Walmart CEO Pay: More in an Hour Than Workers Get All Year?

[rambot]

I was thinking the same thing myself.

Anyone with more money than I have is "richer" than I am, and everyone who has less money than I have is "poorer" than I am.

Not to sound callous, but it raises a legitimate question - "so what?"

@ the OP. The relative pay is probably accurate. So what? What's the point?

More importantly - what are you suggesting someone does about it (and who would that someone be)?

"We" could mandate everyone's pay, everywhere in the world, be what - what's reasonable for every person in the world to make? $10,000? $1,000,000?

These comparisons are just ridiculous on their face; pure sensationalistic silliness. I mean, Bill Gates makes by comparison probably a similar proportionate amount to Wal Mart's CEO. Again, so what?

I'll put it another way - compare the employee making $8.75 an hour. By what standard of measure should they be making more? For what reason? Again, not to sound callous, but what really *is* their hourly value?

That's why I say these comparisons are so silly and meaningless. Emotional sophistry.

I would say they are as meaningless as the creation of the monetary system.

 

[lawtonfogle]

He's obviously doing something right. Can the average Walmart employee do what he has done?

OK then.

Was the average Walmart employee given the same opportunity as him? Not likely, and even if you can find one person making 7 figures a year, the average person making 7 figures a year has been given far more opportunities than the average minimum wage (or close to) employee.

Only about 2% of people escape their socioeconomic class they were born into. Does this mean 98% of people are lazy bums who don't want to work? I don't think so...

 

[pgp_protector]

Global Rich List

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Was the average Walmart employee given the same opportunity as him? Not likely, and even if you can find one person making 7 figures a year, the average person making 7 figures a year has been given far more opportunities than the average minimum wage (or close to) employee.

Only about 2% of people escape their socioeconomic class they were born into. Does this mean 98% of people are lazy bums who don't want to work? I don't think so...

Did I ever once say that? Please don't enact strawmans.

If you want to discuss the inequalities of luck and opportunity (i.e. life), let's take it to Philosophy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Did I ever once say that? Please don't enact strawmans.

If you want to discuss the inequalities of luck and opportunity (i.e. life), let's take it to Philosophy.

If you want to discuss the inequalities between what one does because of what one can do (i.e. if a person is able to perform enough to earn a 7 figure salary), let's take it to Philosophy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Global Rich List

Does that count in cost of living? I mean, you gotta standardize numbers before you compare them. I heard on a salary of what I would make right out of college here, I could live better in some countries (i.e. Mexico) than I would be able to live here if I was getting a salary more fitting for someone with a full career of good experience.

 

[Tenka]

Executives are expected to break the law to make the company more profitable/competitive.

They are rewarded on the basis that these illegal actions are risky and morally challenging and that their knowledge could put the company in a difficult position.

 

[katautumn]

I have multiple issues with Wal-Mart (namely their outsourcing of manufacturing to sweatshops, among other things), but how much the CEO makes isn't one of them. With that said, I would like to ask a question - why do people assume the CEO does a lot of work? I'm not saying that he doesn't, but usually in a corporation as massive as WM, the CEO has enough help to where they really only have to show up when they feel like it for a speaking engagement or to sign a highly important document. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the CEO of WM isn't busting his rear end all day long. He likely even has a personal assistant so he doesn't have to clog up his day with trivial tasks like picking up his dry cleaning, taking the dog to the vet or scheduling a dental appointment. I mean, really, they may work hard to get to where they're at, but nearly everything (professional and personal) is handled for them once they reach the top.

 

[yasic]

How are they getting paid "more than their fair share" if minimum wage is less than a living wage?

Because what we consider to be a 'living wage' is far more than what the people earning 30 cents an hour consider to be a 'living wage'

A true living wage includes very basic medical care, food, water, and shelter.

An american living wage includes cable tv, automobile, fine quality food, juices, etc.

A person can easily survive on 3$ a day.


Likewise, I can assure you that the CEO does not consider 50,000 dollars a year to be living wage.

 

[yasic]

I have multiple issues with Wal-Mart (namely their outsourcing of manufacturing to sweatshops, among other things), but how much the CEO makes isn't one of them. With that said, I would like to ask a question - why do people assume the CEO does a lot of work? I'm not saying that he doesn't, but usually in a corporation as massive as WM, the CEO has enough help to where they really only have to show up when they feel like it for a speaking engagement or to sign a highly important document. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the CEO of WM isn't busting his rear end all day long. He likely even has a personal assistant so he doesn't have to clog up his day with trivial tasks like picking up his dry cleaning, taking the dog to the vet or scheduling a dental appointment. I mean, really, they may work hard to get to where they're at, but nearly everything (professional and personal) is handled for them once they reach the top.

