That bonus alone is roughly 32000 per year that could be paid to each of those employees and that is not even counting the outsized salary this CEO enjoys.
Realistically though, the employees total comp was probably close to 120k per person including benefits and employer taxes, otherwise people are making poverty wages. So 300m spending was required.
I know you have an agenda but anybody who knows fucking anything about american tech knows the wages aren't low like... well pretty much everywhere else. My 120k estimation of headcount costs are WAYYYYYY lower than what ziprecruiter thinks the median wage at microsoft is ($115,590). https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Microsoft-Salary
Usually about 30% of the cost of an employee are things that are not wages. So that 115kish is only 70% of the total nut, give or take.
I'm not for ludicrous senior executive pay. The real problem isn't even that though, it's the legal obligation to make as much money as possible for the ownership class. There is no obligation for employers to really do fucking anything for their employees beyond what the law mandates - and US labor laws are a fucking joke.
everybody has an agenda. It's just the scary word for "opinion" or "bias". You obviously have an agenda trying to handwring about the precise number employees at Microsoft get paid rather than focus on the point - CEOs get big bonuses while they "have" to cut back and fire employees.
People love looking at a figurehead and drawing the conclusion "That person is the problem!!!!!"
The problem is never just one person. Especially in this case, the problem is systematic, pervasive and the solution is utterly at odds with society as it functions today.
Now what someone does with that information is going to depend on the person. I guess my agenda comes down to wanting to direct people to the bigger picture and to stop keeping their head perpetually down staring at a person who has several masters above them pulling the strings. You can look upwards and address the source while also changing the rules that apply to the figurehead as well, no?
To pose a hypothetical: If you eliminate all CEOs everywhere all at once the rest of the executives will just step up and the board and ownership will just carry on their way. It won't fix the problem. If you make it so their comp is limited to no more than what the lowest paid person makes, you're just going to make a supreme court judge situation where the person on top will be a puppet for whoever is willing to bribe them the best in ways that are not easily tracked.
Sure, the rest of the execs split the other savings. The CEO just got the lion's share. That bonus alone even with your numbers, would be enough to keep almost 700 of those employees.
So we agree he could have afforded to not lay off at least 625 of the 2500 people (if we're going by your massive assumption that all 2500 were signed on positions that pay 120k a year)
Who gives a shit about average when there's several millions given out in bonuses? It's the median that counts. And again you are making massive assumptions about who was fired.
There is a discussion to be had about how those resources are best allocated, but of course you're not really interested in any of this, if you were you'd have responded to @Hexboare@hexbear.nets comment. You just want to run defence for Microsoft for some asinine reason.
That bonus alone is roughly 32000 per year that could be paid to each of those employees and that is not even counting the outsized salary this CEO enjoys.
Realistically though, the employees total comp was probably close to 120k per person including benefits and employer taxes, otherwise people are making poverty wages. So 300m spending was required.
Microsoft reported ~$90 billion in profits in FY 2024, or enough to pay those workers $120,000 for the next three centuries
Can mods pin non-top-level comments? Because…
You got a source for that? Or are you just bootlicker for Microsoft?
I don't really care either way because you're defending billionair ceos.
Imagine going to bat for Microsoft of all corporations.
How am I a bootlicker?
I know you have an agenda but anybody who knows fucking anything about american tech knows the wages aren't low like... well pretty much everywhere else. My 120k estimation of headcount costs are WAYYYYYY lower than what ziprecruiter thinks the median wage at microsoft is ($115,590). https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Microsoft-Salary
Usually about 30% of the cost of an employee are things that are not wages. So that 115kish is only 70% of the total nut, give or take.
I'm not for ludicrous senior executive pay. The real problem isn't even that though, it's the legal obligation to make as much money as possible for the ownership class. There is no obligation for employers to really do fucking anything for their employees beyond what the law mandates - and US labor laws are a fucking joke.
Because you're licking corporate boots.
So do you. That's a worthless statement that means fucking nothing unless you're pretending to be "nonpolitical" which is either ignorance or lying.
take a billion off the profits and give those 2500 workers a 400k salary then lmao
People love looking at a figurehead and drawing the conclusion "That person is the problem!!!!!"
The problem is never just one person. Especially in this case, the problem is systematic, pervasive and the solution is utterly at odds with society as it functions today.
Now what someone does with that information is going to depend on the person. I guess my agenda comes down to wanting to direct people to the bigger picture and to stop keeping their head perpetually down staring at a person who has several masters above them pulling the strings. You can look upwards and address the source while also changing the rules that apply to the figurehead as well, no?
To pose a hypothetical: If you eliminate all CEOs everywhere all at once the rest of the executives will just step up and the board and ownership will just carry on their way. It won't fix the problem. If you make it so their comp is limited to no more than what the lowest paid person makes, you're just going to make a supreme court judge situation where the person on top will be a puppet for whoever is willing to bribe them the best in ways that are not easily tracked.
I'm not gonna waste my time reading bootlicker drivel about a day's old settled topic lmao
Sure, the rest of the execs split the other savings. The CEO just got the lion's share. That bonus alone even with your numbers, would be enough to keep almost 700 of those employees.
ftfy, target the ownership class first because they have nearly the whole pie.
I would guess that the ceo is of the owner class
So we agree he could have afforded to not lay off at least 625 of the 2500 people (if we're going by your massive assumption that all 2500 were signed on positions that pay 120k a year)
average salary at msft is just about 120k. https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Microsoft-Salary
only 70% of employee cost is typically salary. So 120k was highly conservative.
Who gives a shit about average when there's several millions given out in bonuses? It's the median that counts. And again you are making massive assumptions about who was fired.
There is a discussion to be had about how those resources are best allocated, but of course you're not really interested in any of this, if you were you'd have responded to @Hexboare@hexbear.nets comment. You just want to run defence for Microsoft for some asinine reason.
Tell me you don't know anything about software development.