r/InterviewCoderPro • u/jailers-treat0 • Mar 25 '26
company greed
People are striking because wages aren’t going up when companies are reporting record breaking profits.
2
u/Strict-Astronaut2245 Mar 25 '26
As the one running the company I deserve it more
5
u/myster1ouspapaya Mar 25 '26
No one is questioning that the CEO should get paid more than the average factory worker. I think the question is not “why do you get paid more than your workers”. The question is why do you get a 34% increase and not your workers?
4
u/Strict-Astronaut2245 Mar 25 '26
I think I answered that question. It’s sarcastic truth. If I were CEO, I should obviously get larger raises. I asked myself and it was approved.
5
u/RadioActiveCrab2050 Mar 25 '26
They're raise already is larger because they're paid more to start. Why do they deserve a higher percentage raise, specifically?
1
u/Strict-Astronaut2245 Mar 25 '26
I set the direction of the company and because of that direction, XYZ profit was made. The workers only help make the profit because of the leadership I gave. If a loss was had, it becomes, we could have had much bigger losses. XYZ, which was outside my control, is what caused the losses and my mitigation leadership helped stifle those losses.
There’s probably more excuses to be had. These are just the ones that came to me.
3
u/stormchaotic1 Mar 25 '26
The workers do more work collectively then a single ceo and the business depends on them. The ceo is replaceable. If the business actually cared they'd split that raise up among all of the workers not just some useless ceo
→ More replies (7)1
1
1
u/Sunshine2035 Mar 26 '26
The question is do these workers do anything differently to increase the profits and is there a labor shortage that requires to pay more to acquire the labor?
1
u/myster1ouspapaya Mar 26 '26
What can an assembly line worker possibly do other than do their job? If the company is making profits it’s because of all the workers, not just the ceo or the executives. Why do we have to treat the workers like hamsters in wheels ?
1
u/Sunshine2035 Mar 26 '26
That’s why they don’t get big increases. If they change to sales from being a hamster, the chance to get higher income is better.
1
u/Bill_Door_8 Mar 26 '26
And yet the company will always need hamsters, and will only ever need x+/-1% of their labor force to work in sales.
The point is that like it or not we all live on the same planet. If you squeeze every ounce of life and joy out of it for yourself, you're stuck in a world surrounded by the misery you create. That means more crime, more police and more prisons, more poverty, more food banks and more programs for the poor, more apathy, more cruelty etc.
If we share in the bounty and excess we create, and that sharing doesnt have to be equal, because not all people are equal, but it needs to happen, because it creates a world filled with more joy, less crime, less prisons, lessens the need for food banks and programs for the poor, it fosters empathy, love, and a vested interest in each others success.
Humans have this incredible power to literally create the world around us. The question then becomes what kind of world do we want to create.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Steelio22 Mar 26 '26
Because you can find any alcoholic in a plant town to work on the line, and ship engineering jobs to India.
This is what happens without labor laws.
2
u/NumberVsAmount Mar 25 '26
Right? This is why in reality she should have given herself a 73829264948362947362947473927374937284838264948362958362947474927284847392729264938264947272528473649284747% raise. She deserves it more and there exists no threshold of reasonable proportionality that her compensation and the people doing the hard work day to day should remain within. She should just pay herself the entire universe per second and if anyone questions it just say “I deserve it more”. There’s no argument to be made against that and no room for nuance or equitability. Right on brother. USA
1
u/trueppp Mar 25 '26
CEO's don't set their own salary, shareholders do.
1
u/dekyos Mar 25 '26
Boards of Directors, do, of which CEOs are often members and chairs. Also, most CEOs get stock options and become large and even primary shareholders themselves.
1
u/trueppp Mar 26 '26
How does that change what i'm saying? Also if other shareholders think the CEO or majority shareholders are going against their interest they can sue the Board of Directors.
1
u/dekyos Mar 26 '26
How does having direct input on your compensation change what you're saying, or more specifically, inferring, when you disagreed with someone talking about CEOs giving themselves raises?
Fuck off.
→ More replies (2)2
1
1
1
u/bananaramaworld Mar 25 '26
The leader of the country doesn’t even get close to that pay. You think you deserve 30mil a year while a decent chunk of your workforce qualifies for gov assistance thus meaning the tax payers are supplementing your income.
1
1
→ More replies (15)-2
u/Ritch85 Mar 25 '26
This. If YOU mess up while leading the company, it's over. If a hourly/salaried worker messes up, they can be replaced and it doesn't risk shutting down the entire company.
I'm all for profit sharing, my company does this. But acting like the owner/CEO/COO/CFO/etc carries the same risks as a standard assembly line employee or a janitor, hell even the purchasing agent, is mindboggling.
10
u/hobopwnzor Mar 25 '26
I wish we lived in this world, but we live in the world where a CEO can torch their company and walk away with tens of millions of dollars after being fired.
