Doesn't Japan have a system like that? The difference in the lowest and highest paid employee can only be so many thousands different?
It’s unfortunate that it also requires you to live within shooting range of North Korea and China. Because Japan is a nice vacation spot.
That also, I’ve never received so many stares. Like I was a vampire from Twilight, sparkling in the sun, or had a huge booger in my nose.
The rest of us live in shooting range of Russia or the US. It's not a question of if we will die, it's a question of when.
Then they'd just get two jobs at the same company, and get two salaries or some other loophole the lawmakers planned for the whole time.
Preferable to 319 jobs I'd say.
You people see the fuckery, shrug your shoulders and say "eh - just let them get away with it".
Fuck that, and fuck them - don't be conned into emptying your pockets to spare them the trouble of robbing you.
I'm not saying we let them get away with it. I'm saying we bleed them in town square as an example of where greed gets them.
It probably will bankrupt him. But only because he built his business on the basis of exploiting employees. He won't make money if he doesn't do that. Which of course means he shouldn't be in business.
He is only CEO. Ford going to zero will only sting, it cannot bankrupt him.
Your point remains.
Exactly. It's not "his" company, he's just at the peak of the decision-makers, currently. If he remains (short-term) profit-focused, they'll give him a golden parachute of most of the workers' labor to safely land at another company to cut costs and terminate employees and further enrich himself...
It's always one of the two with this companies, it's either "we're making millions" or "we're going under" there's no inbetween.
"Great job team! We've increased our profits more than ever before! Now we need your help more than ever to increase profits even further. Unfortunately we cannot afford to pay our employees more, because of the great investmemts we need to make to keep increasing our profits!"
The beauty of Hollywood accounting spreading to other industries. Ford Motor Company sells their cars for an on book loss after sales incentives like sub-prime financing through Ford Credit. Ford Credit then makes a profit due to interest payments thus wiping out the loss on the vehicle sale.
Looks like we found one job that should be automated by AI to save Ford 21 million dollars a year.
lol careful. you thought a CEO was heartless, just wait until we put an AI in charge with the ‘goal’ set as profit.
Actually, if you can program it to take inputs of anonymized employee satisfaction surveys, and objective employee satisfaction data (attrition, absenteeism, etc), it could work.
Especially if the AI’s target goals are public information. Nobody would work for a company that set the “employee happiness” and “corporate ethics” dials to 0 and the “improve net profit” dial to 100.
Not only that, it has been proven again and again that treating well workers actually yields positive results, considering the IA would have the best for the Company as a goal instead of the pure greed of current CEO/Stakeholders, there are big chances that IA CEO would treat workers way better than current status.
The problem is if the IA goal is not the best for the Company, but the best for the Stakeholders short term, then we would be fucked 😅
Yeah, it might actually promote unionising since it calculated out the sustainability of its corporate existence
If you make $100,000 for 40 years straight that is $4M. This dude made $21M in a single year. Ford’s share buyback program in 2022 totaled $484M. GM’a share buyback program totaled $3.4B in the past twelve months. We live in a fucked up world. Meanwhile, Ford/GM/Stellantis employees cannot afford to even buy the vehicles they make or feed themselves decent food.
The rise in CEO wages is actually unbelievably ridiculous:
For context, this research paper was also pre-pandemic.
On average, CEO salaries jumped about 30% since this research was released. Here is an updated article by the EPI EPI Research
Also for context - on 1965, average CEO-to-worker salary ratio was 20:1, and in 1985 it was 59:1.
Not it's almost 400:1.
I thought he looked a lot like Chris Farley!
Tommy Boy is literally based on this loser fucking prick.
Source: Jim Farley
Here's a little FYI for ya. Tropic Thunder is based on my experiences in Vietnam.
•
Looks like while all of Chris's brothers got in to comedy his cousin Jim decided to become a laughing stock of a person instead. You did it all wrong, Jimbo.
