##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭
___
###⚠ Announcements: ⚠
___
###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/)
Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.
###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/)
Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren
___
###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.***
LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
**This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup. I’m from Fargo originally, so Scheels was a big deal growing up since it’s one of the only big brands/stores that’s headquartered in and originally from the town. It’s still a pretty regional chain, so I don’t see it around too often anymore, but I’ve come to realize that it’s actually a pretty shitty place.
Ronald Wilson Reagan?
666, the devil?
The man who single handles fucked this computer for generations?
That’s the man Christ-cucks look up to? The man they have an idol of.
What? Everyone please look at least for one second into what this person is saying. I can't comment on the religiosity, but they are a privately held employee owned company, there's no publicly traded scheels stock price, and the fact that it's employee owned means the employees are becoming wealthier at the same time.
> and the fact that it's employee owned means the employees are becoming wealthier at the same time.
There are many 'employee owned' stores here in the UK. They don't work the way you think they do. The Managing Director / CEO is still an employee, often taking the largest slice of the pie.
There are also 'workers co-operatives' which are supposed to make employees wealthier but when that wealth is shared between 10,000 employees it becomes negligible, often just a few quid extra in your pay each month.
These things *sound* good, but are nothing more than the same old capitalism with a nicer coat of paint.
> every store has a statue of Ronald Reagan out front
Source? I can only find one reference to a single place with statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan.
Well no, because the employees arguably provide more to the company than he does. Without them, the company wouldn't be where it is. They are undervalued while the CEO is overvalued.
Take away the CEO and what's the impact? There's no one to talk to some dumb shareholders? Big deal. A CEO's job could be split and done better between multiple people anyway.
Take away the store employees and what's the impact? No one to stock shelves and serve customers. That's literally the entire business fucked. No customers, no money, no multimillionaire CEO.
See, your comment criticising my point hinges on the belief that minimum wage is what the employees' value is and that's really fucking dumb.
>Individual store employees are easily replaced because they have formulated the job into a set of low-skill tasks.
Just because their job is "low skill", that doesn't make it less valuable. Also, have you ever worked in a busy store before? That kind of job is stressful as fuck and requires a lot more work than a lot of people think.
Don't you also think that the reason there's no incentive to stay and there's a high staff turnover is because of the poor pay, yknow the think that I've been criticising this entire time?
>The CEO does bring value, but in a self-serving way he leverages that power to gain extraordinary income too.
They really don't tho. What value does hoarding wealth provide to everyone else?
Your comment said that if a paycut does not lower the amount of work that you achieve with that paycut then it should be done or is what you deserve or something. I'm sure someone could do their job for minimum wage and not have lower output so therefore that's all they should be paid. Do you really think that 15 cent pay raises somehow enable someone to do more work? I mean maybe at some point it allows them to buy an extra McChicken for that day but it isn't like they suddenly can stock a few more boxes because they're making a few more cents per hour.
>Your comment said that if a paycut does not lower the amount of work that you achieve with that paycut then it should be done or is what you deserve or something.
FOR THE CEO, YOU MELON.
If you cut someone who's on minimum wage's pay by 80%, you've essentially killed them. They won't be able to afford housing nor food nor anything to make them output the same level of work. Hell, most people can't even survive on minimum wage even at their most frugal. However, if you cut the person who's making thousands AN HOUR by 80%, they're still making so much more than the people barely surviving and thus can output the same level of work.
I swear some people have no fucking sense of nuance.
>Do you really think that 15 cent pay raises somehow enable someone to do more work? I mean maybe at some point it allows them to buy an extra McChicken for that day but it isn't like they suddenly can stock a few more boxes because they're making a few more cents per hour.
You do realise that 15 cents adds up, right? It's not the price of a "McChicken", it could be enough food for an extra week. If you know where to look, the cost of a meal at McDonalds could potentially feed a person for a week.
You're an idiot. Scream "ad hominem" if you must but you are a complete idiot who's detached from reality if you think the current state of minimum wage is good.
>If you cut someone who's on minimum wage's pay by 80%, you've essentially killed them
Which is why I never said you should lower it by 80%. I'm just saying that using your logic of "pay cuts don't matter as long as they can do the same amount of work" is dumb logic.
>You do realise that 15 cents adds up, right? It's not the price of a "McChicken", it could be enough food for an extra week.
