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.
I mean I personally think income should be tax free up to a relatively high amount. Like 6 figures, minimum. You're giving up your time, in service of a business which itself is in service of society, you shouldn't have to subtract from your reward for that to give more. The business' taxes should be covering that.
We should be heavily taxing investments, the times when people don't actually do anything themselves but pay for things to be done, with the plan of getting money back and giving as little to those that actually did the work as possible. The business owner gives the minimum to their employees and takes all the excess for themselves.
What's needed is a sliding tax scale where employers benefit from giving out higher mean salaries, not median, such that employees and employers both together benefit from the success of the business. If you pay your employees better, up to or maybe a little above the average income, your business gets taxed less. That's the sort of government incentive we should be having.
No the post compared his salary to the employees earning $66,000 or above. I'm not sure what the median income is at Ford, but I'd guess it's less than that - so really the post is only in support of less than half of the company's workforce.
Your attempt to spin my comment into a scarecrow you can argue against is the real stretch here.
I'm not saying it isn't ridiculous that giving a raise to employees of a profitable business would bankrupt the company. I'm saying it's a bad example for the meme to bring up the CEO's salary, rather than the profit of the company. The CEO's salary is peanuts divided amongst every employee, meanwhile the company profits and shareholder dividends represent much more of the wealth that the employees have generated without being compensated for.
The CEO's salary is peanuts divided amongst every employee, meanwhile the company profits and shareholder dividends represent much more of the wealth that the employees have generated without being compensated for.
True. The big shareholders are definitely a problem. I wonder who Ford's largest individual shareholders are.
James D. Farley, Jr. owns a total of 1,103,833 Ford shares.
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.
Removed by mod
Fucking absolutely. But that's a drop in the bucket of financial fuckery that goes on, which is a very big elephant in the room.
Removed by mod
I mean I personally think income should be tax free up to a relatively high amount. Like 6 figures, minimum. You're giving up your time, in service of a business which itself is in service of society, you shouldn't have to subtract from your reward for that to give more. The business' taxes should be covering that.
We should be heavily taxing investments, the times when people don't actually do anything themselves but pay for things to be done, with the plan of getting money back and giving as little to those that actually did the work as possible. The business owner gives the minimum to their employees and takes all the excess for themselves.
What's needed is a sliding tax scale where employers benefit from giving out higher mean salaries, not median, such that employees and employers both together benefit from the success of the business. If you pay your employees better, up to or maybe a little above the average income, your business gets taxed less. That's the sort of government incentive we should be having.
Removed by mod
Did the post day to divide his salary to everyone or did it laugh at the thought of a living wage bankrupting his company?
No the post compared his salary to the employees earning $66,000 or above. I'm not sure what the median income is at Ford, but I'd guess it's less than that - so really the post is only in support of less than half of the company's workforce.
Yes, the post did just that...
...while laughing at the thought that raising the lower paid people's salary will bankrupt his company.
Your attempt to spin the memes meaning around is an amount of reaching that I'd recommend stretching for next time
Your attempt to spin my comment into a scarecrow you can argue against is the real stretch here.
I'm not saying it isn't ridiculous that giving a raise to employees of a profitable business would bankrupt the company. I'm saying it's a bad example for the meme to bring up the CEO's salary, rather than the profit of the company. The CEO's salary is peanuts divided amongst every employee, meanwhile the company profits and shareholder dividends represent much more of the wealth that the employees have generated without being compensated for.
True. The big shareholders are definitely a problem. I wonder who Ford's largest individual shareholders are.