Salaries should by law be capped at max 10 times the lowest
Careful, you might be starting to make too much sense!
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.
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.
Often both at the same time!
"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.
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.
Capitalism lol
CEOs need to take pay cuts. They earn too much and don't provide enough value for their pay.
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.
Just broke my brain a little bit, that crazy!
Holy shit, they're cousins!?
He should live in a van down by the river.
Read "Bullshit Jobs" by David Graeber guys. It's really worth it!
Is this Guy related to Chris Farley? I definitely see some resemblance.
Yeah they're cousins.
Holy schnikies!
Total revolution needed. Workers that do the real thing barely can feed their mouth, while those useless management ceo got huge cut
No one should earn that kind of money period.
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.
It seems obvious the government is siding with the owners.
How could you be so heartless? How is he supposed to afford his second super yacht?
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 $2500 bonus to share their profits, but instead they used it to buy back stocks...
And buying back the stock has the effect of making the stock price go up. And guess who gets the most stock? The CEO and C suite. They give themselves huge raises by doing this and it's perfectly legal :(
Well see that's a good example. Ford is a profitable business, and should be paying their employees. All I'm pointing out is that the CEO's salary - in the specific example of this business - does not represent a significant proportion of what is being taken from the average employee. That's most likely going to the shareholders.
The CEO's are partially to blame, but more blame lies with the shareholders, and also the legal system that mandates the CEO's act in the interest of the hypothetical worst, most profit-hungry shareholder.
Sure, but Ford made a profit of 10 billion last year according to google. That means that they can give every single one of those 186k people a 6000$ raise and still be left with almost 9 billion in profit.
Did the post day to divide his salary to everyone or did it laugh at the thought of a living wage bankrupting his company?
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.
Yeah that would work great!
Does a bit of constant chaos seems worse than the existential failure of the system every 13 years like we enjoy today?
What’s a perfect day for you? Waiting in line for your government cheese?
I get people see one-on-one comparison in salary and it can appear stark. But I do workforce management and planning for a career. The last place I worked at spent $2.1B in employee costs annually—around 17.5K active employees which is actually not that big—,while chief officers were on close to $1M. If they were canabalised, people would get a few extra bucks in their paycheck, fuck all.
The CEO got paid that well because they could handle a $2.1B employee cost company, so obviously other companies want them since few people can do that with success, so obviously they were paid their worth.
Edit: Granted, this is in Australia where there's a lot less capitalistic energy.
Though he does get paid a lot more than his foreign counterparts of roughly same size.
As an MBA, I will simply state that you all do not understand capitalism. A CEO is kind of like a sports star. They make what they make because they are making all the hard shots and keeping the team afloat. They are like the captain and coach of the team in one. It takes many years to curate the skills required to be a good CEO and there are only so many people good enough in each industry to take on the challenge. 21M is modest compared to Ford’s profits. If they provided less, he would simply move to a competitor in the same way that sports stars shop around. The idea that everyone in the company should have their salaries compared in terms of orders of magnitude of the CEO is insane. It’s like attempting to say that the janitor at a doctor’s office should have to make tens of thousands above the going rate of what a janitor’s output is worth on the open market simply because the star of the business is able to bring in a lot of money. In general, the idea that the CEO doesn’t work as hard as the line workers is incorrect. They CEO meets all day with direct reports and investors and steers the ship.
Why do you think having a MBA matters? It's a weird circlejerk for losers.
A Master of Business Administration (MBA; also Master in Business Administration) is a postgraduate degree focused on business administration. The core courses in an MBA program cover various areas of business administration such as accounting, applied statistics, human resources, business communication, business ethics, business law, strategic management, business strategy, finance, managerial economics, management, entrepreneurship, marketing, supply-chain management, and operations management in a manner most relevant to management analysis and strategy. It originated in the United States in the early 20th century when the country industrialized and companies sought scientific management.
You seek to write-off in one stroke what has been built-upon over many centuries and siphoned into scientific disciplines. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
If this is the takeaway from your MBA, you fell for the propaganda
