It’s no secret that company CEOs earn more money than the typical worker. Of course, the complexity and scope of their role often justify the hefty paychecks they receive. However, it can ignite a sense of resentment within the organization if employees aren’t compensated fairly while their superiors continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Recently, redditor Puzzlehead12342 revealed that the CEO in their workplace makes $186 million, which is more than all of the employees make within a year. All thanks to his team members, whose workload has largely increased without any additional pay. Feeling deceived, the worker turned to the anti-work community, wondering if it’s fair that their CEO receives such enormous sums while they are largely underpaid.
Often, the hefty paychecks CEOs receive are justified. However, taking advantage of their employees isn’t
Image credits: Hunters Race / pexels (not the actual photo)
This worker felt deceived after her superior cashed out $186 million, while his team was overworked and underpaid
Image credits: Mizuno K / pexels (not the actual photo)
Image source: Puzzlehead12342
CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021. One key factor that allowed their salaries to skyrocket was the shift toward shareholder capitalism in the late 20th century.
The main purpose of shareholder capitalism is to make as much money as possible for the people who own shares in the company. And when executives manage to do that and the company performs very well, they are compensated very handsomely, which is one of the main reasons they earn so much.
Only about 20% of a CEO’s pay is base salary, which is also steadily increasing due to the scarce pool of talented and qualified individuals with the necessary skills and experience to lead large organizations. When such supply is limited, recruiters are willing to pay more to secure the most sought-after leaders, which, over time, ratchets up their earnings even more.
However, David Bolchover, a management-pay expert, points out that the company is not necessarily performing well because of its CEO. There are several factors that have nothing to do with them that might be pushing the company forward, like sector booms, limited competition, or the contribution of workers.
He adds, “The impact of a CEO on company performance is not measurable, which is the nub of the issue. They have this ‘talent ideology’ to justify this. But is their ability so rare? I think it’s a con.”
Employees’ pay is increasing at a snail’s pace compared to their executives
Meanwhile, employees’ pay is increasing at a snail’s pace compared to their executives. Lawrence Mishel, a distinguished fellow at EPI, suggests that the reason might be high unemployment, which forces people to accept jobs with low wages, as well as globalization, which allows companies to source cheaper workers. He also mentions the disappearance of unions, which makes it harder for employees to collectively bargain for better compensation.
However, Mishel notes, “We’re now in a moment where workers are feeling agency and demanding more — better jobs.” He believes that the current administration and Congress are seemingly moving in the right direction and have started prioritizing the needs of workers so they can get ahead.
One thing that might help balance the CEO-worker gap is if workers assert themselves and reap their accomplishments, which is going to make it harder for the executive to present them as their own and receive compensation for them.
Mishel believes that if the legislative bodies, with the help of the workers, continue to move in the right direction, chances are we will see wage growth for the vast majority. “And we will see inequality decline over the next five years,” he reassures.
Appalled, people were doing the math in the comments
Poll Question
Thanks! Check out the results:
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
I think there should be a law linking employees‘ wages to that of their boss. Or, in other words, the highest paid member of a company must not earn more than 10x (hourly) of what the lowest paid member gets. I don’t care about people being salty if the government interfers like that. This will NEVER get back to a normal level by itself.
Well the economical right wing tells us that the money will trickle down to everyone, everyone can be a ceo if they just work hard, and poverty is caused by laziness. They wouldn't lie to us, now would they..?
Over $500,000 per day is absolutely insane. It would take me over a decade to earn what they can earn in a day, and I have a very nice and comfortable life. I consider myself very fortunate. There is no justification for earning more money than you could possibly ever spend. As a commenter said - it's performative wealth. Just making more for the purpose of massaging an ego.
At least my company's old CEOs took a 50% pay cut during Covid to keep the company running, they also re-organised upper management and made some redundancies there rather than at the front line staff level. The CEO before that nearly bankrupted the place.
Mine did that too. There was a story in the paper breaking down exactly how magnanimous they were. Gave 50% of his wages for the remaining year, works out to be 2.5 million from his 10 million original wages. Nevermind all of the bonuses and stock that made his annual income well over 100 million.
Load More Replies...
We could bring back tarring and feathering it's what the founding fathers would've wanted given CEOs like this definitely would be loyalists to the crown
Load More Replies...
I worked for an insurance company in America where the owner founder received quarterly dividend checks of $16 million but we could not get decent bonuses or raises
Actually, the law protects you. It's against federal law to fire anyone for union activities.
