Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Since 2000, CEOs of fast food chains have seen their salaries quadruple. Their employees, however, have seen their salaries decrease by a minimum of 1%   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Sick, fast food restaurant chains, CEO, reductions, proxy statement, Yum!, salary, Scott Stringer  
•       •       •

5241 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2014 at 9:46 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-22 11:17:52 PM  
So they run billion dollar industries that sell garbage as food, and their customers are happy enough with it to be *repeat* customers who line up around the block (in their cars) every day?

Sounds like a farking miracle to me.

Tell me again, are we talking about the thousands upon thousands of CEOs of fast food companies? Or more like 10?

I get the outrage though. It's despicable that so few people wield amount of power. That's why I hate the federal government too.
 
2014-04-22 11:18:26 PM  

12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.


The people that have the drive and the ability to to this already are.
The vast majority of the rest of us are going to sit on our asses and watch TV.
That's cool though, should make the commute for the producers quite a bit nicer.
 
2014-04-22 11:19:09 PM  

Sticky Hands: I'm not saying these CEOs are worth 100M a year or anything like that ( maybe a Steve Jobs at just the right moment is ) , but I bare no grudge against the successful ones. And it's hard to get working up about the CEO of McDonalds earning 7 million, there are nearly 100 players that earn more than that in the NBA alone. And that is not counting endorsements.


I think we may just measure differently what "success" is. Anyone can do a smash and grab job and become "successful" if you measure success as what they take home.

I measure success differently than profits. For example, I think Jeff Bezos is much more successful than the CEO at any oil company or bank, even though Amazon's profits are smaller, both in size and percentage.
 
2014-04-22 11:20:14 PM  

clancifer: It will all trickle down any day now.


It shall come to pass, so sayeth the all-knowing Saint Reagan.
 
2014-04-22 11:22:13 PM  
Stay in school, kids. Hoping for trickle down is a bad bet.
 
2014-04-22 11:23:25 PM  

12349876: Lokkii: Cheer up fast food workers. As usual, upwards pressure on wages will accelerate the drive towards mechanization and automation. In 20 years fast food worker wages won't be a problem any more since there will only be a dozen or so in the country.

Gas pump jockeys were first, right now it's grocery store checkout clerks, and soon it will be burger flippers.

Good.  I'm all for a society where all the mindless drudgery is done by machines and a guaranteed basic income that can allow as many people as possible to focus on creative pursuits that will increase the number of artistic and technological breakthroughs.


radicalunjobbing.files.wordpress.com
i concur.
 
2014-04-22 11:24:20 PM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


The cats in N-space are hungry.
 
2014-04-22 11:31:03 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.


$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy
 
2014-04-22 11:31:12 PM  
It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.
 
2014-04-22 11:32:25 PM  

Brainsick: Bonzo_1116: Yeah_Right: I case anyone hasn't done the math....

CEO make $22,000,000
Yum Brands has about 17,000 fast food stores (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut combined)
Assume there are ~10 fast food workers at each store.
Take every last dime from the CEO's compensation and divvy it up among the workers...

22,000,000/177000 =  and extra $124.30 per year.

Feel better yet...?

The $22,000,000.00 would be better spent researching how to keep the inner hard shell crunchy on their multi-layered taco things.

$1294.11 without adding an extra 70,000 franchises into your math...

Your point is still stupid because it's not a 1/1 exchange. CEO's get things like company cars (sometimes with a driver), paid accomodations when they travel, benefits packages that often include perks like (personal) cars, houses, and stock portfolio's...there's a lot more to what a Fortune 1000 CEO 'makes' than their salary


/college football and basketball coaches are even more greedy


Bonzo, that was directed at Yeah_Right, sorry for the misquote
 
2014-04-22 11:34:17 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Sticky Hands: I'm not saying these CEOs are worth 100M a year or anything like that ( maybe a Steve Jobs at just the right moment is ) , but I bare no grudge against the successful ones. And it's hard to get working up about the CEO of McDonalds earning 7 million, there are nearly 100 players that earn more than that in the NBA alone. And that is not counting endorsements.

I think we may just measure differently what "success" is. Anyone can do a smash and grab job and become "successful" if you measure success as what they take home.

I measure success differently than profits. For example, I think Jeff Bezos is much more successful than the CEO at any oil company or bank, even though Amazon's profits are smaller, both in size and percentage.



I'm sorry I did make it clear that I do not consider smash and grabbers as anything other than thieves.  I do not measure success as what they take home, but how much better the company is than when they started.

But even if one did measure success by how much they take home... Mr Bezos is worth some 23 billion dollars... so there appears to be some correlation there.
 