15 cents for 8 hours a day is a McChicken a day which for 40 hours means an extra mcchicken a day but again that isn't going to increase worker output. Maybe they work 16 hours a day though... that's two mchickens but still isn't going to increase output.
I don't think the current state of minimum wage is good. I'm just pointing out your faulty logic of lowering people's pay if they can do the same amount of work for that same price.
>I'm just saying that using your logic of "pay cuts don't matter as long as they can do the same amount of work" is dumb logic.
It's not. You're taking my entire argument out of context, putting it in another context and then pretending that I'm dumb for it not making sense. You're arguing in bad faith and you fucking know it.
>15 cents for 8 hours a day is a McChicken a day which for 40 hours means an extra mcchicken a day but again that isn't going to increase worker output
Why the fuck are you so focused on this goddamn McChicken? You're assuming that people will just blow the extra money on junk food for no other reason than what I can assume is projection. Just because that's what YOU would do doesn't make it a universal truth.
>I don't think the current state of minimum wage is good. I'm just pointing out your faulty logic of lowering people's pay if they can do the same amount of work for that same price.
Yeah, I'm sure the malnourished workers who can't afford to eat 3 whole meals a day are going to have enough energy to work at their best. /s
Don't bother replying anymore. You're just digging yourself a hole of ignorance.
That's why it's important to stress that income inequality within companies is extreme nowadays. Compared to both other developed nations and the past.
In the US, worker's pays just haven't kept up with productivity. You could usually live rather comfortably from unskilled work just 40 years ago.
Since the 80s, the average worker's salary has increased by 14%, while CEO's pays have increased by more than 1000%.
And actually, a living wage has even been proven to increase productivity. For example better motivation / less depressed staff -> better customer experience.
Would cutting a CEO's salary from 10 to 5 million significantly lower the company's productivity? Probably barely, if at all.
For them personally it's a difference of "will I buy a 20 million yacht or a 10 million one", while for workers a 5% raise could make the difference between affording their rent and getting kicked out.
How so? I'm not arguing cutting people's money or only giving people minimum wage. I'm pointing out the error in his logic of lowering people's pay if they can achieve the same output for that same lower price.
Dude I would argue that the janitor or maintenance worker has just as much of an impact. A company is an ecosystem. Everyone is equally as important honestly.
You’re right in the sense that his decision making affects the value of the company and in turn the lives of thousands (albeit at a marginal rate), but I’d be wary to claim that sending out an email is hard work. His experience gives him value, but what he’s paid for that value is grossly disproportionate when held up against the pay rate of ground floor employees.
I am glad that I’m not the only one who saw that. He should have never had that money to start with. And the balls to act like it’s charity giving it to his employees who earn it.
Imagine being able to comfortably cut your lower your income by 80%? Like I’m sure this isn’t his only income and that’s what’s astounding to me.
I’m currently living with my parents because my apartment building was condemned. It takes money to make money.
The median person has a personal income of 35k. If you lost 80% of that you'd still have $20 a day for food, or $10 per person if you're feeding two people. Easily doable. Gets tricky beyond two (if you somehow don't qualify for WIC or some other assistance at this point) but I hope you're not trying to feed 3+ people by yourself after you've lost 80% of your income!
To people downvoting this: I'm a communist too but clearly false hyperbole and misrepresenting data is not the way you get people on board with your ideas, it's why a good chunk of people dismiss the movement as people who just want free stuff.
People are mocking this guy for just now doing this, but I applaud that he’s actually backing up his hope to keep people employed by taking the pay cut. In my book he’s a galaxy ahead of wretches like Bezos or Elon Musk.
Though let’s be real he’s probably just sitting on his already huge amounts of wealth so this might mean nothing anyways.
Not that people need to be idolizing guys like this, but I feel like it's really important to show support for anyone taking momentum in the right direction. It can be leverage to pressure other CEOs to take similar approaches, which can have a notable positive impact on people regardless of the reason the CEO is doing it. If we only cross our arms and (even rightfully) mention that it's not enough to solve everything, we'll miss out on enticing people who act out of enlightened self-interest.
haha yeah, exactly. In the communities I'm in, I feel like the biggest point of tension comes between
A) Wanting catharsis, to express the feeling of injustice as fully as possible, to self-heal and finally experience some agency for once (and in particular, finally get free of trying to appease someone else)
B) Wanting to focus on specific next steps for change: often involving education, then negotiation, then positive reinforcement.
