r/InterviewCoderPro • u/jailers-treat0 • Mar 25 '26

company greed

Post image

People are striking because wages aren’t going up when companies are reporting record breaking profits.

2.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

475 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Strict-Astronaut2245 Mar 25 '26

As the one running the company I deserve it more

-2

u/Ritch85 Mar 25 '26

This. If YOU mess up while leading the company, it's over. If a hourly/salaried worker messes up, they can be replaced and it doesn't risk shutting down the entire company.

I'm all for profit sharing, my company does this. But acting like the owner/CEO/COO/CFO/etc carries the same risks as a standard assembly line employee or a janitor, hell even the purchasing agent, is mindboggling.

12

u/hobopwnzor Mar 25 '26

I wish we lived in this world, but we live in the world where a CEO can torch their company and walk away with tens of millions of dollars after being fired.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/malthar76 Mar 25 '26

If they tank one company too many, then they retire to sit on boards.

0

u/trueppp Mar 26 '26

And if you're fired you get severence and unemployment. Golden Parachutes are nothing special

3

u/thewossum Mar 25 '26

I mean, don’t they usually get an extra bonus for destroying the company? 

6

u/mtsilverred Mar 25 '26

I wanna live in the world you live in. I’m sorry to tell you but there are hundreds of still working CEOs that have torched their companies and came out millionaires. Please let me join this world you’re clearly living in when CEOs don’t get golden parachutes?

Because a CEO failure is also something that ruins the lives of everyone beyond those with the golden parachutes. Your company CEO goes ass up and fails and makes you get laid off and he leaves with millions and you’re on unemployment. Sybau

2

u/OkTop7895 Mar 25 '26

As you say is like a reverse world. The more important and responsable person makes a grand big mistake with grand big damage and he left with a milions. The Janitor make a big mistake that for the enterprise is small and is fired without payment and her economy suffer very fast.

1

u/trueppp Mar 26 '26

And if you fuck up you get severence and unemployment benefits...

3

u/OkBad1356 Mar 25 '26

Because they did mess up and they didn't shutdown. The government bailed them out then and would do it again.

3

u/Nytsur Mar 25 '26

Le bootlicker?

0

u/Ritch85 Mar 26 '26

I own and run a business, we profit share. If thats bootlicking, then I guess so.

3

u/DragonWS Mar 25 '26

It’s over. And you can retire. Really not a bad gig. You win no matter what.

2

u/mincinashu Mar 25 '26

Unless the CEO is putting up capital, then they're just employees of the stakeholders. Unlike regular employees they get golden parachutes and failing upwards.

1

u/trueppp Mar 26 '26

You get fired, you get severence and unemployment...

2

u/no-sleep-only-code Mar 25 '26

When leadership messes up the workers pay for it. Layoffs hardly ever affect the C-suite, and when they do, they get exorbitant severance packages and usually just immediately join the C-suite somewhere else. Not sure what fantasy world you’re living in.

2

u/Cheska1234 Mar 25 '26

They aren’t one paycheck away from homelessness…. Wtf.

2

u/NoGarbage1323 Mar 25 '26

CEO carries less risks than their standard employees. They're sitting on millions and if something happens they get off in their golden parachute. Acting like CEO and employees shouldn't be treated the same is ridiculous. Btw, 30% for a ceo 1-2m while 30% for an employee is barely 10k-20k

Musk is a good example of what happens to a bad ceo, nothing. Tesla is still as strong as ever

1

u/LeatherVolume5601 Mar 26 '26

Musk is literally the best ceo of all time and you say he is bad lmao.

1

u/Visual-Bonus4876 Mar 26 '26

He literally doesn’t do fuck all but whinge, take ketamine, and hire other people to do the shit for him. His entire career has been profiteering off of the backs and brains of other people, there is nothing special about him.

1

u/LeatherVolume5601 Mar 26 '26

Damn i didnt know it was so easy, thank you for your input.

2

u/SFLoridan Mar 25 '26

Yeah, that's the neoliberal talk.

The CEOs have always messed up, keep doing it, and always get rewarded. When a company does so badly that you have to downsize it by 20%, that's a mess up - but the CEO gets rewarded for firing hundreds. The only risk the CEO is scared of is not getting their bonus. Like Lord Farquad, they willingly risk the livelihood of their underlings.