MFs life is literally the plot of the movie Tommy Boy. In the movie, Tommy's father is an industrialist who owns Callahan Auto.
Here's an article about it. Kind of makes you like the movie less because it's glorifying this fucking prick.
Kinda makes you think if Farley had lived, we probably wouldn't like him so much, either. We didn't have time to learn how big of a pile of shit he was thanks to his family.
Helluva presumption to just pull out of your ass about someone whose only relation to this matter is family name.
I don't fucking live vicariously through rich celebrity twats. In my experience, most of them are absolute shitheads, and when they wrote the movie to glorify *checks notes... the guy who is referenced here for being a selfish cunt who doesn't want to pay his employees worth a damn, maybe, just maybe it means they view his assholery as quite OK.
Sorry that I've known enough rich families with asshats like that in them that I know they support those people. Especially if they take the time to write a whole god damned movie loosely based on them. Give me a fucking break, people in this country are way too ready to defend celebrities, and by extension their provably shitty families.
I'm with y'all on this, but demonizing a CEO misses a lot of context. While I agree that billionaires are selfish narcissistic people that couldn't care less about their employees, this CEO isn't a dictator operating in a socio-political vacuum. He needs to do what he is doing, or he gets replaced by another selfish narcissistic jerk that will abuse the employees.
The real issue is our system that creates and encourages these people to maintain and exacerbate these inequalities. We need more worker solidarity, more unions, and more organization among the lower classes to use our power to demand what we want. Otherwise, they will pull the strings that control the system to get what they want.
Additionally, I think rather than just demonizing the CEO, a person that could be easily replaced, we should praise the workers as well. It's a loving approach that feels better than hate, it's founded in collective principles, and it also celebrates their collective efforts which could encourage other workers to do the same.
Total revolution needed. Workers that do the real thing barely can feed their mouth, while those useless management ceo got huge cut
Hope the cost of living helps offset that.. what company has been stealing your labor from you?
Big Lots, worst pay to effort ratio of anywhere I've ever worked. Working harder than I ever have for less than I ever have until I find something else.
That sucks smelly ass, sorry to hear that, maybe try and organize once you have another job lined up? I'll never forget working the morning shift at hardes, literally the most stressful job I have ever had, for the least pay I have ever made. I got a job at a factory and made twice the salary, but did a quarter of the work, and I had to hear the people I work with denigrate fastfood workers wanting to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, cause they thought they worked so much harder and only made $12 an hour. They pit us against eachother while eating caviar from fishes that are going extinct because they are actively poisoning every aspect of our society and our world simultaneously and living in opulence that make the Kings of old look modest. Shits gotta give...
I work in an IT call center and only make 25k. It's a nightmarish routine of answering calls from customers who don't believe in your basic right to be respected, answering to employers who believe the same.
Darn. I don't have any contacts there.
But if you've got a clean criminal record look into city jobs. The pay isn't usually amazing (better than yours though), but the benefits are usually really, really good.
Even in Texas I have never had to pay premiums on medical, dental, and vision for a government job, and my last 2 cities have provided 2:1 matching on my retirement plan at 7% (so I have 21% going towards pension). The guys mowing the parks get the same benefits.
Why are these posts specifically aimed at car company CEOs?
Are they begging for money in Congress again ?
Is this an anticar thing ?
Are they in union négociations ?
The American autoworkers union is currently striking due to stalled contract negotiations.
To add this for posterity, there is an additional component to the U.S. autoworkers union striking. In 2008 during the global financial crisis (with things like robosigning foreclosures, predatory loans with ballooning interest rates, etc.), some U.S. automakers were asking for government bailouts, which eventually were granted. These bailouts were entirely taxpayer funded. Now the automakers are refusing to meet union contract negotiations. Automakers not paying employees cost-of-living, or frankly, just salary increases is upsetting, but the additional hypocrisy of U.S. tax-paying citizens bailing out these companies with their own money in 2008, and then not having the companies return some of the wealth in 2023 is enraging.