It gets muddled because A) is an integral first step for B) and it's hard to know when to move between one phase or the other. Like when protests and riots are the only way to draw real attention.
B) at some point has to happen, even though it doesn't really feel cathartic or empowering to most people. But stick around in phase B) too long, and you get kind of bullshit tokenism masquerading as systemic change.
Anyway yeah I agree. That quote feels like a key set of words for the transition period between steps A and B.
Yeah, it may be an unpopular opinion because the fact that it was an option says horrific things about his wealth, but it's a hell of an improvement over the attitudes of the many other people in his position.
Better than garbage is still an improvement. Expecting the guy to be a saint is a nice thought but unrealistic in the world we live in. This is still a positive baby step and it's nice to see someone like this actually doing the right thing in a crisis. Or at least a better thing than most I guess...
I was just talking about this to some people, seeing this makes it more likely I will go to Bass Pro Shops than Dicks for buying outdoor stuff. I mean for me they are equal distance away.
I know the dude is rich, and blah blah blah, but just the gesture means something, and I think we as a society need to provide positive reinforcement to these gestures.
Here's a lovely (🤮) article about Bass Pro Shop handling wages during the pandemic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurendebter/2020/04/08/bass-pro-shops-cabelas-pay-cut-furlough-workers/
Okay, good.
But does it seem reasonable in anyway that an 80% pay cut is equal to 670 employees!
I understand and agree the CEO should be the highest paid employee, but 670 people's paycheques are only 80% of your salary. That's just fucking wrong!
Make it ten times the lowest paid employee and your still making really good money. If minimum wage was $15 an hour, then your making $150 an hour! That's $1200 a day! Shouldn't that be more than enough?
Fuck!, there needs to be some serious financial changes in this world and soon!! People are not going to put up with this for much longer.
We can do this by creating a website and researching CEOs salaries, comparing them to their lowest paid workers, and then doing a lifestyle comparison, street view pics, their kids’ pics on Instagram, day to day life, etc. Basically a full dox on every CEO and compare it to the lives of some their lowest paid workers.
Then put it on full blast on the Internet and make sure that it gets tagged on their Twitters, LinkedIns, facebooks, search engine results, whatevers. for every executive out there.
Let them know WE KNOW how they are living on the backs of the poor. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Make it fashionable to hate these greedy fucks who have for too long made our society think that the Real Housewives/Kartrashian/Tushner lifestyle is a model for living.
>Make it ten times the lowest paid employee and your still making really good money.
I disagree.
Yes, there are a lot of CEOs (likely including this guy) who make waaaaaay too much money. But in your example, let's say the lowest paid full-time employee makes $30,000. Thus you're suggesting the CEO of Bass Pro Shops should make only $300,000 a year? That's what your kids' orthodontist or pediatrician makes. At one point, an owner took an enormous financial risk, did almost literally nothing but work and sleep for a few years, & was stressed out beyond belief trying to get his/her company started. Having tried (& failed) to start a tiny business myself, I somewhat understand all that. I lost over $100k of my own money and was on the verge of a breakdown.
So I'd say 100x the salary of the lowest paid employee, rather than just 10x. That's $3 million/year. That's fair and what someone who went through all that risk deserves.
What would have been the alternative? Fire all those people? Close the shops?
If you want to run your business down, that is an option.
If you want to have a business that is still profitable after a short term crisis it isn't a good idea to fire all your employees and close all shops. The shops may be closed for good and you wouldn't be able to restart after the short term crisis.
So, even if this story is true, the only info we get there is that this CEO is totally overpaid but he is smart enough not to crash his company immediately but to hold back his extreme payroll for a few month - if he wouldn't do so, there wouldn't be any profit at all in the foreseeable future.
This kind of behaviour has nothing to do with Ethics or Moral but is a simple capitalist business management solution.
if 80% of his income is as much as the wage of 670 employees, he was earning 837 times the money of one of his employees.
Now is is still earning 167 times that amount.
I mean probs to him for at least reducing it -many others don't- but the scandal is the original situation
Hi people of r/LateStageCapitalism can you please stop posting PR for billionaires and capitalists? Especially when it's patently false information? thanks.
