+158

As a first, executives' salaries should be cut instead of firing people, amirite?

100%Yeah You Are0%No Way
jodzdzownicas avatar Money & Economics
Share
0 89
The voters have decided that jodzdzownica is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Just an FYI, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg's Salary is $26,823,061 a year. Median salary at Meta is $292,785... so if you took away the entire CEO salary you could pay for an average of 92 employees salaries for one year. 92 < 11k. Wouldn't really solve the problem.

@Framie1 Just an FYI, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg's Salary is $26,823,061 a year. Median salary at Meta is $292,785... so if...

I think he was talking about all executives not just the CEO. So the whole C-suite down to VPs. Maybe even directors. Your point may still hold water, I'm not sure, but Zuckerberg is the Chief executive.. not the only executive

@Framie1 Just an FYI, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg's Salary is $26,823,061 a year. Median salary at Meta is $292,785... so if...

The other issue is that the $26.8M figure isn't wage compensation. If my brief reading is correct, that figure is almost entirely made up of security costs, which are considered compensation since it is a company paid personal benefit. His actual salary is $1.

@Pheniz21 The other issue is that the $26.8M figure isn't wage compensation. If my brief reading is correct, that figure is...

When you're rich enough that you can structure your salary to look like you make no actual money, and yet still take in billions. Must be nice.

@Larny2019 When you're rich enough that you can structure your salary to look like you make no actual money, and yet still...

That's the way most highly compensated employees accumulate income and wealth. Very little is in actual salary. The majority is stocks/options, benefits and bonuses.

Issue is that your boss makes those decisions.

Nickyikkys avatar Nickyikky Yeah You Are +6Reply

It's easier to replace 11k employees than any competent executive.

ambitiouscorners avatar ambitiouscorner Yeah You Are +5Reply

Nah most of the employees are replaceable but some executives aren't.

synthsexuals avatar synthsexual Yeah You Are +5Reply

I agree but good luck with that.

mattyh2433s avatar mattyh2433 Yeah You Are +5Reply

Why are executives not made to take cuts?

Who would make them introduce these cuts?

I think it's illegal to cut salaries. At least in my home country.

Boknows12s avatar Boknows12 Yeah You Are +4Reply
@Boknows12 I think it's illegal to cut salaries. At least in my home country.

In Canada and the US, you can cut someone's salary. But it can result in constructive dismissal where the person can essentially opt for dismissal without cause and claim a severance package.

I think most people are against corporate greed.

If they get paid largely in stock, aren't they taking a pay cut because their stock went down?

Professor-kaosss avatar Professor-kaoss Yeah You Are +4Reply

From a quick Google I can see that at least 18 executives at Twitter have been fired or have quit since Musk took over. Are you saying that these people shouldn't have been forced out and should have instead been offered pay cuts? Wouldn't this mean more low level staff would need to be cut to account for this loss of savings?

Tanmoykayesens avatar Tanmoykayesen Yeah You Are +4Reply

why would you cut your mates salary when you can fire a bunch of nobodies instead?

jodzdzownicas avatar jodzdzownica Yeah You Are +4Reply

They do when the people are needed. The ones let go aren't needed.

In case you don't know. Meta is probably the only company that has actually paid a decent severance package. A lot of these workers are walking away with 50 - 60K In their pockets. Thats house deposit money.

lazar94s avatar lazar94 Yeah You Are +4Reply

Bruh… ceo of Walmart makes $20M in Salary. Even if you paid him $0. They staff 2M+ people. If an auditor saw a $20M deviation on salary/wage cost for Walmart, they might actually just ignore it because it's considered immaterial. It's a single $10 bonus to the people throughout the entire year. They might literally prefer Walmart provide them with 1 Christmas luncheon or something.

The issue is that what your books need to cut is salaries/wages and the C-suite, tho they get paid a large salary, have nigh-immaterial salaries relative to the employees. They make most of their money from assets and not capital. Let's take OP's example. They make, 200x…. They take a 20% pay cut. That's 40 people. The strategy solves to make it so Meta ends up 10.96k instead of 11k. Nothing is solved here… if the CEO hops on a zoom call and says "I took a pay cut to save a negligible amount of jobs, but everyone on this call is getting fired…I'm such a great person for taking that salary cut, this mass firing is so hard for me." The public results would be the same as if he didn't take the pay cut at all.

Bf3247s avatar Bf3247 Yeah You Are +4Reply

Great executives are hard to replace. Run of the mill employee are easy.

There are tens of thousands people applying ready to be called on moment notice, if they need those position filled again. Hiring great execs are harder as they have a lot of choices.