2014-04-22 11:36:07 PM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


Did somebody forget to take your crayons away?
 
2014-04-22 11:41:12 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


I'm willing to bet that they would be better CEO's then the current group of CEO's without any training or study.
 
2014-04-22 11:44:05 PM  

Sticky Hands: I'm sorry I did make it clear that I do not consider smash and grabbers as anything other than thieves. I do not measure success as what they take home, but how much better the company is than when they started.

But even if one did measure success by how much they take home... Mr Bezos is worth some 23 billion dollars... so there appears to be some correlation there.


yeah, but Amazon makes nothing.

My overall point is that I think the vast majority of CEOs are parasites that bring no value, increase nothing, and basically give themselves raised based on the inertia and brands that were built by someone else. Sears is a great example, so is lehman brothers.
 
2014-04-22 11:44:08 PM  

fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]


I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?
 
2014-04-22 11:44:55 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.


That's right. If they wanted to get ahead they should have just been CEO's. Everybody knows that's where the money's at.
 
2014-04-22 11:52:37 PM  

Delta1212: Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats

This actually annoys me. Just because a chemical is used in something you wouldn't want to eat, doesn't mean that the chemical is automatically something you want to keep out of food.

Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.


I think we should put together a blue ribbon panel to debate acceptable levels of melamine and arsenic in our hamburgers. After all, it's just not fair to the corporate fast food giants to expect them to keep ALL the poison out of the food. Some of those poisons actually make food manufacture cheaper and give it a longer shelf life. Or a more appealing color.
That goes straight to the bottom line, my friend.
 
2014-04-22 11:53:24 PM  

Grognard: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?


As I mentioned after I posted it I can't find it either. It appears I have fallen for the old Abraham Lincoln picture/quote trap.
 
2014-04-22 11:57:33 PM  
As others have pointed out, the CEOs of the fast food joints do not set wages of workers at their franchises.  Franchise owners don't care how much they have to pay the workers.  They care what it costs to employ them.  Between myriad employment taxes, insurances, and other costs, the disparity between cost of employment and wages is growing.  Employers can't afford to pay workers more precisely because so much of their COGS dollar is spent on labor costs that the employee will never see.  Every tax, every insurance that the employer supposedly pays is, in reality, paid by the employee.  He must be productive enough that the owner of the company can charge that amount back to the customer.  The fact that an employer must pay $30/hour for labor and can only give the employee $10/hour is not the fault of employer.  Every time the government (fed, state, or local) steps in and orders the company to help the employees out, it's the employee that must pay.  Companies either make a profit or go bankrupt.

Right now, a lot of companies are reporting record profits.  But if you read a lot of the financial reports carefully, you will note that an awful lot of companies are missing their top line forecast.  But, because of the fed pumping money into the economy, stock prices continue to rise.  Those rising stock prices help companies, between buybacks and dividends, show those record profits on the bottom line in spite of falling short on the top line.  Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.  Auditors very much like it if you can demonstrate that you're not losing money on every piece you sell.

The rising stock prices skew this report in one other significant way.  Most, if not all, of the CEOs listed derive a substantial percentage of their income from stock options, stock gifts, and the valuation of thier stock portfolio.  If all of those things are rising, it stands to reason that their demonstrated income will also rise significantly.
 
2014-04-22 11:59:48 PM  

MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves.


I know you're being snarky, but this is what many people believe, and it's the great lie of our system. "If everyone tried harder, we wouldn't have any poor people." The world only needs so many CEOs, doctors, and such. There are always going to be people at the bottom end of the ladder, but society as a whole functions better when they can functionally survive and contribute to it.

To run our world as a cutthroat competition and to tell the losers they deserve to eat out of dumpsters and die young is a disgraceful way for an advanced civilization to function.

Not to mention the fact that the last thing the rich want is tens of millions more millionaires, as it would dilute their wealth and make them less special, and we can't offend the delicate precious snowflakes.
 
2014-04-23 12:01:34 AM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


Nice misdirection. Nobody is suggesting the fry-guy make 11 million. Just that he should be treated as more than expendable slave labor.
 
2014-04-23 12:04:11 AM  

Mr. Right: Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.


Why not? Employee compensation has much wider repercussions than just the dollar amount they cost. Employee availability, mobility, overall health and retention are just a few that come to mind. Why retrain sick, unmotivated people once or twice a year when you can spend half as much keeping the smart, capable people you already have? Because they are somehow worth 'less' than the cost of retaining upper management? Of course, now we're getting into 'competetive salary' territory...
 