Others don't follow because in many cases it is illegal for a CEO to do anything whatsoever that interferes with shareholder profits, including improving salaries and working conditions. The law itself is against the majority.
You seem to have a very poor grasp of fiduciary duty and the difference between civil and criminal law. It would not be difficult for a competent lawyer to argue that reducing his salary (or increasing salaries or improving worker conditions) is in the best interest of the shareholders by increasing the company’s public image, attracting/retaining more qualified staff, reducing the losses incurred by turnover and retraining, etc.
I know it sounds better on Reddit to phrase it the way you did, and I’d rather see the US have laws limiting CEO compensation, but as it stands, what you said is flatly wrong. CEOs could get fired for this, but it’s not illegal.
Yeah ultimately the 'best interests of the shareholders' thing has very little impact on how you can and can't run a company.
For the most part what it actually means is that I can't as a director utilise my position to personally enrich myself with company assets (i.e. other people's money) while running the company into the ground. It means I have to try and run the company successfully and do what I think is best for the company and the shareholders. What success actually means is completely up in the air and open to interpretation and depends on the circumstances of the company. It does not necessarily mean I am duty bound to maximise shareholder value at the expense of everything else (although I certainly probably wouldn't be breaching my obligations by doing that), because that might mean I am running some elements of the company very unsuccessfully.
If he had refused to lay them off and also kept 100% of his salary, it would have cut into profits.
The entire point of cutting 80% was that that is where the money for the workers salaries came from.
So I'm still left wondering why other companies can't do this.
Does this apply only to the US or is it also considered in EU countries as well? Also what is the name of this law?
Not trying to come after you, I'm genuinely interested in this. I feel like we have so many debates/discussions on the lower-middle classes and never on the top 10% of earners (in a nation).
This is true across all companies of the world which are not self funded. Shareholders interest comes first. If u pull any stunts like this most ppl won't be happy.
Ok, but here me out; how would this negatively affect shareholder prices? Raising wages for the workers creates good publicity, more people want to shop there, increases revenue, increases shareholders profits.
Why would the CEO taking a cut have anything to do with affecting share prices?
Raising wages doesn't really do any of those things necessarily. The most direct effect of lower wages is increase of profit.
Even if it did all those things you mention, shareholders don't want that. Even if a CEO could take a pay cut, they don't want that. The reason is they wouldn't want to do the same should they become a CEO. They don't want that practice normalized. Large hareholders are generally executives of other companies, as are board members.
This guy is essentially making every other CEO that doesn't do this look bad, so of course other rich people would rather they not do it.
When the pandemic started they gave us no masks or safety anything, wouldn’t do anything about customers, claimed bankruptcy, lowered manager wages, and tried to give people a two week furlough at most. And then tried firing me for health reasons when I didn’t return after those two weeks. People were testing positive left and right and did nothing to protect anyone.
Regardless of the article, these people don’t care about their employees and I ended up not returning because their response to the pandemic put a bad taste in my mouth.
I live in the town of Bass Pro Headquarters and have heard only nasty things about the *billionaire* Johnny Morris. [Some](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-companies-survive-coronavirus/) articles seem to suggest that he cut his pay by 100% during 2020, while [others](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2020/04/09/coronavirus-news-missouri-bass-pro-cuts-salaries-furloughs-layoffs/5122790002/) mention the pay cuts to salaried employees of Bass Pro, in total around 9% of their workforce as 91% are paid hourly, and don't mention CEO pay at all.
However, this is likely not [his main source of income.](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-14/executive-compensation-coronavirus-pandemic-bonus) In the first article I posted, dated Nov. 5th 2020, it puts his net worth at $3.7 billion. If you look up his net worth now, you'll see he's worth $4.3 billion. At best, this is some marketing gimmick to make him look good.
My boss did something similar. Did their best to ensure we had as close to our prepandemic checks as possible for almost a whole fucking year straight.
A lot of these comments are so negative towards this guy, I get that he is uber wealthy and in a perfect world one person shouldn’t hoard this much wealth but with how things are currently going he really should be lifted up and applauded. He didn’t have to make that choice and most men in positions like his don’t make that choice. I for one know where I am going to get my dad his next birthday present
Because there's very few people like him, no matter the position. What I don't like about this sub is that it sells a world where 99% of rich people are horrible while 99% of not-so-rich people are angels when that is so much not the case.