Edit:
Forgot to add that when the automakers were begging for government bailouts, the automakers had to take away worker pensions and some benefits to "protect the system". In 2023, the U.S. autoworkers union is fighting to get those benefits back for the workers.
Because this is the trending politics community. I meant it says so right th...oh ... "memes"? That's the same thing, right?
I do not see others laughing. This isn't exactly funny. How is a CEO getting paid much more than the average worker supposed to make me laugh? This more of a news article snippet than a meme
Since when were memes exclusively meant to make you laugh? Memes have always been a means of societal commentary, think Rage Comics and AdviceAnimals plenty of the most famous ones talk about very real issues.
Even something as simple as the "This is fine" meme could be considered "not funny" in the same way this meme is "not funny" depending on how it's used.
I am laughing. Because what else can you do, seeing the hell we were born into and will probably stay the same for the rest of our lives. Nothing is going to change and if you weren't born on top, you're never going to come out on top. No matter what you tell yourself.
What ever happened to making memes just to make someone smile for a moment and not a means to publicize an agenda? We get it, you're a liberal who hates capitalism. Enough already...
Pointing out a blatant flaw does not inherently mean you hate capitalism. But that being your immediate reaction sure is telling.
Fair point. You can't also deny that places like this 1) aren't overly political and 2) are so far left you never hear from the other side.
When a person that named themselves "antitrust" is upset about spotlighting union grievances...
When someone doesn't know what a burner with a randomly generated name is and completely disregards my comment all together 😆
No, I just enjoy seeing something other than the same stupid, 1-sided shit day in and day out.
Ford has 186,000 employees. His entire salary, divided amongst every employee, would be $112.90.
He's certainly overpaid - like pretty much all CEOs - but this is a bad example.
Its called juxtaposition my guy, Ford also spent almost half billion on stock buybacks last year which could have been used to give every Ford Employee a $2500 bonus to share their profits, but instead they used it to buy back stocks...
And buying back the stock has the effect of making the stock price go up. And guess who gets the most stock? The CEO and C suite. They give themselves huge raises by doing this and it's perfectly legal :(
Well see that's a good example. Ford is a profitable business, and should be paying their employees. All I'm pointing out is that the CEO's salary - in the specific example of this business - does not represent a significant proportion of what is being taken from the average employee. That's most likely going to the shareholders.
The CEO's are partially to blame, but more blame lies with the shareholders, and also the legal system that mandates the CEO's act in the interest of the hypothetical worst, most profit-hungry shareholder.
The dividend is only 15 cent a share. It is almost 10%. It should be around 5%.
Personally I think there should be a law you can’t borrow to pay dividends. They must come from cash
Personally I think there should be a law you can’t borrow to pay dividends. They must come from cash
Fucking absolutely. But that's a drop in the bucket of financial fuckery that goes on, which is a very big elephant in the room.
It’s a larger part than you think. It’s another part of manipulating the stock.
Companies should be regulated better. They should get tax relief when employees are paid well with good benefits. I don’t care if a company pays taxes as long as the employees are making money. They’ll translate to taxes being collected other ways.
What I can’t stand is all the bullshit waste and games.
I think layoffs should be severely punished by either taxes or forced severance.
I don’t care a ceo makes 20 million but there should be regulations to make sure they’re earning it and not just manipulating things
I mean I personally think income should be tax free up to a relatively high amount. Like 6 figures, minimum. You're giving up your time, in service of a business which itself is in service of society, you shouldn't have to subtract from your reward for that to give more. The business' taxes should be covering that.
We should be heavily taxing investments, the times when people don't actually do anything themselves but pay for things to be done, with the plan of getting money back and giving as little to those that actually did the work as possible. The business owner gives the minimum to their employees and takes all the excess for themselves.
