Ahhh then that is some seriously irresponsible headline as they know most won't read the entire article (I had not when i posted it) and as such it will garner more polarizing views.

But I am sure it has proven to be good click bait which is generally what matters now with the MSM.

Yes, it was a crappy headline to say the least. We also live in a world where people like Elon Musk has a lot more media pull and public relations reach than the U.N., so it is probably safe to say that the misunderstanding will become the norm.

Sort of like the headlines that say Elon Musk is worth 300 billion dollars, even though he sits atop a throne made of smoke and mirrors. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I can't wait for the stories after a Tesla correction that say, "Elon Musk lost more money yesterday than the bottom 50% of America makes in a year, combined."



Lord knows we had plenty of the opposite following the Covid crash as the market returned to previous highs. It's nauseating not because the story gets written, but that people won't take more than twelve seconds to question the narrative.

I don't have issue with them saying he is worth what his stock is valued at. That is a fine way to measure things generally, even if you argue for some liquidity discount.

What i find super annoying and dishonest are the constant headlines that suggest average CEO pay is now 200 or 300 times more than average worker pay.

Invariably they are comparing the average CEO pay of the celebrity set CEO's of the Fortune 500 or even 100 only and comparing that average worker pay across the masses.

That is dishonest on so many levels. They are ignoring that most CEO's do not work in big public companies and work in small companies and make in and around $100K/yr or less for the failing companies and slightly more for the succeeding ones.


if you are going to select for the top CEO's in those analysis then you should only compare them to top workers average wage. So compare the Top CEO pay to the $300K+ per year workers make in Silicon Valley as the top wage earners.

Not much talk about the many many "CEOs" who had their businesses fail and wipe out their personal finances but still made payroll for the workers right until the bitter end.

My counter to all of those sensational CEO pay headlines is to ask people to look up the number of employees in that organization and do the math on how much more each worker would earn if the CEO was paid $1 and had the rest distributed.

What is worker bee #87,924 going to do with their extra $19 this month, Mr. SJW?

CEOs make payroll until the “bitter end” by definition.

That's not true, unless you mean their legal obligation in the eyes of the courts afterward when employees have to try and recoup backpay.

I mean you don’t really have a company anymore if you’re not paying employees.

I get what you saying there but think you miss the real argument.

Treating CEO's like celebrities at the top companies (a pretty recent phenomena) and paying them accordingly, I think was a big mistake. That is what is driving the gap between workers and the Professional Parachute CEO's we see today who make out with massive pay packages even if they do nothing but diminish the companies they parachute into.




The bigger issue is the complaint that for the few companies that break thru to significant success that some people think the Owner (Founder Owned) is bad or wrong to get all the Profits while the workers are still stuck on a wage.


I am all for the Owner voluntarily profit sharing in that spot and think that is good business but the workers do not deserve any of that profit or anything beyond a competitive wage.

If the workers 'deserve' to share in the profit then they should also share in the risk and loss for all the companies that fail.

Because, as you rightly point out, the vast majority do fail, taking the owners life savings with them and most times, leaving them personally bankrupt. And most time, right up until the last day the employees are accepting their pay checks willingly even as they see the company sinking. The owner is literally transferring his life savings to them so they don't miss a pay period.

And when it fails the workers never say 'here is some of that money you paid us over the years back' as they look at 'their risk'. The entrepreneurs risk that most workers want no part of.

So then when the reward for that risk comes in (profit) for the same workers to say 'we deserve a part of that rightfully' beyond their wage and any voluntarily given bonuses is just wrong.

I wouldn't expect you to understand. Not much room for failure when you're just collecting a $12/hr lab assistant check from an endless supply of grant money.

Love this idea that paying your employees is some kind of charitable act that CEOs should be praised for bestowing.

Not always a fan of Musk, but this is good.

Yes, that was the point. Not the fact that 95% of businesses ultimately fail and leave the founder holding the financial bag, but the internet hivemind only ever hears about the ones that go on to buy a yacht named after their 4th wife.

Then again, easing regulation on big capital is not at all the same as making it easier for startups or rewarding people for starting a new business or managing a growing business.

There can be some overlap in general market policy or business that depend on the market effects of big business, but let’s not kid ourselves to think that big business does not consistently try to leverage regulation and the market in its own favor, which can severely hurt chances of competition.

Alphabet inc. does not want a new Google.

I think what Trolly misses is that there is a real effort on the left to paint all CEO's and companies as exploitive and any gains made are done so at the expense of exploited workers.

I am sure Victor would agree.

And while I would not suggest those who start companies are altruistic saints, even the ones who liquidate their life savings and lose their homes to ensure the wage worker gets to take home their check to pay their mortgages it is wrong to call them greedy exploiters when a few of them make that bet and win.

I work in finance.

Then you should know better and stop being a troll.

What?? Why?

If you believe, for one second, that Musk would ever actually give $6B to aid if someone took the time to detail how that money would "solve world hunger", then you are a stone rube.

He'd just move the goalposts. That's what everybody does when they are pretending to give people a big freeroll if the people can "prove" something. "Oh, you'd ACTUALLY only feed 98% of hungry people, YOU LOSE!"

So, what is the actual point of that Musk tweet? Humblebragging about how stupidly rich he is and pretending to be altruistic?

You don't get 300 billion dollars by helping your fellow humans survive. This is why we need government agencies with enough reach to take his wealth, with or without his consent.

Under capitalism, this is largely true by definition.

#NotAllCEOs

Maybe your soul reads are bad? It’s kind of like how you auto-assume that nobody on this forum knows what it’s like to live in a major city.

No, everybody knows that the vast majority of businesses fail. We just understand that that's how our economy functions and there's no point in shedding tears (or, even worse, randomly shipping them money) for our poor beaten-down small-business owners when their companies don't succeed in the market.

I think you're tapping at what the super bulls are saying about Tesla. VW, like a lot of the old school car companies have a p/e in that area and likely will remain around the same unless some of the car companies starting moving away from the market.

The uber Elon fanboy investors are hoping that Elon will spend all the money that his character illustrates on things like R&D that can scale them into other parts of the world better than other car companies. Imagine what happens to their competitors when they start releasing superior trucks and big rigs around the world. Peterbilt might buy 10K Semi trucks.

Pointing out basic facts that even you should be able to understand is not trolling.

Reading through Musk's fans' Twitter pages. Holy **** these people are freaks! I thought MAGA people were unmoored to reality...

Sometimes it reaches ancient feudal peasant level. "Oh praise be to Elon, as He is why the sun rises in the morning!"

It's like certain people actually yearn to grovel at the feet of the Musks and Bezoses of the world. It's deeply depressing.

No its not.

The majority of new businesses fail as the owners liquidate their life savings providing pay checks to their employees who gladly take them.

This despite the fact that the employees should have to be responsible for the failure too and contribute to it financially, if you are going to argue they should get a share of the reward when the company is profitable.

You cannot argue 'they are workers for pay only and should not be asked to share the risk' in a failure and be consistent if then argue they are 'key to the success and thus deserve some of the profits'.

that dynamic would see the employees taking advantage of the owners.

if that participation (in the risk) is voluntary to the employees (as it is and should be) then the pay out of any profits should be voluntary to the owner and thus not exploitive.