Load More Replies... In some jurisdictions, corporations lobbied their government on changes to tax law regarding compensation to top executives. Salaries, buy-outs, bail-outs, and other perks can be highly tax-deductible against business revenue. It's often classed as a 'business expense.' This provides an incentive for the top level to grant themselves huge pay packages and funnel money into their pockets because it drives down the companies tax bill and they can sell it to shareholders as fiscal responsibility. Of course, the same is not true for regular workers and nevermind that this makes the company a tax drain on the community.
Will someone please throw some tea into the harbor? I’m hungry for some rich people
This c**t could take 10 days pay for the entire year and still live a lavish lifestyle while his lowest paid employees are probably struggling to feed their families, pay their bills and save for retirement. There is something intrinsically evil and broken with the mentality of a person who needs more, more, more. Nobody's time is worth 100 million + a year to sit behind a desk and tell other people what to do. This POS is making more than I make in 10 years in one day, that should be a glaring social issue but I guess I just need to "work harder."
It's really clear how immoral and fcuked up the situation is when you actually do the math. People can't really believe that anyone deserves to have an hourly wage of more than 20k while other at the same company, the people who actually create the product that earns that money, have wages around 5-bucks per hour. I don't care how much they studied or jow skilled they are, that math isn't mathing. In capitalism we all work for capital, and people deserve to be paid a fair share of the money they earn for the company. This strange distribution of money is in no way capitalism. That's pure and unadulterated exploitation and wage slavery. It's theft of work force, plain and simple, if not at least two thirds of the net revenue after distraction of cost gets paid to the workers who created that revenue.
We do not have "unregulated capitalism". It literally does not exist. What we DO have is cronyism, created by a partnership between private industry, Democrats and Republicans. Boards of directors should, absolutely, cap CEO salaries and ensure employees are paid reasonably. Good CEOs should insist on this themselves. But there's no reasonable way to cap earnings on stocks. If an employee has 100, 000 shares and they go from $1 in value to $100 in value because the company does well, that's not something anyone can predict or control with guarantees. But if you TRULY want an end to regulatory favors that give politically well connected businesses advantages over others, you have one and only one option: Complete separation of State and Economics. Do that and companies will have no fallbacks, no bailouts, no free or cheap taxpayer funded loans, which in turn will force them to better treat those who earn them money. But be honest: you want control, not freedom.
I worked for Motel 6. Cleaned up the location until it was a very clean and family friendly spot. I could not make ends meet. Asked for a raise. Told there was no $$ for it. The next day the President of Accor (owner of the motel chain) bought a new, 2 nd private jet. I found a better job and got all of my employees better jobs within the week. We all walked. Eff rich people. They all suck.
Something sounds off here. The Teamsters afraid to strike? Where has that ever happened? Teamster strikes hit hard and fast. Smells like some "clever" anti-union propaganda.
I too am for strong unions, but a union is only as strong as its members make it. So yes, if you don't like the negotiated offer, you have to be willing to strike - otherwise, what leverage does the union have?
Unfortunately it seems the problem here... is that the union os trying to force them to be helpless.they essentially said "if you don't agree to the first minimal proposal you will lose your job. Is that what you want?"
Load More Replies...
Bunch of economic amateurs here. Keep in mind that I am a capitalist here. I vote for a completely different cap. Take the number of employees reporting directly to someone and their pay is capped at twice-number-of-employees percent higher than the average. Say I have 15 people, then I would make 1.30x the average. Want to game the system? Push through raises for the entire hierarchy below you. Can't just give a few favorites a huge raise; they'd make more than you before they'd move the average much.
New reality show idea. Set a reasonable cap and anyone who breaches that is fair game to be taken down and the poacher is immune from prosecution
I think there should be a law linking employees‘ wages to that of their boss. Or, in other words, the highest paid member of a company must not earn more than 10x (hourly) of what the lowest paid member gets. I don’t care about people being salty if the government interfers like that. This will NEVER get back to a normal level by itself.
Well the economical right wing tells us that the money will trickle down to everyone, everyone can be a ceo if they just work hard, and poverty is caused by laziness. They wouldn't lie to us, now would they..?
Over $500,000 per day is absolutely insane. It would take me over a decade to earn what they can earn in a day, and I have a very nice and comfortable life. I consider myself very fortunate. There is no justification for earning more money than you could possibly ever spend. As a commenter said - it's performative wealth. Just making more for the purpose of massaging an ego.