Because that is the job of the CEO. A CEO does not (necessarily*) own the company or a large portion of it. That is reserved for board members, absent stock holders, or in some cases simply the owner. The CEO is a position that specifically has a lot of work involved.

If you owned a big company and didn't want to do any work, the person you appoint to make the big decisions in your name and have one of the hardest jobs is the CEO.

 

[rambot]

Because what we consider to be a 'living wage' is far more than what the people earning 30 cents an hour consider to be a 'living wage'

A true living wage includes very basic medical care, food, water, and shelter.

Don't forget about dignity.

An american living wage includes cable tv, automobile, fine quality food, juices, etc.

A person can easily survive on 3$ a day.


Likewise, I can assure you that the CEO does not consider 50,000 dollars a year to be living wage.

For myself personally, I'm not advocating that a CEO has to make the same wage as his workers.
But why not pay his workers a bit more or provide decent health care insurance? Why would that be SO terrible?

 

[Mr. Ripley]

It wouldn't be terrible. But to be frank, his job isn't to employ citizens with high wages or securities. Employment is simply a (beneficial) byproduct of his actual responsibility: ensuring the company is highly profitable for its investors.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I think the problem most people have with CEO pay levels is not when times are good but when times are bad. If my company is paying someone $20 million per year to be CEO, that person had better have god-like abilities to see into the future to stop the company losing money.

e.g. Any Bank CEO that blamed their company's fall in profits on "unforeseen circumstances' such as the GFC needs to be fired. I can hire a guy for 500K who won't see these things coming - 20 million or more means I should be getting a mind-reader.

Then there's the problem of short-term CEOs manipulating share prices to increase their bonuses to the long-term detriment of the company. But that's for another debate.

 

[rambot]

It wouldn't be terrible. But to be frank, his job isn't to employ citizens with high wages or securities. Employment is simply a (beneficial) byproduct of his actual responsibility: ensuring the company is highly profitable for its investors.

See, that I don't get.

Why do investors take precedent over any people the company actually employs? It makes sense to me that if you keep your workers happy, they would invest more of themselves into their work.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

That seems logical to me. But if you were correct, Walmart would be failing miserably rather than expanding at a record-breaking pace. Clearly Walmart employees' job performance isn't essential to making billions of dollars.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

See, that I don't get.

Why do investors take precedent over any people the company actually employs? It makes sense to me that if you keep your workers happy, they would invest more of themselves into their work.

Usually because it’s too hard for managers to quantify on a balance sheet, and modern short-term management-think doesn’t pay it any credence (though that is changing).

Meanwhile there are tons of examples where pandering to investors (who usually think short-term) hurts the company long-term, but that just seems to be swept aside (especially by CEOs who find it easier to just get by rather than come up with real strategy).

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally posted by ULU
Walmart heads making a killing don't bother me half as much as as heads of companies that post huge losses, get bailouts etc making crazy money.
__________________

Now that is a good topic!
The big financial companies are one of the main reasons that our economy almost fell through the floor. They fail, and then get bailed out then we the tax payers have to pay for decades.

The part about Walmart that is un-American is that they outsource some of their work to other countries and do not give those jobs to Americans. The heads of Wal-Mart do not care about you or any other American, they care only about money.

Some politicians tried to stop this activity but they got defeated by the other politicians because of the big money and lobby activities of the big corporations that outsource. I will vote for any politician that puts Americans and American economy first I do not care what party they are!

 

[nagwalk]

As long as customers want to pay next to nothing for their purchases and have them fully guaranteed, then Walmart will have the products manufactured where the wage rat is $30. per month as opposed to $30. per hour.
I am sure that if the company was convinced that the North American customer would pay the extra then they would buy here.

 

[yasic]

Don't forget about dignity.



For myself personally, I'm not advocating that a CEO has to make the same wage as his workers.
But why not pay his workers a bit more or provide decent health care insurance? Why would that be SO terrible?

Why should the workers not provide a portion of their money to the lower tier workers oversees to give them access to basic medicine or a bit more food. Why would that be SO terrible?

 

[rambot]

Why should the workers not provide a portion of their money to the lower tier workers oversees to give them access to basic medicine or a bit more food. Why would that be SO terrible?

Answer mine, I'll answer yours.


mr. ripley

But if you were correct, Walmart would be failing miserably rather than expanding at a record-breaking pace. Clearly Walmart employees' job performance isn't essential to making billions of dollars.

It's more the ethical problem I have with it more than the practical "being right".

But to be fair, there are probably many factors that are contributing to Walmart's success that have nothing to do with what is actually going on in the stock market or the board room. And my worry is that, long term, those outside pressures can't be self-sustained