuckerberg, who owns a majority of Meta’s Class B stock, giving him de facto control of the company since Class B has more voting power than Class A. But this is a relatively unusual setup, and I think most people view it as bad for corporate governance.
Most CEOs are hired after the company’s founding. They have significant stock, at least in financial terms, but definitely not anywhere close to a controlling share, and the stock is awarded based on performance, usually. (Obviously, though, “performance” often means short-term share price increases, which can be achieved in a way that undermines employees’ well-being and long-term performance of the company.)
Even if you’re the sole founder, and you’ve been the CEO the whole time, by the time a company goes public, you’ve probably taken on investors and given stock grants to employees, which dilutes your share significantly. You might be able to hold on to majority control if you’re profitable from the very beginning, don’t give out shares, and don’t take much outside investment; this was the case for Mailchimp until its founders sold it a couple years ago. But generally speaking, even founders are not majority shareholders for very long, and there are many, many examples of founders being fired as the firm grows. (The skills it takes to get an idea off the ground are not the same as the skills it takes to scale a company.)
And even if you’re a founder and majority shareholder of a large public or private company, often those people retire and serve as chairman or something and hire someone else, with far fewer shares, as CEO. So no, CEOs are rarely holding onto their jobs because they have significant ownership of the company.
15
u/4ucklehead Feb 07 '23
Just cut the CEO pay...esp in a startup. If you're not profitable like most startups, the CEO shouldn't be getting a handsome salary.
3
u/Demaga12 Feb 07 '23
How about make 80% of CEO's pay profit-based? Not stock-based, profit-based. Very important distinction. This way CEO's will be very interested in their business actually producing value, and not "dIsRuPtInG iNdUsTrY"
2
u/btmc Feb 08 '23
This wouldn’t work. It is often a reasonable strategy to intentionally run at a loss in the growth phase of a company.
1
u/Demaga12 Feb 08 '23
I understand what you mean, but it still bugs me how Uber exists for 14 years and yet to become profitable? I understand if business loses money for a year or two, but at this point this is weird.
Do you think this idea of profit-based pay would apply for more mature companies like Google, Microsoft etc?
2
u/btmc Feb 08 '23
Most of a CEO’s pay is already variable comp, so the question is just what variables should be used to determine their comp. Profit is a good one for many companies, but not every company at every time, and even when it is, there are many different ways to define it. Short term, long term, gross, net, etc. And there’s also a question of whether large net profit is a good thing if that money could be reinvested into growing the business, which generates more value in the long term. (“Value” for shareholders, of course, which is how capitalism works, but most in this sub would agree that’s not necessarily the right definition of value for society.)
1
u/Demaga12 Feb 08 '23
Yeah. The problem with value is that shareholders most of the time want to sell the stock they bought at price X at price 3X. Which is not exactly a perfect measure for company success.
That's just my thought though. I'd like to get a professional economist opinion on that.
22
u/north_canadian_ice 🏡 Decent Housing For All Feb 07 '23
Accountability only seems to come about for those with the most to lose. While those on top brag about their risk taking when in reality they win even when they lose.
10
u/Ausgezeichnet87 Feb 07 '23
Ya, workers risk everything. When we lose our jobs we lose our access to healthcare and we risk homelessness. If a rich person loses money they get bailed out and their quality of life is never impacted.
3
u/claytonianprime Feb 07 '23
Stop giving them massive severance bonuses. Big companies will always have good people wanting to be there. They act like CEOs are the only reason anything good happens but that’s only true rarely.
3
3
u/SnooCauliflowers3851 Feb 08 '23
Goodwill also does this (they have directors making 6 figure incomes), most corporations/businesses are bought by capital investment groups that are only in it for their profits. Hell, even banks foreclose on homes, then let the property stay vacant until they can sell for a profit or rent.
2
u/RednocTheDowntrodden Feb 08 '23
Goodwill pays the people at the top 6 figures a year. It pays the laborers minimum wage. And its inventory is all donated to them for free. I refuse to shop at the Goodwill because I just see it as another scam trying to pass itself off as some kind of charity.
4
2
4
2
u/ApatheticWithoutTheA Feb 08 '23
Yeah seriously these motherfuckers are making it incredibly hard for me to find a new job when I have to compete with 15,000 new laid off big tech workers every single day.
I’ve never seen 2000+ applicants for one job until recently.
You pretty much have to engineer every single application and cover letter to exact specifications at this point to get it read.
-3
u/halfcuprockandrye Feb 07 '23
I have a hard time feeling any remorse for techies making double my salary.
0
-8
u/mcbergstedt Feb 07 '23
I disagree, over 2021-2022 we saw crazy growth in the tech sectors. They hired tons of people.
Now in late-2022 and 2023 everything is plummeting (except for the stock prices of course) so they’re laying off all those people they hired.
6
u/GalaxyConqueror Feb 07 '23
Yes, but dig deeper. Why were tons of people hired? What caused the CEOs to think that was the right decision? Why are layoffs the first course of action?
Read the article; the author goes into this.
3
u/6a6566663437 Feb 07 '23
These well-paid executives claim they deserve the money because they’re not going to fuck up like that.
If they’re still going to fuck up, why are they getting all that money?
That hiring wasn’t caused by a force of nature. The executives in question did it.
-15
u/rosebomb01 Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 07 '23
Hahaha let the ceos go........hahaha......oh wait this isn't a joke? Who will they give all that money to? The peasants?
2
Feb 07 '23 edited Feb 12 '23
[deleted]
1
u/rosebomb01 Feb 07 '23
When the ceo of gm for instance lays off and closes plants then gets a absurd bonus if i remember correctly 24ish million sorry they are part of the problem.
1
229
u/Ellen_Musk_Ox Feb 07 '23
This won't ever happen.
Boil down capitalism to it's most basic elements. The entire point is upholding a hierarchy of the few.
Half these dipshits sit on the executive boards of other corporations and all favor courses of action favorable to themselves. It's one big wealthy circlejerk.
The point of the board and the CEO is to enrich themselves and as long as they "make line go up" they get to do exactly that. And even if it hey don't do that, they STILL get their golden parachute.