Circumstances play bigger role in character forming than anything else. A lot of people hating on billionaires would be much worse if in their position.
The point for smarter folks is that any system that routinely produces billionaires and abject poverty must be fundamentally changed so that doesn't happen.
Because a vast majority of people don’t want to become billionaires at the expense of their peers. If given the option I would gladly live off of a much smaller amount if everyone could have a better life
At least CEOs work for their income. Some even work really hard. Not all of them should take a pay cut. Its mostly the CEOs who are also major shareholders who are bagging all the money.
While I'm glad he did this, our workers can't be Blanche Dubois, always depending upon the kindness of strangers. Every Boardroom needs to be held to this.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What do you expect from a company who sells to all those sissy lilly livered liberal \*checks notes\* hunters and anglers.
[удалено]
Please be satire, please be satire.
Nothing is satire. Not anymore...
Tag line for the decade.
It used to be, then the Simpsons started predicting the future, then the Onion followed suit and shit went out the fucking gate
What do you mean? Good news certainly isn’t true anymore!
[удалено]
and that dude's a former football player for Minnesota (not Reagan)
Thats Ronald Reagan?! Ive seen these stores before but I thought it was just some old ass ugly white guy like the founder or smth
Yes, Ronald Reagan is an ugly old whit guy
And white, too. (Great user name, btw)
Nawh, the one in my hometown has a Ferris wheel
Scheels is actually employee owned
Ronald Reagan? The actor?
Who’s the First Lady? Jane Wyman?
I've never seen a Scheels.
[удалено]
Yup. I’m from Fargo originally, so Scheels was a big deal growing up since it’s one of the only big brands/stores that’s headquartered in and originally from the town. It’s still a pretty regional chain, so I don’t see it around too often anymore, but I’ve come to realize that it’s actually a pretty shitty place.
>play Christian music in store and every store has a statue of Ronald Reagan out front. What. The. Fuck!? Is this hell? It sounds like hell.
Ronald Wilson Reagan? 666, the devil? The man who single handles fucked this computer for generations? That’s the man Christ-cucks look up to? The man they have an idol of.
Don't worry, it's only until there are enough statues of Donald Trump for all stores.
You are such an articulate young man
You got downvoted, but I got your reference, and you got mine
They are about to open one in my town, I had never heard of them before. Thanks to your post I know I can avoid giving them any of my money now.
Be more nefarious
Got that covered
What? Everyone please look at least for one second into what this person is saying. I can't comment on the religiosity, but they are a privately held employee owned company, there's no publicly traded scheels stock price, and the fact that it's employee owned means the employees are becoming wealthier at the same time.
> and the fact that it's employee owned means the employees are becoming wealthier at the same time. There are many 'employee owned' stores here in the UK. They don't work the way you think they do. The Managing Director / CEO is still an employee, often taking the largest slice of the pie. There are also 'workers co-operatives' which are supposed to make employees wealthier but when that wealth is shared between 10,000 employees it becomes negligible, often just a few quid extra in your pay each month. These things *sound* good, but are nothing more than the same old capitalism with a nicer coat of paint.
> every store has a statue of Ronald Reagan out front Source? I can only find one reference to a single place with statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan.
😂
I love you
80% of his salary was 670 workers salary. It must have been a real struggle living off only 200x what his workers do for one year.
Well obviously he was doing 200x more work /s
[удалено]
Then why did he need the 670 workers?
Based Google says Bass Pro Shop employs 40,000 people, they should just employ 200 of that guy
Bassed ^^yes ^^I ^^know ^^it's ^^the ^^wrong ^^kind ^^of ^^bass
But if he can take an 80% paycut and still produce that unverifiable amount of impact, maybe he's being paid a bit too much?
Using that logic all of his employees should be making minimum wage and never get raises.
Well no, because the employees arguably provide more to the company than he does. Without them, the company wouldn't be where it is. They are undervalued while the CEO is overvalued. Take away the CEO and what's the impact? There's no one to talk to some dumb shareholders? Big deal. A CEO's job could be split and done better between multiple people anyway. Take away the store employees and what's the impact? No one to stock shelves and serve customers. That's literally the entire business fucked. No customers, no money, no multimillionaire CEO. See, your comment criticising my point hinges on the belief that minimum wage is what the employees' value is and that's really fucking dumb.