2014-04-23 12:05:33 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


I can't raise a family, sitting on my ass , complaining about the poor quality of tv programming - someone should raise the pay for that!
 
2014-04-23 12:05:42 AM  

Smackledorfer: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

You jest, but I have been assured they could all be plumbers. There is totally enough demand for that.


If people are eating that much fast food, there's got to be be more than a few busted shiatters in need of service.
 
2014-04-23 12:11:23 AM  

ImpendingCynic: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves.

I know you're being snarky, but this is what many people believe, and it's the great lie of our system. "If everyone tried harder, we wouldn't have any poor people." The world only needs so many CEOs, doctors, and such. There are always going to be people at the bottom end of the ladder, but society as a whole functions better when they can functionally survive and contribute to it.

To run our world as a cutthroat competition and to tell the losers they deserve to eat out of dumpsters and die young is a disgraceful way for an advanced civilization to function.

Not to mention the fact that the last thing the rich want is tens of millions more millionaires, as it would dilute their wealth and make them less special, and we can't offend the delicate precious snowflakes.


I said that because every time there's a minimum wage thread, some Limbaugh-quoting a-hole inevitably argues this, so I wanted to preempt them.

You said it perfectly. It is disgraceful.
 
2014-04-23 12:11:58 AM  

Smackledorfer: MrBallou: If those workers want a decent wage, they should study and all become CEOs themselves. They're just a bunch of losers.

You jest, but I have been assured they could all be plumbers. There is totally enough demand for that.


Too true. But we don't have much of an apprenticeship thing anymore. Besides, in my area people just hire illegals who know enough to poorly sweat a joint, and then file insurance claims when the black mold forces them out of the house.
 
2014-04-23 12:16:36 AM  

fusillade762: Grognard: fusillade762: [37.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

I cannot find proof for this statement.  I am not saying it is incorrect, but before I can consider passing this information along it would be necessary to have proof.

Farkers, my google-fu is not sufficient to come up with evidence.  Anyone else?

As I mentioned after I posted it I can't find it either. It appears I have fallen for the old Abraham Lincoln picture/quote trap.



my apologies.  I got to your retraction post after posting.  I am guilty, often, of not reading the whole discussion thread and commenting.  Mea Culpa
 
2014-04-23 12:25:38 AM  

GoldSpider: What's with all the eat-the-rich circle-jerk threads today?


Let's think about that... The last few years have seen a massive economic recovery - for those who actually own capital of some sort (stocks, real estate, etc.), while for the majority of people in the US, their standard of living has never recovered to pre-2008 levels. The people who caused the whole farking problem got away with many types of criminal fraud and never received anything other than token fines. When people got upset and marched in the street, the news was like "what do they want, these crazy folks?!?". This was shortly followed by demonization of the protesters and a police crackdown.

Then, they ran a farktard who was born on third and thought he hit a triple for president, and he actually had the nerve to call 47% of the country "moochers". That is, the poor and working class, the people who clean his hotel rooms, make and serve his meals, people who often work multiple jobs and still have to get food stamps in order to be able to afford both rent and food.

Then, to top in all off, the Supreme Court eviscerated campaign finance laws, giving the rich even greater leverage to control the county.

Is this hard to understand? Most people are in the working classes, they are paid by others, they are employees, and they see the rich get much richer while they are struggling under increasing rents, energy costs, etc., and when they ask for a raise are told "we can get a hundred like you".

Just maybe, maybe, the anger against the rich - less than 70 of whom literally own as much as half the people on the entire planet - maybe this anger is justified. Maybe people are angry because of what they see and experience.
 
2014-04-23 12:26:27 AM  

Brainsick: Mr. Right: Unfortunately for the workers, stock price increases and handsome dividends from companies the employer may have invested in are not part of the COGS calculation.

Why not? Employee compensation has much wider repercussions than just the dollar amount they cost. Employee availability, mobility, overall health and retention are just a few that come to mind. Why retrain sick, unmotivated people once or twice a year when you can spend half as much keeping the smart, capable people you already have? Because they are somehow worth 'less' than the cost of retaining upper management? Of course, now we're getting into 'competetive salary' territory...


Companies have to demonstrate that their COGS is balanced and outside of that, they operate on margins.  No company will spend any more than necessary to retain a reasonable work force but they will spend whatever is necessary to keep it.

