Re:Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich
by pwinnski on Friday August 12, 2022 @08:48AM
(#32437713)
Instead of focusing on distributing CEO pay to the rest of the company--where I think your math is off--consider things like annual bonuses for employees that are affected by company performance. Something like "you get $20k, or a little less if you or the company is doing poorly, or a little more if you and the company are doing well." Pretty common among developers.
When those come in at 90% or 95% of target based on company performance, and yet the CEO still takes home tens of millions, that's when what seems like a tiny thing on a raw number basis, a matter of $2k for a single employee, can seem like a large thing. As an employee who performed well is still feeling the impact of company performance that fell short of expectations, probably on the basis of nothing the employee did, probably more attributably to the CEO (who helped set the expectations, and is more likely to have had a material impact on the result), it's natural for employees to at least wonder why the impact seems to be falling more on them.
That kind of thing is very common, not a super-rare case.
You're forgetting who decides CEO pay - the board / shareholders.
They are aware of this. And despite that, they keep these pay packages.
Is it fair? I dunno. I personally don't think CEO's should be getting paid what they do. Does anyone care? No.
Is anyone's salary fair? I dunno.
If you distribute the CEO's pay to the rest of the company it wouldn't materially impact average workers wages (less than a 1% increase) - except in rare cases (less than 5% of large companies).
Why should I get raged out that my CEO makes $100M+ per year? If you distribute that to everyone at the company - it's not even a 1% increase. There's much easier ways I can make 1% more money...
It's really not worth discussing except in rare cases - and those are exceptions that don't change the larger picture.