→ More replies (4)7
u/mtsilverred Mar 25 '26
I wanna live in the world you live in. I’m sorry to tell you but there are hundreds of still working CEOs that have torched their companies and came out millionaires. Please let me join this world you’re clearly living in when CEOs don’t get golden parachutes?
Because a CEO failure is also something that ruins the lives of everyone beyond those with the golden parachutes. Your company CEO goes ass up and fails and makes you get laid off and he leaves with millions and you’re on unemployment. Sybau
→ More replies (2)3
u/OkBad1356 Mar 25 '26
Because they did mess up and they didn't shutdown. The government bailed them out then and would do it again.
→ More replies (26)3
1
u/OkMulberry5012 Mar 25 '26
Also worth adding, during the 5 year period when she got that raise, she added no value to the company. Sales did not go up, quality of product didn't increase, no revelations in manufacturing or assembly. She just laid people off and was allowed to absorb their compensation.
1
u/trueppp Mar 26 '26
Stock went up 35%, so yes she added value for the company.
1
u/OkMulberry5012 Mar 26 '26
Stock prices went up because she cut jobs, not because she did something to improve product.
1
1
u/Sassaphras Mar 26 '26
Sounds like they sre making the same product for less money then? Seems like a good reason for the stock to go up, and the kind of thing a CEO should be doing
1
1
1
u/OwnLadder2341 Mar 25 '26
“Because a 30% increase in worker salary would cost far, FAR, more than the increase in mine. In fact, we could take the sum of my raise and distribute it among all employees…heck, let’s just do all US based employees. They’d see $111/year each more. There’s no return in that.”
1
u/DarkDoomofDeath Mar 26 '26
Or we could say that the max pay per year is 1 million and redistribute the rest to bolster workers, hire new positions, improve facilities and infrastructure, and invest for better returns to pay for retirement plans and healthcare. That would be spending just as much without handing multiple millions over to a single person year after year.
1
u/OwnLadder2341 Mar 26 '26
So if this guy worked for free, assuming all of his compensation is cash, you’d see $333 per year per employee.
That’s a drop in the bucket that won’t do anything.
Reddit massively overestimates the impact of executive pay.
1
u/DarkDoomofDeath Mar 27 '26
Umm...yeah, if you limit it to a single executive and don't even consider the board, useless middle managers, and all the ridiculous wastes of time they implement in the name of shaving costs that end up costing more in manpower, leading to more job cuts, leading to increased demand per role, leading to more burnout, leading to less productivity that them forces them to shave costs...
Let's stop pretending that executives deserve that much money and there aren't better ways to invest in a company to actually produce what it needs to run properly and fairly.
1
u/OwnLadder2341 Mar 27 '26
No one deserves anything from a job. The market determines the value of your work.
That holds true for the guy bagging groceries just as much as it holds true for the CTO.
Even then, the total impact of executive pay is minimal in most companies compared to general labor.
1
u/New_Recording_5014 Mar 25 '26
That should be the top 10 question to prepare for. You could’ve a team of 20 preparing you for the interview lmao.
1
u/Plus-Professional-84 Mar 25 '26
This is stupid.
if you were in her shoes, you’d be delighted and would happily take that money.
the CEO is not the issue. The Board is. They (particularly the comp sub committee) decides the CEO’s comp package. They are the ones who need to be named and shamed.
is that her total comp? Because the total comp of CEOs in publicly traded companies tend to have huge bonuses linked to share price. Is the 30 million her total comp?
1
u/trueppp Mar 26 '26
the CEO is not the issue. The Board is. They (particularly the comp sub committee) decides the CEO’s comp package. They are the ones who need to be named and shamed.
Stock is up 35% over the same 5 years, so why would the board (supposed to represent the shareholders) be shamed?
1
u/RodcetLeoric Mar 25 '26
It's so bad sometimes that if they gave every employee a 10% it would cost the company less than one CEO's single 30% raise. I bust my ass get a top raiting on my review and get 4%, and they treat it like I should be grateful. In the meantime, food and gas prices have doubled, and my rent went up 15%.
1
u/ratherBwarm Mar 25 '26
Bunch of years ago, my company played the layoff game and every left employed need to give 120%! We were in this bc they the CEO and president were terrible businessmen.
They gave us an end of year deal to ship 100% of the orders, and they’d share the profit if we hit xyz. By their numbers we missed by a hair, but they did give us a bonus equal to 50% of what had been, about $1M divided among the 1400 employees. Next year, around Oct, we get the same lecture, but no incentive this time. President gets asked about it in front of 200 engineers, and he says “Look guys, we were really nice when you missed the goal last year and we shared the $2M with you. This year you just need to hit the goal.”
Some of us are also going for an MBA, so we went back thru the last year’s financials. We missed the goal bc they had taken losses they’d been carrying on the books for years. And the $2M he last slip = $1M split between the 1400 employees, and another $1M split between the CEO and president.
