this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
216 points (97.4% liked)

Work Reform

10004 readers
114 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If Ryan Cohen took a salary in that leauge the bear thesis would still be alive and the turnaround of GameStop might never happen (or be significantly delayed). My executive chairman has other plans 🙌

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is also, conveniently, a list of the most egregiously overpaid people in the world. Nothing these CEOs do could possibly be worth what they make.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are people taking in millions each year, not for doing the job of running a company, but for owning companies. There's definitely overlap, but I'm not sure the two are the same list

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The comment above wasn't talking about them. He was talking about the CEOs listed here. Time cook makes ~$100m. The company could instead afford to hire ~1000 software developers instead. Is he doing more work than 1000 developers? Certainly not.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's kind of my point, though. I agree Tim Cook doesn't do the work of 1000 developers, but I would suggest he does work comparable to at least 1 developer.

A "list of the most egregiously overpaid people in the world" really should include people who get paid not for doing work, but just owning things. CEOs are certainly egregiously overpaid, but if someone gets paid 1m a year to be a CEO, and someone else gets paid 1m a year for simply owning a company, I would contend the owner is more overpaid than the CEO.

[–] Fogle@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google ceo making 870 thousand dollars per day. I'm sure he generates more than that in profit personally right

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their daily revenue is like $200M. Of course revenue isn't profit but still that's less than half of one percent

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have more than 200 employees and also expenses

[–] torknorggren@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

My takeaway is "how the hell is Simon in the top 20??" Have you been to a Simon property lately? Shit's dying and their properties are being leased as Amazon distro centers.

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just want to say this based on your comment OP: just be aware that you’re holding a bag for GME at this point. It’s been almost 3 years and it’s now at… $17, which adjusted for pre-split is $68. It’s very unlikely there’ll ever be a squeeze like the Jan 2021 squeeze ever again.

With that out of the way, CEOs are overpaid for work anybody with half a brain can do. All a CEO does is make decisions, and if they’re good, they’d ask the other executive members to do the actual work and analysis. I’m fairly certain you could have an AI take over their jobs and nothing would change at worst - and it’s more likely that it would actually improve some businesses.

[–] Smobius@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I won't be citing sources, sine I am not trying to convince you, but I will say this:

GME did not squeeze in 2021, it was running into a gamma squeeze, but was shut down by the 'removal' of the buy button.

Since then, shorts have not closed and shorting continues on a daily basis.

This year it seems like GameStop will have a profitable year, EPS was very nearly 0 last quarter and will most likely be positive the next.

So yeah, I am not holding bags, I am watching the most entertaining story I have ever seen, live. Shorts have nowhere to hide, they will fight to the last breath since they have no other options. When they can't do that anymore, then we shall have a squeeze. I will be there for it, and you won't.

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh, trust me, I know: I was an Jan ape and saw that shit live when Robinhood turned off the sell button due to “volatility”. Still technically one since I have one share from when it was around $400 DRS’d, but I had to sell the rest of my shares at a loss recently to pay for some bills and debt earlier this year. I also remember when DFV was absolutely shat on in the WSB subreddit for his GME options plays and saw GME at a negative beta quite a few times too, so not a complete stranger to it like you seem to think I am.

If the Jan 2021 squeeze was the “gamma squeeze” and not The Squeeze, I genuinely think it would have happened at some point in the past couple of years - and at this point, I’m starting to think that it did squeeze back then and now it’s just all hype from bagholders and cryptobros.

[–] Smobius@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am sorry you had to sell your shares for some bills, that sucks. As for the future, we shall see now won't we? Have a good life internet stanger.

[–] COLT45@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No cell no sell. Apes together strong.

[–] senoro@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Hi, I don’t want to butt in on your comment here, but I’m pretty sure Robinhood couldn’t follow the financial regulations and still have the button available at the time because it didn’t have the reserves to be able to fulfil the expected requests. It was a legal issue that caused them to disable trading not malicious intent. Robinhood would have made a fortune on fees so I can’t see why they would have wanted to purposely shoot their own foot on that ground.

But then again, I’m stupid and know nothing so disregard my comment if you so please. Thanks.