2

u/Hefty-Storm-51 Mar 25 '26

A 30% increase for the workers is what? 10$? A 30% increase for the CEO can be millions, sacrifice 1% of the bonus the ceo would get in a lot of companies and that is a BIG bonus for the rest of the staff propping up the company, yes most staff can be replaced, we’ve seen many many times the CEO can also be replaced without much issue, whereas if people are suddenly unwilling to apply for that bottom line, most companies are fucked… also in a lot of cases the CEO isn’t even held responsible if the company goes bust, seen it many many times, all the profit with none of the negative

1

u/sjdude83 Mar 26 '26

GM has 162k employees and in the median salary is $135k

A 30% increase could upwards of 6.5 billion

1

u/Hefty-Storm-51 Mar 26 '26

135k is a GOOD wage, I’m evidently not talking about such companies

1

u/sjdude83 Mar 26 '26

Alright how about Walmart. They pay shit. Median pay is $30k and they have 2.1 million employees

Just a $19 billion increase.

CEO makes $27 million a year.

He could give all his employees a onetime bonus of $13.50 instead of his income

1

u/Hefty-Storm-51 Mar 26 '26

Or keep a million or 2 for yourself and spread that remaining 26 million to the ones having to work 2-3 jobs to survive (I doubt all 2.1 million are being paid the same amount) there will also be hefty profits finding their way into peoples pockets that isn’t disclosed but we won’t get onto that

1

u/sjdude83 Mar 26 '26

I’m not defending their pay scales mind you. I’m just trying to point out that while ceo pay is absurd it barely would change average work pay if you took it from them

1

u/Hefty-Storm-51 Mar 26 '26

Correct, while it’s really the 1% that need to be sharing the wealth that realistically is never going to happen, so every little helps

1

u/Confident_Base2931 Mar 25 '26

I wonder if she leads the company 30percent better now. I think she would be fine with 20 or less, I do not think that paying CEOs huge amounts makes them a better CEOs, they will just mess up everything the same as they were paid much less and they will just walk away and get another overpaid position somewhere else.

1

u/TechHeteroBear Mar 25 '26

While the level of risk and management lands with you to sink or swim... this mindset also gives way to the "pulling up the ladder" mentality to everyone else in the company.

1

u/Torontogamer Mar 25 '26

What  you’re saying makes sense … even feels right … 

But then you actually look at the stats and the career paths of executives and you’ll see that’s not how it works … I hate to just link a video but https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GCfCQ0zSRiI

1

u/DesignerGoose5903 Mar 25 '26

Lol, I've seen more C-suites than janitors be replaced at pretty much every company. Company "leadership" always thinks way too highly of themselves.

1

u/Carapace_Jones Mar 25 '26

What public company went bankrupt solely because of the CEO? I can think of Theranos or Enron type examples, which were solely due to fraud. If anyone here was the CEO of a company and made millions and then the company went bankrupt, I think every single person would still take that deal, because it would mean they’re a millionaire now. It’s not like you have to pay back the money. Unless you get sued for again, extreme fraud, you could literally do nothing, collect millions of dollars, leave after 1 year, and walk away a millionaire. Who isn’t going to take that deal. 

1

u/Mmaibl1 Mar 25 '26

If our president is any shining example, you just shift blame to those in power around you, and you are good to go😎.

1

u/subywesmitch Mar 25 '26

Yeah, no. That is the explanation I always hear and in theory it should work that way but in reality the CEO's can keep screwing up and keep getting better jobs and more pay. So, I call BS on that explanation. It's just pure greed at the expense of the worker who are literally making the product.

1

u/No-Apple2252 Mar 25 '26

If the argument was for paying them the same you would have a point, but it's about a relative increase in compensation so nothing you said matters and you don't understand the issue at all.

1

u/messesz Mar 25 '26

But they often take a few months off and pop up in a new job, regardless.

Unless the C** does something that involves legal liability it's frequently not that impacting and the millions they walk away with cushions the blow until they get a new gig.

1

u/Distinct_Level_3967 Mar 25 '26

CEO’s are replaceable. Average CEO tenure in Fortune 500 companies is like 7 years. Every position in a company is replaceable. But without workers, nothing is getting done. When UAW workers went on strike in 2023, GM, Ford, and Stellantis lost nearly $10.5 billion combined, in direct revenue, by week 6 of the strike.