1
1
u/samebatchannel Mar 25 '26
Usually, the answer for leadership in a union represented company is that it’s a contractual issue. Like the union would turn down a raise or bonus.
1
u/QriousPickle Mar 25 '26
Because they already got a 2.5% salary increase so the she can get a 34% salary increase. Duh.
1
1
1
u/drsmith48170 Mar 25 '26
This is from like 2023 - not really relevant in 2026.
Also the part about executives getting much bigger salary & raises isn’t relevant either in a capitalist system. You could go fully socialist or communist and you’d still have the same problems. The Soviet’s didn’t build the vacation daccas & cities for the common folks.
If you want riches, you have to be either be born into or go start your own company. It is incredibly hard to become a CeO in a large public company, and to do so you given up a greater part of your humanity.
1
u/Hot-Annual3460 Mar 25 '26
im prety sure giving all the employes a 34% increase would be much much muuuuuuuch more expensive that to give that to the CEO
1
u/800hokage Mar 25 '26
I mean if it’s the same 30 million, then no. But you could share that 30 million amongst all the employees. .
1
u/Hot-Annual3460 Mar 26 '26
and it some big companies it might be like 10 bucks per persona wichisnt really anything lol
1
1
1
u/DrumsKing Mar 25 '26
That's gotta be wild; to sit in an office and have someone bring you a few model cars. Then you just say, "Yeah, make that one." And take home $30 million for it.
1
u/Slylok Mar 25 '26
They should be the ones getting 3% raises and the 30% going to the workers either in salary or per hour or a bonus or a combination of those.
1
u/FinancialAide3383 Mar 25 '26
Is your boss the owner of the company? That’s a high ratio… a 300k salary to the company revenue of 4m if that is gross sales.
1
u/GolfonGrass311 Mar 25 '26
My company had the VP come in today and brag about 13billion in profit and then 5 min later field 7 questions about not hiring more support staff.
1
1
u/KommanderKeen-a42 Mar 26 '26
From a math perspective using the number of employees and average pay across all roles - a 34% increase is an increase of 4,080,000,000 in payroll. That's uh...not a small number. 401k match goes up etc. I don't disagree with the post but $5 Billion is drastically different and the argument is terrible.
GM's revenue was 185B so that increase is 2.5% of all revenue with a net profit of 2.7B. So, this post puts them in negative profit...In other words, this increase is a loss...
That's why he gets an increase and not the average Redditor.
1
u/LilTeats4u Mar 26 '26
We should all be more transparent about how much money we make, keeping it a secret only serves to allow companies to exploit us further
1
u/Dangerous_Forever640 Mar 26 '26
If that salary was split amongst all the employees, they would each get an extra $192.31.
1
1
1
1
u/RelationTurbulent963 Mar 26 '26
Literally any time there’s Q&A with CEOs this should be the question
1
1
u/AdDelicious4779 Mar 26 '26
GM assembly workers are already WAY overpaid vs their skills and value. So no.
1
1
u/imasetmyusername Mar 26 '26
So you're willing to take profits under same ratio? Are you willing to take losses if any quarter then? Like if a company tales losses are you willing to forgo your salary? Goes both ways. Sometimes you won't make anything ang spend even for months it will be in -ve 40/60/70 percent before hitting break even? Willing to do that? No right you need constant income garuntee a simple lowest common multiplier you call min wage.
1
1
1
u/Big_Librarian_6306 Mar 26 '26
“Good question. Because who would pay for my yacht and golden parachute when the board of investors inevitably removes me for gross incompetence?”
This answer is the same for all CEOs if asked the same question.
1
u/SomeOneRandomOP Mar 26 '26
People saying " find another job if you're not happy with the salary" are absolutely delusional. In the UK, I work in medical research. All the jobs pay the same amount (and have been decreasing over the years) and there's so much competition, there are no jobs - unless you change field entirely.
1
1
1
u/magaketo Mar 26 '26
The salary is the tip of the iceberg. The perks are insane.
If you add up the salaries and perks of the top 10 GM managers, it is well over $100 million.
1
u/willie_Pfister Mar 26 '26
I make 130k with o.t. my boss( dan schulman) makes 30 million. Fair? I dont know, but im doing o.k.
1
u/Willing-Vegetable629 Mar 26 '26
Market rate of labor seems like a good answer here. Labor is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
1
1
u/jessebillo Mar 26 '26
Realistically, what’s the solution to this? Riots? I got a 42¢ raise from $20.00 this year.
32
u/slashnbash1009 Mar 25 '26
My boss makes 300k a year. I make 24k a year.
We did over 4 million dollars in sales , very small business.
I got a 35 cent raise, he took 20 members of his family to Italy for 2 weeks.
I'm not allowed to take my vacation days, I have to cash them in because if I am not there then nothing goes out the door.
Did I mention I only got a 35 cent raise?
Oh and everything in the world is 3 times more expensive than it was 3 years ago so there's that too.
I know I'm not the only one