At least my company's old CEOs took a 50% pay cut during Covid to keep the company running, they also re-organised upper management and made some redundancies there rather than at the front line staff level. The CEO before that nearly bankrupted the place.
Mine did that too. There was a story in the paper breaking down exactly how magnanimous they were. Gave 50% of his wages for the remaining year, works out to be 2.5 million from his 10 million original wages. Nevermind all of the bonuses and stock that made his annual income well over 100 million.
Load More Replies... We could bring back tarring and feathering it's what the founding fathers would've wanted given CEOs like this definitely would be loyalists to the crown
Load More Replies... I worked for an insurance company in America where the owner founder received quarterly dividend checks of $16 million but we could not get decent bonuses or raises
Actually, the law protects you. It's against federal law to fire anyone for union activities.
Load More Replies... In some jurisdictions, corporations lobbied their government on changes to tax law regarding compensation to top executives. Salaries, buy-outs, bail-outs, and other perks can be highly tax-deductible against business revenue. It's often classed as a 'business expense.' This provides an incentive for the top level to grant themselves huge pay packages and funnel money into their pockets because it drives down the companies tax bill and they can sell it to shareholders as fiscal responsibility. Of course, the same is not true for regular workers and nevermind that this makes the company a tax drain on the community.
Will someone please throw some tea into the harbor? I’m hungry for some rich people
This c**t could take 10 days pay for the entire year and still live a lavish lifestyle while his lowest paid employees are probably struggling to feed their families, pay their bills and save for retirement. There is something intrinsically evil and broken with the mentality of a person who needs more, more, more. Nobody's time is worth 100 million + a year to sit behind a desk and tell other people what to do. This POS is making more than I make in 10 years in one day, that should be a glaring social issue but I guess I just need to "work harder."
It's really clear how immoral and fcuked up the situation is when you actually do the math. People can't really believe that anyone deserves to have an hourly wage of more than 20k while other at the same company, the people who actually create the product that earns that money, have wages around 5-bucks per hour. I don't care how much they studied or jow skilled they are, that math isn't mathing. In capitalism we all work for capital, and people deserve to be paid a fair share of the money they earn for the company. This strange distribution of money is in no way capitalism. That's pure and unadulterated exploitation and wage slavery. It's theft of work force, plain and simple, if not at least two thirds of the net revenue after distraction of cost gets paid to the workers who created that revenue.
We do not have "unregulated capitalism". It literally does not exist. What we DO have is cronyism, created by a partnership between private industry, Democrats and Republicans. Boards of directors should, absolutely, cap CEO salaries and ensure employees are paid reasonably. Good CEOs should insist on this themselves. But there's no reasonable way to cap earnings on stocks. If an employee has 100, 000 shares and they go from $1 in value to $100 in value because the company does well, that's not something anyone can predict or control with guarantees. But if you TRULY want an end to regulatory favors that give politically well connected businesses advantages over others, you have one and only one option: Complete separation of State and Economics. Do that and companies will have no fallbacks, no bailouts, no free or cheap taxpayer funded loans, which in turn will force them to better treat those who earn them money. But be honest: you want control, not freedom.
I worked for Motel 6. Cleaned up the location until it was a very clean and family friendly spot. I could not make ends meet. Asked for a raise. Told there was no $$ for it. The next day the President of Accor (owner of the motel chain) bought a new, 2 nd private jet. I found a better job and got all of my employees better jobs within the week. We all walked. Eff rich people. They all suck.
Something sounds off here. The Teamsters afraid to strike? Where has that ever happened? Teamster strikes hit hard and fast. Smells like some "clever" anti-union propaganda.
I too am for strong unions, but a union is only as strong as its members make it. So yes, if you don't like the negotiated offer, you have to be willing to strike - otherwise, what leverage does the union have?
Unfortunately it seems the problem here... is that the union os trying to force them to be helpless.they essentially said "if you don't agree to the first minimal proposal you will lose your job. Is that what you want?"
Load More Replies... Bunch of economic amateurs here. Keep in mind that I am a capitalist here. I vote for a completely different cap. Take the number of employees reporting directly to someone and their pay is capped at twice-number-of-employees percent higher than the average. Say I have 15 people, then I would make 1.30x the average. Want to game the system? Push through raises for the entire hierarchy below you. Can't just give a few favorites a huge raise; they'd make more than you before they'd move the average much.
New reality show idea. Set a reasonable cap and anyone who breaches that is fair game to be taken down and the poacher is immune from prosecution
24
47