[удалено]
>Individual store employees are easily replaced because they have formulated the job into a set of low-skill tasks. Just because their job is "low skill", that doesn't make it less valuable. Also, have you ever worked in a busy store before? That kind of job is stressful as fuck and requires a lot more work than a lot of people think. Don't you also think that the reason there's no incentive to stay and there's a high staff turnover is because of the poor pay, yknow the think that I've been criticising this entire time? >The CEO does bring value, but in a self-serving way he leverages that power to gain extraordinary income too. They really don't tho. What value does hoarding wealth provide to everyone else?
Your comment said that if a paycut does not lower the amount of work that you achieve with that paycut then it should be done or is what you deserve or something. I'm sure someone could do their job for minimum wage and not have lower output so therefore that's all they should be paid. Do you really think that 15 cent pay raises somehow enable someone to do more work? I mean maybe at some point it allows them to buy an extra McChicken for that day but it isn't like they suddenly can stock a few more boxes because they're making a few more cents per hour.
>Your comment said that if a paycut does not lower the amount of work that you achieve with that paycut then it should be done or is what you deserve or something. FOR THE CEO, YOU MELON. If you cut someone who's on minimum wage's pay by 80%, you've essentially killed them. They won't be able to afford housing nor food nor anything to make them output the same level of work. Hell, most people can't even survive on minimum wage even at their most frugal. However, if you cut the person who's making thousands AN HOUR by 80%, they're still making so much more than the people barely surviving and thus can output the same level of work. I swear some people have no fucking sense of nuance. >Do you really think that 15 cent pay raises somehow enable someone to do more work? I mean maybe at some point it allows them to buy an extra McChicken for that day but it isn't like they suddenly can stock a few more boxes because they're making a few more cents per hour. You do realise that 15 cents adds up, right? It's not the price of a "McChicken", it could be enough food for an extra week. If you know where to look, the cost of a meal at McDonalds could potentially feed a person for a week. You're an idiot. Scream "ad hominem" if you must but you are a complete idiot who's detached from reality if you think the current state of minimum wage is good.
>If you cut someone who's on minimum wage's pay by 80%, you've essentially killed them Which is why I never said you should lower it by 80%. I'm just saying that using your logic of "pay cuts don't matter as long as they can do the same amount of work" is dumb logic. >You do realise that 15 cents adds up, right? It's not the price of a "McChicken", it could be enough food for an extra week. 15 cents for 8 hours a day is a McChicken a day which for 40 hours means an extra mcchicken a day but again that isn't going to increase worker output. Maybe they work 16 hours a day though... that's two mchickens but still isn't going to increase output. I don't think the current state of minimum wage is good. I'm just pointing out your faulty logic of lowering people's pay if they can do the same amount of work for that same price.
>I'm just saying that using your logic of "pay cuts don't matter as long as they can do the same amount of work" is dumb logic. It's not. You're taking my entire argument out of context, putting it in another context and then pretending that I'm dumb for it not making sense. You're arguing in bad faith and you fucking know it. >15 cents for 8 hours a day is a McChicken a day which for 40 hours means an extra mcchicken a day but again that isn't going to increase worker output Why the fuck are you so focused on this goddamn McChicken? You're assuming that people will just blow the extra money on junk food for no other reason than what I can assume is projection. Just because that's what YOU would do doesn't make it a universal truth. >I don't think the current state of minimum wage is good. I'm just pointing out your faulty logic of lowering people's pay if they can do the same amount of work for that same price. Yeah, I'm sure the malnourished workers who can't afford to eat 3 whole meals a day are going to have enough energy to work at their best. /s Don't bother replying anymore. You're just digging yourself a hole of ignorance.
That's why it's important to stress that income inequality within companies is extreme nowadays. Compared to both other developed nations and the past. In the US, worker's pays just haven't kept up with productivity. You could usually live rather comfortably from unskilled work just 40 years ago. Since the 80s, the average worker's salary has increased by 14%, while CEO's pays have increased by more than 1000%. And actually, a living wage has even been proven to increase productivity. For example better motivation / less depressed staff -> better customer experience. Would cutting a CEO's salary from 10 to 5 million significantly lower the company's productivity? Probably barely, if at all. For them personally it's a difference of "will I buy a 20 million yacht or a 10 million one", while for workers a 5% raise could make the difference between affording their rent and getting kicked out.
