this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
338 points (87.4% liked)

Technology

58061 readers
31 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I stand by my opinion that CEO pay should be pegged to the "lowest" employee on the totem pole, everyone should ride the wave and spread out the earnings. Its just gross how it currently is.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That's a great idea. No more than x times lowest salary. We'd all get insane raises off that concept alone

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They'd just do what they always do and make the money elsewhere (mostly using accounting tricks), and claim they made $0 in income.

Good luck going tit for tat with capital. The house always wins.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the raises would be as big as you think.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Perhaps. Depends on the company, but I'm not sure what we have to lose here. Also consider total compensation because I bet those numbers are skewed down by the stocks and bonuses that allow for "$1 salary" CEOs. Worst case it just boosts worker morale. Extra assurance they're not being completely screwed over

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Look up mondragon Spain. Its a town in Spain whose economy was struggling after WWII. They turned it around by adopting a cooperative business model. This means all employees are owners.

All employees get to vote how the company operates. Executives work for share holders right? With cooperatives, the share holders are employees creating a business Ouroboros where the boss and their boss have an interest in keeping employees Happy. Employees are invested in keeping the company profitable.

They have padded rules like CEO pay is tied to the lowest salary in the company. It can never be more than X amount of the lowest salary. If they want it to raise they have to increase all salaries in the company first.

They don't get filthy stinking rich. But what they have shown is that the people living there score happier than most. They also show that they are economically more resilient. For close to a 100 years they have withstood recessions and economic down turns.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/07/mondragon-spains-giant-cooperative

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

In addition to Mondragon, look into co-determination laws in places like Germany, where they have profit sharing, and a certain % of a company's board needs to be made up of actual workers.

This can be done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I stand by my opinion that CEO pay should be pegged to the “lowest” employee on the totem pole

And congressman/representative salary should be pegged to minimum wage.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why?

You've use the word "should", which means you're applying a value judgement. On what metrics are you basing this value judgment? Does a company perform better using this guideline? Do they lower any risks? Does this increase retention? Improve cross-team communication? Reduce waste or losses?

While I also personally think these salaries are insane, without answering about a thousand more similar questions, there's no justification for the metric you've provided.

Another way to look at it: if a company could hire someone for less, and get similar results, wouldn't they?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

so heres where I disagree, if you're paying the minumum you're attracting the minimum, the reverse can be said for the worker, why work here when I can get more elsewhere? with pegging the top and bottom rungs of the ladder and spreading the income everyone is motivated to come in to work everyday because they know that if they take care of their work, their work will take care of them. I don't think thats radical. everyone wins.