Oso planning to go pro
i can agree with your comments somewhat-yes there are discrepancies. it is not a perfect system, but better than anywhere else in the world. our economic system however, allows for corrections. marissa mayer is one good example of what you described.
Curious what you mean by Marissa Mayer being a good example of that. I knew her, so am curious what you mean.
immediate past ceo of yahoo. held position from 2012-2017. depending on which business publication/article you read, she either did very well or very bad for the company. as you mention the " the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes. " marissa mayer made approx. $900,000 per week or $122.5 mil. yes, yahoo's stock price did rise 151% during her 4 + years tenure, but much of that was due to ownership of 15% of alibaba and yahoo japan. take away those 2 entities and yahoo's remaining business dropped $2.4 billionjust saying, she must be one those "corporate elite" you must be referring to, ain'er? just wondering if you've confronted her on her obscene salary? i have nothing against her at all, just exhibit 1. actually, i think it's great that she was able to break that glass ceiling, lifting that leg really high to urinate with the big dogs
Why was Marissa Mayer your chosen example?
Before Mayer, Yahoo was a struggling company. They had three CEOs between 2009 and 20012 before Mayer took over. (Carol Bartz, Scott Thompson, and Ross Levinsohn)Mayer was a star at Google and destine to make hundreds of millions if she stayed put. So she was taking a great reputational risk going to "broken" Yahoo and she was compensated for that risk. Becuase she cannot now go back to make what she could before Yahoo. They needed to pay up for the risk she was taking.Regarding her salary. There were two possible outcomes, 1. She turned Yahoo around in which case her salary is a rounding error and well worth it.2. She failed at turning around Yahoo and is was destine to get swallowed up and many would lose their jobs. In this case, here salary does not matter.I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make. To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced. Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses. For the organization, they don't matter that much. They will not make or break the company. Other/new nurses can be found. But a CEO can make or break a company. They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined. This is why CEO pay really does not matter. If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company. If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.
I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make. To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced. Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses. For the organization, they don't matter that much. They will not make or break the company. Other/new nurses can be found. But a CEO can make or break a company. They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined. This is why CEO pay really does not matter. If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company. If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.
Its not failing to recognize the impact of a CEO on a company's stock value. Its calling out the mistaken assumption that a rise in the company's stock value bears significant correlation to the number and social mobility of its employees.The benefits of a rise in that stock value reside in the hands of wealth accumulators who do not pump that money back into the economy to any real degree, except to potentially invest in other similarly situated companies, the fortunes of which, again, do not provide for the social mobility of its employees. And from that dissonance arises a host of other false economic narratives about the relationship between "free markets" and "welfare." One side note on the health care conversation though - those pointing out the difficulty of rising health care costs on employers are correct. But if we really gave a damn about how to both making it easy for employers to keep people employed, and keeping people healthy and insured, we'd abandon the system of employer-provided insurance in favor of (gasp) exchanges and maybe even an intentionally loss-leading public option.
The upper end, the super high end, couldn't live on slightly less? As an example, a local hospital CEO made $17 mil in the same year they put a hiring freeze and salary increase freeze on nursing staff.
I agree with this analysis
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/Timely article. First study out (far from settled science) but seems to indicate Seattle's minimum wage law may have crossed a boundary where the market finds alternatives. Overall, in 2016 with the minimum wage at $13 the minimum wage workers lost $125 a month in salary. Again, may be a blip or the methodology may be off, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that the minimum wage salary band is only elastic to a certain point where it may become inelastic (automation, etc).
The article is an opinion piece. It does not provide extensive analysis of past history, other circumstances or an industry wide average. Other scientific studies (one by Cal-Berkeley) have came to the exact opposite conclusions examining minimum wage increases. The bottom line is that there are two many variables in these situations allowing anyone to argue essentially anything they wish to prove their point. Maybe it is best to stick with the humane thing to do and to pay people a living wage for the work they complete.
Down 1 w 5 seconds left. Doable.
Malcolm Gladwell discusses CEOs in one of his books. Almost certain it's Outliers.A brief summary: Company structure of employees, management, and operations are more important than the CEO. CEOs of successful companies get hired by struggling companies. The successful company continues to be successful under a new CEO. The struggling company continues to struggle under the hotshot new CEO.Finding a true CEO star, such as Steve Jobs, is very rare. But that doesn't stop companies from over valuing the average CEO. Too much credit or blame is placed at the feet of the CEO.My opinion: There needs to be a recalibration of value of employees. Some companies do a better job than others of fairly compensating employees at different levels. But far too many over value the top employees and under value the lower and mid level employees.Minimum wage is the wrong thing to be focusing on. Changing the mentality of employee value is the biggest obstacle in this country. I have no idea how to accomplish that but this is the conversation we should be having.
Good. Burn the whole system down. Get rid of those types of jobs. Force our country to come up with more stable jobs for people or pivot to a different type of social situation (basic income, for example).
Don't disagree, but IMO the issue isn't necessarily a career issue, it's an educational one. We are not configuring out educational system to prepare the future workforce for a different job type.
Sure. But what do you do for those that are 40, 50, 60 that are not a part of the "future" workforce? Those people are still going to be employed for the next couple decades. Minimum wage jobs are not going to be enough to sustain.
How many 40, 50 or 60 year olds make minimum wage? It's very few. And as a person who used to be the CEO of a company that employed hundreds of workers at or near minimum wage, anyone that old that who was at our bottom was there for one of these reasons: 1. they had cognitive issues of some sort that prevented them from performing more valuable work, 2.had drug or alcohol problems that prevented them from keeping a job for any length of time, or 3. voluntarily limited their options to a point where a minimum wage job was the only work available (only wanted to work certain hours, or didn't want a job that any real responsibility). Anyone that showed any hint of leadership or enthusiasm, or even dependability was promoted above minimum wage within a matter of months. I don't have any reason to believe that isn't the case at most places.