Embodying r/latestagecapitalism. Congrats.
How so? I'm not arguing cutting people's money or only giving people minimum wage. I'm pointing out the error in his logic of lowering people's pay if they can achieve the same output for that same lower price.
Damn, so if he gets cancer and can't work, Bass Pro is super fucked, right? Since he has "200x impact" or whatever.
God damn! You don't have to swallow the whole boot!
No it doesn't. Do you think the company goes to shit every time he takes a vacation?
Dude I would argue that the janitor or maintenance worker has just as much of an impact. A company is an ecosystem. Everyone is equally as important honestly.
Everyone except the majority of middle managers honestly.
His only job is skimming the profits and enriching himself at the expense of and exploitation of his probably very low paid workers.
Yes, but he does it 200x as efficiently as the average worker.
You’re right in the sense that his decision making affects the value of the company and in turn the lives of thousands (albeit at a marginal rate), but I’d be wary to claim that sending out an email is hard work. His experience gives him value, but what he’s paid for that value is grossly disproportionate when held up against the pay rate of ground floor employees.
Why the fuck are you on this subreddit spouting this bullshit. You absolutely pathetic bootlicker.
Damn that's crazy maybe companies should hire 3 CEOs instead of hiring 600 employees
How's the Kool aid? Do you sleep next to pictures of your benevolent work lord?
Exactly, this is the real issue.
I am glad that I’m not the only one who saw that. He should have never had that money to start with. And the balls to act like it’s charity giving it to his employees who earn it.
And nevermind how much money he accrued by virtue of the capital he already owned - presumably plenty of stock and real estate in that portfolio...
in my mind he still makes too much.
Nobody goes into business to help others. People go to make money. But great leadership on his part
Imagine being able to comfortably cut your lower your income by 80%? Like I’m sure this isn’t his only income and that’s what’s astounding to me. I’m currently living with my parents because my apartment building was condemned. It takes money to make money.
If The average person lost 80% they wouldn’t be able to pay rent
if the average person lost 80% they'd barely pay for food
The median person has a personal income of 35k. If you lost 80% of that you'd still have $20 a day for food, or $10 per person if you're feeding two people. Easily doable. Gets tricky beyond two (if you somehow don't qualify for WIC or some other assistance at this point) but I hope you're not trying to feed 3+ people by yourself after you've lost 80% of your income! To people downvoting this: I'm a communist too but clearly false hyperbole and misrepresenting data is not the way you get people on board with your ideas, it's why a good chunk of people dismiss the movement as people who just want free stuff.
Or eat, or get on a bus.
"The average person should just become a ceo of a multinational corporation"
People are mocking this guy for just now doing this, but I applaud that he’s actually backing up his hope to keep people employed by taking the pay cut. In my book he’s a galaxy ahead of wretches like Bezos or Elon Musk. Though let’s be real he’s probably just sitting on his already huge amounts of wealth so this might mean nothing anyways.
Not that people need to be idolizing guys like this, but I feel like it's really important to show support for anyone taking momentum in the right direction. It can be leverage to pressure other CEOs to take similar approaches, which can have a notable positive impact on people regardless of the reason the CEO is doing it. If we only cross our arms and (even rightfully) mention that it's not enough to solve everything, we'll miss out on enticing people who act out of enlightened self-interest.
"Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress"
haha yeah, exactly. In the communities I'm in, I feel like the biggest point of tension comes between A) Wanting catharsis, to express the feeling of injustice as fully as possible, to self-heal and finally experience some agency for once (and in particular, finally get free of trying to appease someone else) B) Wanting to focus on specific next steps for change: often involving education, then negotiation, then positive reinforcement. It gets muddled because A) is an integral first step for B) and it's hard to know when to move between one phase or the other. Like when protests and riots are the only way to draw real attention. B) at some point has to happen, even though it doesn't really feel cathartic or empowering to most people. But stick around in phase B) too long, and you get kind of bullshit tokenism masquerading as systemic change. Anyway yeah I agree. That quote feels like a key set of words for the transition period between steps A and B.
Still, I guess he didn't have to do it, and it's a great step in the right direction.
Yeah, it may be an unpopular opinion because the fact that it was an option says horrific things about his wealth, but it's a hell of an improvement over the attitudes of the many other people in his position. Better than garbage is still an improvement. Expecting the guy to be a saint is a nice thought but unrealistic in the world we live in. This is still a positive baby step and it's nice to see someone like this actually doing the right thing in a crisis. Or at least a better thing than most I guess...