What's needed is a sliding tax scale where employers benefit from giving out higher mean salaries, not median, such that employees and employers both together benefit from the success of the business. If you pay your employees better, up to or maybe a little above the average income, your business gets taxed less. That's the sort of government incentive we should be having.
Investments should be taxed little or zero till a certain income is produced from dividends. That’s how retired people live. That’s why certain stocks were called pensioner stocks.
Out whole tax system needs an overhaul. If a company was producing an economic advantage to the community and employees. I have no issue with them not paying taxes. We are getting it through the value they create.
The current model rewards taking from the community.
A 15 cent quarterly dividend on a $15 stock is 1%, not 10%. Ford's annual dividend is about 4% per year.
You’re correct. Different sites show it differently.
https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/f/dividends
They showed the 10% but yes its about 5
USUALLY when people describe dividends in terms of percentages, that percentage that they're referring to is the annualized dividend yield. Some companies pay dividends monthly, some quarterly, some annually. To try and make relative comparisons easier, people just boil it down to a yearly to iron out the differences in cadences.
So, a while a 15 cent divided of a 15$ stock does represent 1% of the share price... if it's a quarterly dividend, people generally wouldn't say the company pays a 1% dividend, they'd call it a 4%.
Sure, but Ford made a profit of 10 billion last year according to google. That means that they can give every single one of those 186k people a 6000$ raise and still be left with almost 9 billion in profit.
Yes, that's a good example. All I'm saying is the CEO's salary is not the root problem here. It's more of a symptom.
Isn't the CEO one of the main people that decide salaries? When you're ok with you having a multimillion salary and you say that others should be happy with 60k a year... that sounds like a problem to me
The CEO decides salaries, but the CEO is also legally obliged to pursue profits for shareholders first and foremost. The issue isn't specifically the CEO, but the infrastructure that ensures the CEO behaves maliciously towards employees and customers.
Did the post day to divide his salary to everyone or did it laugh at the thought of a living wage bankrupting his company?
No the post compared his salary to the employees earning $66,000 or above. I'm not sure what the median income is at Ford, but I'd guess it's less than that - so really the post is only in support of less than half of the company's workforce.
Yes, the post did just that...
...while laughing at the thought that raising the lower paid people's salary will bankrupt his company.
Your attempt to spin the memes meaning around is an amount of reaching that I'd recommend stretching for next time
Your attempt to spin my comment into a scarecrow you can argue against is the real stretch here.
I'm not saying it isn't ridiculous that giving a raise to employees of a profitable business would bankrupt the company. I'm saying it's a bad example for the meme to bring up the CEO's salary, rather than the profit of the company. The CEO's salary is peanuts divided amongst every employee, meanwhile the company profits and shareholder dividends represent much more of the wealth that the employees have generated without being compensated for.
I'm with y'all on this, but demonizing a CEO misses a lot of context. While I agree that billionaires are selfish narcissistic people that couldn't care less about their employees, this CEO isn't a dictator operating in a socio-political vacuum. He needs to do what he is doing, or he gets replaced by another selfish narcissistic jerk that will abuse the employees.
The real issue is our system that creates and encourages these people to maintain and exacerbate these inequalities. We need more worker solidarity, more unions, and more organization among the lower classes to use our power to demand what we want. Otherwise, they will pull the strings that control the system to get what they want.
Additionally, I think rather than just demonizing the CEO, a person that could be easily replaced, we should praise the workers as well. It's a loving approach that feels better than hate, it's founded in collective principles, and it also celebrates their collective efforts which could encourage other workers to do the same.
One thing to consider is that the CEO and other people in his position are the people who have been working over the last half century or so to create the system that allows him to do this. It's right to blame the system, but it's easy to forget the system is made and run by actual people. To start to dismantle the system it will involve taking away the power of people like this, which could be seen as demonizing them.
Companies should just do a rotational CEO from their pool of workers and give the position a nice 20% salary bump for the term of the position.