Amazing. You are so charitable. I'm sure you'll do exactly this when you start your own company.

opensofiass avatar opensofias Yeah You Are +4Reply

Why? Because that'd be socialism and socialism IS EVIL!!

No really, they are in control and whole point of capitalism is about making as much profit as possible not about taking care of people as well as possible. What else to expect? We get what we bargained for.

I agree in theory, but there is the practical problem of how you keep the executives from immediately quitting and going elsewhere at the same time the business needs stable leadership. I think it would work better to normalize lower base compensation rates for executive level positions.

Because those people whose salaries you cut will go someplace else to work. They have skill sets and options.

Their salaries keep jumping in double-digit percentages every year while people are fired left-right-and-center

Where there is a trough, there will be pigs with their shouts in it.

1. Executive comp is a tiny fraction of the overall budget
2. Executive comp at tech companies are already mostly stock- and bonus-based, thus they automatically decrease at times like this.
3. The developers getting cut were extremely well-paid and will get another job. They aren't the proletariat in a class struggle here.

Kasies avatar Kasie Yeah You Are +3Reply

They often are replaced. The executives that fail at their high risk position also lose. To think they just keep their salary and position with no repercussions is non-sensicle imo.

freq432s avatar freq432 Yeah You Are +3Reply

Since this isn't remotely unpopular I'll come forward with something actually unpopular. The executives often deserve to be paid that much. Without them no one would have a job to lose in the first place.

vcsandfecess avatar vcsandfeces Yeah You Are +3Reply

If life is so great for executives, why isn't the OP one?

If you can provide some maths to show how 20% of a small amount of people's pay saves as much money as 11,000 full time people's pay, (when those 11,000 people clearly aren't contributing anything of necessity) you will find this is not an unpopular opinion at all.

@stevnev88 If you can provide some maths to show how 20% of a small amount of people's pay saves as much money as 11,000 full...

se 11,000 people clearly aren't contributing anything of necessity) you will find this is not an unpopular opinion at a

I'm not sure why these people were in the organization if they've never been contributing anything. Also, the 20% remark was not for Meta specifically, but as a first step instead of laying off people to start with.

jodzdzownicas avatar jodzdzownica Yeah You Are +1Reply

Oh yeah this is a super unpopular opinion.

Dude, that's one of the most popular opinions

Openeyess avatar Openeyes Yeah You Are +3Reply

It's just not that simple, like everything. I've worked in Corporate for many years and trust me, you don't want to loose good executives. There will be less jobs then before.

They don't need them, that's why they're being let go. Not because of money.

Executives should be cut

Assangeofficials avatar Assangeofficial Yeah You Are +3Reply

How much you're paid is a reflection of how much it costs to replace you. That's why executives make more.

Isn't it illegal to lower down an employee's salary or something? Which applies to executives?

teknogreeks avatar teknogreek Yeah You Are +3Reply
@teknogreek Isn't it illegal to lower down an employee's salary or something? Which applies to executives?

I don't think so (not sure though), most of their compensation is in equity/bonuses. Can be easily adjusted.

jodzdzownicas avatar jodzdzownica Yeah You Are +2Reply

Tie job cuts to the bonuses that CEOs receive.

Most of their compensation is tied to a bonus. This can be millions of dollars. They get a ‘small' salary ($300k) followed by millions of a bonus tied to stock.

Want to cut 10% of jobs? You take a 5x hot to your year end bonus.

Apartlavishnesss avatar Apartlavishness Yeah You Are +3Reply

A handful of reasons. First off, they're the ones making the decisions, so it's unlikely that they'll decide to cut their own standard of living. Second, they get paid that much for a reason. That reason hasn't changed.

@Tldfonat A handful of reasons. First off, they're the ones making the decisions, so it's unlikely that they'll decide to cut...

The reason they get paid that much is they have the power.

Not because anything they do is inherently worth that much.

lazar94s avatar lazar94 Yeah You Are +5Reply
@lazar94 The reason they get paid that much is they have the power. Not because anything they do is inherently worth that much.

It's not about how much the work is worth. It's about how much value your employer and their competition places on your work.

Executives earn as much as they do because their employers know that the competition will snap them up if the salary isn't competitive.

Bf3247s avatar Bf3247 Yeah You Are +3Reply
@jodzdzownica Board can make them do that.

Why would the board? The board is going to value the extremely valuable executives way more than the easily replaceable floor workers.

@jodzdzownica What if those executives are the ones driving things to ground? Still they should?

