You said "Steve Jobs worked for a buck a year " which he didn’t. And Stock Options are reported on your W2.
nm
I agree that the execution was wrong and should have been more regressive. For example, bump up the $45k employees to $55k and the $70k employees to $75k, etc.
Jesus fucking christ. Are you being intentionally dense or just posting high? Did you read the second sentence I wrote?
Dial it back a notch. This is not appropriate for this forum.
No warning issued.
He gives up 930k/ year which covers 13k for each employee currently below the line. He also doesn’t have to answer to a board or shareholders about closing the gap with profits. Incidentally the profits in the privately owned company is still closet to half a million so there’s more money for him to tap for himself if he wants later.
If the CEO of GE gives up ever single cent of his 18.8mil compensation package it gives an average raise of $60 to the 307k GE employees. A little under a buck a week …don’t spend all that CEO compassion in one place.
Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. 
I’m not sure that GE is a good example for that.
Heh. Reminds me of this old thread: Hypothetical: Everyone in your office is paid the same. What do you do?"
Imagine how much he has to pay in income taxes on a salary of one dollar a year!
Also, some emergencies happen when you are outside of your coverage area. When that happens, the insurance company can drastically lower the percentage they’ll pay or refuse to pay any part of it.
I like when everyone gets a 10% or some such increase on their salary.
Also, at one place the boss would say, that there was $xx,xxx.xx money that would be given and the amount for each was a % that was the same as each one’s % of the overall total payroll amount.
So, if a person got 5% of the payroll, they got 5% of the X.xx Factor. If you were the top dog and got 20% of the total payroll, you got 20% of the X.xx Factor. Owner/Pres + Vice Pres did not get a share. About 25 employees at that time. *( was a discretionary disbursement and not a profit sharing ) *
Working for a buck a year is a completely different sentence with a different meaning than saying someone’s salary is a buck a year.
I think you are nit picking. Obviously the guy had investments and savings that he could use if he needed anything.
The pay scale now starts with $70K for the lowest employee, so the janitors and secretaries are now making $70k(if he doesn’t just contract those jobs out…) My point is that if the market average for my job is $48k, and I am given a raise to $70k, I will work my ass off to make sure that I keep that job. If the middle manager is pissed because all of his subordinates now make almost as much as him, he is free to leave and go elsewhere. Better advancement opportunity for the subordinates.
And, this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Civilization IV -
“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.”
-Henry Ford
This idea works in the customer service industry also.
Bolding mine. This is often repeated as some sort of justification for owners reaping the bulk of the profits and it goes unchallenged. But are his risks really that high? Most companies are LLCs or similar so personal assets are protected should the company fail. He probably borrowed the initial start-up funds (thus not using personal money) and paid it off long ago. Had it failed right of way, wouldn’t the company have filed bankruptcy and defaulted on those loans? Again, with little risk to his personal assets?
Don’t we all take risks by working? I work in an at-will state. I could get fired any day for just about any reason, but I assume that I won’t and do my best to not give them a reason. But isn’t that a risk I am taking (that the owner isn’t)? I work in the transportation construction industry; it’s a very dangerous work place. I could get killed or permanently disabled on any given day. Isn’t that risk I am taking (that the owner isn’t)?
Nearly everyone starting a business has to invest their own money. Banks do not typically loan money for business startups at all, and certainly not without having collateral in some form. If money is borrowed, the owner is pledging something else (their home, other real estate, stocks, etc.) as collateral, or borrowing from family members. So, no, a business owner probably did not borrow money to start the business, unless you count mortgaging your house, which obviously carries risks should the business fail.
And many, perhaps most, new businesses do fail, or at least fail to thrive and grow. And the owner has then devoted his own time and money and has received no income and no other benefits for perhaps years. If a business defies the odds and gets going and is profitable, then, yes, it is able to then start borrowing money. But there is still collateral at risk, and by then the owner has likely invested considerable time and money into the operation.
Certainly, workers risk losing their jobs. But starting a business means not only that, but often earning no income at all for months or even years on top of risking whatever money has been invested. So, yes, the risk of starting a business is multiple times more expensive and risky than losing your job.
What about buying an established business, you say? Good luck on that, too, unless the business owns real estate that can be borrowed against. And even then, you can only borrow a portion.
You know, the typical response when someone hears of a good thing done by someone else is praise and admiration. Why so negative?
Because I think it is a PR stunt, or will turn out to be a dismal failure, as I said.
Or, more likely, the comment in Doonesbury when Dick Davenport was circulating a petition in his club: “Waiter, show this traitor to his class back to his table.”