 Back in the 90s, the economy was absolutely booming.  Clinton had the good sense to realize that the government cannot do much to control the economy and if it's going great, stay the hell out of the way.  In our neck of the woods, West Michigan, unemployment hovered between 1% and 1.7% for nearly a year.  One had to actively avoid a job in order to not have one.  Employers were poaching workers from other companies.  Temp agencies were desperate for workers.  Any workers.  Our local BK franchise was paying $11/hour - in the late 90s - for workers.  They offered tuition assistance.  They toyed with the idea of offering health insurance.  They could afford it.  They were busy all day every day because everybody else in the country had a job - 2 if they wanted them - and so they were eating out frequently because they weren't home to cook.

Fast forward 20 years and the local BK franchise pays under $9/hour.  No tuition assistance.  No insurance because even if you are a 40 year single mother who's been out of work for the past 2 years, you're going to get no more than 30 hours a week.  Because unemployment is no longer under 2%.  The average Joe can't afford to go to even BK very often any more so their parking lots are perennially empty, drive-through lanes wide open for the next customer.  20 years ago, the line at the drive through was 20 cars at the peak of the lunch rush.  Now, they get excited if there are 6 or 7 cars in line at the same time.  In spite of lower wages, the franchise owners per burger margin is the same or lower because of the huge increase in the cost of materials.  But he would rather have a small margin 1000 times than a better margin 100 times.  He made more money when the economy was booming.  So did his employees.
 
2014-04-23 12:35:46 AM  

king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.


I'm not sure if you're 10/10 trolling or totally serious, but I bet we could come up with a long, long list of people who were, in fact, not good enough to run a large scale corporation and ran it into the ground beyond recovery. They managed to collected their "highly valued employee" salary and earned a great parting package, all while being abysmal failures.
 
2014-04-23 12:44:41 AM  
So WHAT?
 
2014-04-23 12:46:36 AM  

dstrick44: Delta1212: Frederick: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? If they didn't lower workers' salaries, how would the companies be able to quadruple the salary of their CEO? Jesus, try thinking every now and then.

Well, they could add non-food stuffs to the food to lower costs.

/mmmm, yoga mats

This actually annoys me. Just because a chemical is used in something you wouldn't want to eat, doesn't mean that the chemical is automatically something you want to keep out of food.

Bug spray is mostly water, but you don't see people demanding water be removed from all of their food and drink.

I think we should put together a blue ribbon panel to debate acceptable levels of melamine and arsenic in our hamburgers. After all, it's just not fair to the corporate fast food giants to expect them to keep ALL the poison out of the food. Some of those poisons actually make food manufacture cheaper and give it a longer shelf life. Or a more appealing color.
That goes straight to the bottom line, my friend.


If your only acceptable level of anything potentially poisonous in your food is zero, you're going to starve to death. I guarantee you have consumed some amount of arsenic, gold and uranium today, just to pick a few elements at semi-random.

Yes, given too much leeway, good manufacturers will put their bottom line above your health and include all kinds of crap you probably don't want in your bottom at any measurable level. No, that doesn't make most of the outrage that pours out of social media about "unnatural" ingredients and trace contaminants any less stupid. But no, we have to flush millions of gallons of water that some idiot peed in to preserve the illusion that anyone in the history of the world has ever consumed anything "purer" than that piss water was.
 
2014-04-23 12:49:33 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
[img.timeinc.net image 307x409] 

[img.timeinc.net image 307x409]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 592x332]

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?


Ooo...You forgot Carly.  Can't have a list of Shiat CEOs without having Carly on it.
 
2014-04-23 12:53:28 AM  

Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."


Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2014-04-23 12:57:35 AM  

Mr. Oizo: If flipping burgers were simply a punch-the-clock job for live-at-home teens who eventually go on to long-term careers in other industries, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

For far too many people, however flipping burgers has become their career.  You can't expect someone to raise a family on minimum wage.


And besides that, teens can't work at burger flipping during the day, anyway. Someone has to work there during school hours, and saying they shouldn't make any more than Timmy Part-Timer is pretty much why they get who they get for those jobs.
 
2014-04-23 01:00:49 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Unfortunately, I do get coffee from Tim Hortons every day I am at work. The only other chain I eat at is Harvey's though, and even then less than once every month, and even then for their veggie burger. Not because I am a hipster (hipsters despise me), but because I think CEOs and shareholders of fast food chains should make their fortunes with their own bootstraps, and not because they depend on my help.


Actually, Tim Horton's, being a Canadian company, would probably be the choice for coffee over Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts.
 
2014-04-23 01:03:33 AM  
It does not matter how much CEO's make, the very cold, hard fact of the matter is that the labor needed to work in a fast food restaurant is still only worth minimum wage at best. Can a CEO be trained in a day like the counter jockey at McD's? I don't think so. Especially when the counter jockey can and will be replaced by self-service touch screens.
 