Likely, they'd just be fired and replaced. If an individual was just driving everything into the ground, they are just replaced. Being a high level employee at a massive conglomerate is little job security

@Tldfonat A handful of reasons. First off, they're the ones making the decisions, so it's unlikely that they'll decide to cut...

Second, they get paid that much for a reason.

Imagine thinking the people who decide their own pay are all getting paid that much "for a reason", lmao, go soak your head.

@Pmbuttpics4adrawing Second, they get paid that much for a reason. Imagine thinking the people who decide their own pay are all...

Well to be fair it's not entirely wrong. Just imagine if everyone's salaries got made public for every worker for every job in the US. It would make bargin power so much stronger to compare your salary to the actual market.

That's one of the main reasons CEO's get paid so much. Very few of them and all salaries are competitive, or they could go run another company for more.

Classicdry2232s avatar Classicdry2232 Yeah You Are +5Reply
@Tldfonat A handful of reasons. First off, they're the ones making the decisions, so it's unlikely that they'll decide to cut...

In most cases the board of directors decide the full compensation for the CEO. They can usually do this.. it's never a good thing for the CEO to have that much control.

You ask the word "why" a lot but are you interested in hearing a legit answer? Idk it's not coming off like that.

This isn't an unpopular opinion.

JoshByer2s avatar JoshByer2 Yeah You Are +2Reply

Everything has a market price determined by offer and demand.

Setting a price which doesn't match with the market price will either cause you to lose money, or to lose an employee since he will find somewhere else to work the same and be better paid.

This applies to any employee, be it a low level worker or the highest CEO you can imagine.

Balkany4Evers avatar Balkany4Ever Yeah You Are +2Reply

Let's be honest these tech companies have had so many bloat jobs for years. The economy has taken a downturn and this is what happens. Useless jobs that don't provide much get cut

The ship needs a captain more than it needs a human resources department.

SnooStoriess avatar SnooStories Yeah You Are +2Reply

Spoken like a good communist

Classicdry2232s avatar Classicdry2232 Yeah You Are +2Reply

The only people who find this unpopular are the ones working in the C-suite.

It's possible. The (small-500 employees) company I work for didn't lay off a single person when covid hit because the executive team decided to take pay cuts instead.

Firstly it is not firing people, it is laying off people. That is a big difference because the company has to pay more for unemployment insurance and people can apply for unemployment insurance to get on their feet. If they fire people, they don't pay more unemployment insurance, but, they are at risk of getting sued by ex-employees who tried to get the unemployment insurance.

As for laying people off. It is just a common practice in private sectors. The truth is, it has nothing to do with them not making money. It was an excuse, not the real reason.

The biggest reason is replacing dead weight without suffering the consequences. They already want to get rid of bunch people because they are under performing. But, if they get rid of them now, the operation is going to suffer, so, they hire a bunch, and keep the fresh meat and layoff the dead weight.

The money comes into play mainly because, they are doing well, so, they can spend money to hire extra people and train people to prepare the planned mass layoff. Companies who are already struggling won't be able to have mass hiring to pull this off.

Lastly if the company is indeed struggling and mass layoff, cutting CEO salaries barely saves a few jobs. The employee's cost is more than just salaries, there a liability insurance, health insurance, and more. A single CEO's health insurance is not gonna cost like 10000 people.

And CEO is not just a figure head, most of them have connections to investors. If they leave, money goes away with them. Networking is still one of the most important skill in a company, sometimes companies begging for retirees to comeback because they know who to talk to and how to talk to them.

Iapetus-11s avatar Iapetus-11 Yeah You Are +2Reply

Because they don't need the people if they're cutting them. If they needed them they wouldn't be able to cut them. And executives become executives through years of experience school and negotiating and earned their position. They have contracts they negotiated at a high level because they're the literal best at negotiating. They're paid so much because they work 24/7, their life is their job, they have to make huge high pressure decisions constantly that affect a ton of people. An employee is responsible for no one but themselves. It's a totally different ballgame. And C-level people get paid mostly in bonuses, so they will probably de facto get a pay cut if they end up losing the company money, it's not something that's done to them, they just won't get bonuses.

I work for a large trucking company, the board members and higher ranking executives take salary cuts or go without pay to avoid cutting drivers or employees.

Shiny244s avatar Shiny244 Yeah You Are +1Reply

Tech industry jobs are getting more competitive and I think that bonuses should be the first to go.

It's not always about budget cuts e.g. Cisco is laying off 4,000 employees because they've been around since the 80's and some departments just naturally become obsolete. They just had their most profitable Q1, it's not about money - sometimes resources have to be reallocated. Now this isn't always the case, but sometimes it is and so there's one answer to your "why".