2014-04-23 01:06:37 AM  

Ambivalence: demaL-demaL-yeH: king_nacho: a good CEO that can run a large scale corporation is much harder to come by than a person that can create and serve food in a restaurant.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

Counterpoint/rebuttal:
[img.timeinc.net image 307x409] 

[img.timeinc.net image 307x409]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 592x332]

Do you feel chastised enough, or should I introduce you to more examples?

Ooo...You forgot Carly.  Can't have a list of Shiat CEOs without having Carly on it.


At least her ineptitude led her to spin off HP's instrumentation group off into Agilent so she couldn't destroy that too.
 
2014-04-23 01:10:27 AM  

ChiliBoots: At least her ineptitude led her to spin off HP's instrumentation group off into Agilent so she couldn't destroy that too.


It's kind of sad when you're greatest accomplishment is that some company cut ties with yours so they could escape your leadership (and not be dragged down with you).
 
2014-04-23 01:30:37 AM  

js34603: It's really weird that the people doing the labor don't make as much as the people who own the business. I really thought the guy dropping fries after upwards of 30 minutes of training was going to make more than the owner of the company.

Or if not more, than like 1/2 as much at least. They're practically equally valuable so they should get paid pretty much the same.


The bastard child of Strawman and False Dichotomy, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2014-04-23 01:49:54 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Actually, Tim Horton's is owned by Wendy's International, Inc., an American company since 1995. It is franchised out now.
Both facts much to the chagrin of a lot of Canadians.

Regardless; people working in minimum wage jobs get trapped in minimum wage jobs because you can't buy much education for $10/ hr., especially if that's what the majority of most jobs are paying out there too.
 
2014-04-23 01:52:54 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: balial: Presumably the CEO's salary is up 4x because there's 4x the number of stores and responsibility he/she is presiding over. The there's ample opportunity for workers to do 4x the hours and get the same benefit.

Why is this even a question?

If that's your measurement, shouldn't the average employee's wage rise in line with "same store sales growth"????


Well I was being sarcastic, but we can discuss it. The erroneous point would be that if the company is doing 4x better, you can't really expect that each worker is doing 4x more. The guy at the top, though, is presiding of 4x as much that can go wrong.

Of course, that totally ignores the fact that employees are going *backwards* due to inflation. So by the same logic, they're probably certainly not doing *less* work, so they should _at the very least_ be getting inflation.

But, to spoil my joke, the whole point was that it's not that simple.

What if the CEO's pay was tied to profits? Has the company's profits quadrupled? No? Than f*ck off.

Well if you look at the YUM stock at quoted, its stock price is up over 10x since 2000 (the quoted time frame), so if you go, once again, by a (garbage) accepted metric, the share holders must thing the CEO is doing far better than 4x and could be justified in getting 10x. Oh, and there were dividends. Of course, that's stock price and not profit or revenue. I couldn't find any good source over that time frame, but morningstar seemed to claim ~30% revenue over the last 5 years or something.

Either way, the company is doing great. I don't think the article does a good job of addressing the complexities of the situation. They don't present an argument why the CEOs are doing a poor job, nor explain why the workers aren't doing a crap job, and are being hosed. I'm sorry you missed the point :(
 
2014-04-23 02:19:19 AM  

IlGreven: Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."

Sorry, pet peeve.


You mean per pieve.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:44 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: As a shareholder of Yum brands for about 12 years, I say good job management. Price is up about 8-fold since then.

You guys should start your own corporations. Then elect yourselves to the board and pay everyone the same. See how that works out.


THIS!

Fark: Home of the economic illiterates
 
2014-04-23 03:12:49 AM  
Once day, we won't be able to avoid the debate on the cost of rich people to society.
 
2014-04-23 03:13:23 AM  
I'm so glad that the bulk of my career was in the days before supply and demand determined wages and corporations weren't greedy.
 
2014-04-23 03:14:08 AM  

doglover: IlGreven: Pocket Ninja: sigdiamond2000: Sorry I guess I'm not some loser English major like you.

I think the word your there looking for is "looser."

Sorry, pet peeve.

You mean per pieve.


"Peefs"
 
2014-04-23 03:24:31 AM  

generallyso: demaL-demaL-yeH: By "too late", do you mean Guillotine time?

The police/military/mercenaries will ensure that never happens.


Never underestimate the power of starving family members.
 
2014-04-23 03:27:45 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: Have you seen what the people at those companies have done in the last few decades? How could someone do it worse?

These CEOs are not Oracles or wizards. Most of them don't do sh*t.


How do you know this?
 
2014-04-23 04:17:53 AM  
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report