88080808088s avatar 88080808088 Yeah You Are +1Reply

N O T U N P O P U L A R

They're cutting the jobs because there isn't work to be done.

Not because they can't afford them.

The execs run the company. You aren't gonna give yourself a pay cut so some guy you've never met can keep their job

@Crazymotherfuker The execs run the company. You aren't gonna give yourself a pay cut so some guy you've never met can keep their job

And it is that running which has lead them to firing people in bulk. You answered it on your own why it's needed.

jodzdzownicas avatar jodzdzownica Yeah You Are +1Reply
@jodzdzownica And it is that running which has lead them to firing people in bulk. You answered it on your own why it's needed.

I meant the execs control the money. They aren't going to give themselves a pay cut so someone else can keep their job.

Boknows12s avatar Boknows12 Yeah You Are +4Reply

Executives don't usually have that high of salaries.

They generally get lucrative stock options and bonuses. You can't just retroactively go back and change the terms of an executive's contractual compensation package.

Mrtechnohawks avatar Mrtechnohawk Yeah You Are +1Reply

Sometimes they screw up so badly they get fired….

……with a 7 figure severance bonus

contextrips avatar contextrip Yeah You Are +1Reply

Unpopular opinion: guys I think people losing their job isn't good.

@bigdaddy69-4life Unpopular opinion: guys I think people losing their job isn't good.

Unpopular opinion: Rich people should be a little less rich to save jobs.

@browndog888 Unpopular opinion: Rich people should be a little less rich to save jobs.

U popular opinion: Rich people having money allows them to supply jobs.

88080808088s avatar 88080808088 Yeah You Are +6Reply
@88080808088 U popular opinion: Rich people having money allows them to supply jobs.

I don't think this argument holds up against the premise of people being fired instead of cutting the wealth of a richer person, firing 11k people is the opposite of supplying jobs

@Expert-Afternoon-501 I don't think this argument holds up against the premise of people being fired instead of cutting the wealth of a...

The problem is thinking cutting the wealth of some made up rich person isn't reality. Maybe cutting jobs is the way to keep the remaining jobs. Or it could just be trimming the fat. Getting rid of useless do nothings is not an injustice. You wouldn't pay someone to work on your car just to have them not fix anything and charge you 8hrs of pay.....would you?

It may just be looking with our hearts instead of our minds clouds the reality of the situation.

opensofiass avatar opensofias Yeah You Are +2Reply
@88080808088 U popular opinion: Rich people having money allows them to supply jobs.

You have this backwards. Who do you think made them that money? The people that work for them. Rich people aren't giving their workers money. They're making money off their workers.

Assangeofficials avatar Assangeofficial Yeah You Are +3Reply
@browndog888 Unpopular opinion: Rich people should be a little less rich to save jobs.

Devil's argument here - who said that Zuck, et al, aren't going to be paid less as a result of the tech downturn? Their salaries are a miniscule part of their compensation, as their bonuses and stock award make up most of it. So, in tough financial times, these performance-based metrics don't pay out nearly as well as during good times. In effect, the CEOs do take pay cuts when their companies perform poorly.

Not arguing that 100-times average employee salaries are warranted. The valuation of their leadership "talent" is overblown and based on tight social cohesion with the board of directors. And a lot of these CEOs would be filthy rich without their salaries, as they are such big owners of their companies (such as when they are founders of their companies).

Balkany4Evers avatar Balkany4Ever Yeah You Are +2Reply
@StevenBeercockArt Thats fair. Rich people staying rich in times of crisis is unfair.

But big daddy musk needs money to fly his weiner shop to Mars!

Kionixs avatar Kionix Yeah You Are 0Reply
@browndog888 Unpopular opinion: Rich people should be a little less rich to save jobs.

Which jobs? Not all jobs are productive. Once upon a time it was someone's job to render Whale blubber into lamp oil. But then Kerosene was invented and the whalers went out of work. (For their part, the Whales didn't mind this economic shift)

To play devil's advocate, CEOs' compensation is usually very heavily tied to the stock price. Sure, their base salary might remain the same, but base is usually a tiny fraction of their overall compensation. CEOs have taken big pay cuts when their stock-based compensation loses value.

Achilles982s avatar Achilles982 Yeah You Are 0Reply

The executives all have unpopular opinion, that's why they choose firing people.

Greed often gets in the way of logic and empathy. Having CEOs cut their own salaries before laying people off assumes that greed doesn't exist.

Cheytuflyas avatar Cheytuflya Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.