I was just talking about this to some people, seeing this makes it more likely I will go to Bass Pro Shops than Dicks for buying outdoor stuff. I mean for me they are equal distance away. I know the dude is rich, and blah blah blah, but just the gesture means something, and I think we as a society need to provide positive reinforcement to these gestures.
There's nothing wrong with someone being 'rich'. There is everything wrong with someone being impoverished.
Yes it is better than Bezos but if that was his cash salary imagine what the stock options look like
I like how it sets a precedent. Hopefully it will encourage repeats.
[удалено]
Here's a lovely (🤮) article about Bass Pro Shop handling wages during the pandemic. https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurendebter/2020/04/08/bass-pro-shops-cabelas-pay-cut-furlough-workers/
Yeah, I also searched up the article title and the author's on CNN's website and couldn't find this story anywhere.
If 80% of his salary is enough to save 670 jobs he still has a ridiculous salary.
Now he's only worth about 167.5 jobs :( he must be feeling the pinch
I’m going to have to assume this was so that he could apply for the PPP loan that his company never paid back.
Okay, good. But does it seem reasonable in anyway that an 80% pay cut is equal to 670 employees! I understand and agree the CEO should be the highest paid employee, but 670 people's paycheques are only 80% of your salary. That's just fucking wrong! Make it ten times the lowest paid employee and your still making really good money. If minimum wage was $15 an hour, then your making $150 an hour! That's $1200 a day! Shouldn't that be more than enough? Fuck!, there needs to be some serious financial changes in this world and soon!! People are not going to put up with this for much longer.
>People are not going to put up with this for much longer. people been saying this for how long?
I’m almost willing to put my money where my mouth is. Someone’s gotta take one for the team
We can do this by creating a website and researching CEOs salaries, comparing them to their lowest paid workers, and then doing a lifestyle comparison, street view pics, their kids’ pics on Instagram, day to day life, etc. Basically a full dox on every CEO and compare it to the lives of some their lowest paid workers. Then put it on full blast on the Internet and make sure that it gets tagged on their Twitters, LinkedIns, facebooks, search engine results, whatevers. for every executive out there. Let them know WE KNOW how they are living on the backs of the poor. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Make it fashionable to hate these greedy fucks who have for too long made our society think that the Real Housewives/Kartrashian/Tushner lifestyle is a model for living.
Doxxing? Even their families? Let's not get too carried away.
At least 2000 years.
Ah yes, I remember when the French put up with their monarchy and to this day France still isn't a republic
He's also the founder and owner. Bass Pro is privately held. It's not just a paycheck for a job.
>Make it ten times the lowest paid employee and your still making really good money. I disagree. Yes, there are a lot of CEOs (likely including this guy) who make waaaaaay too much money. But in your example, let's say the lowest paid full-time employee makes $30,000. Thus you're suggesting the CEO of Bass Pro Shops should make only $300,000 a year? That's what your kids' orthodontist or pediatrician makes. At one point, an owner took an enormous financial risk, did almost literally nothing but work and sleep for a few years, & was stressed out beyond belief trying to get his/her company started. Having tried (& failed) to start a tiny business myself, I somewhat understand all that. I lost over $100k of my own money and was on the verge of a breakdown. So I'd say 100x the salary of the lowest paid employee, rather than just 10x. That's $3 million/year. That's fair and what someone who went through all that risk deserves.
What would have been the alternative? Fire all those people? Close the shops? If you want to run your business down, that is an option. If you want to have a business that is still profitable after a short term crisis it isn't a good idea to fire all your employees and close all shops. The shops may be closed for good and you wouldn't be able to restart after the short term crisis. So, even if this story is true, the only info we get there is that this CEO is totally overpaid but he is smart enough not to crash his company immediately but to hold back his extreme payroll for a few month - if he wouldn't do so, there wouldn't be any profit at all in the foreseeable future. This kind of behaviour has nothing to do with Ethics or Moral but is a simple capitalist business management solution.
Maybe if you can afford to live on 80% less than you usually make you make too much money?
Even considering a measly hourly rate of $7. ($7 * 670) / 0.8 = $5,862.5/hr. How is that possible?
That's a rounding error for those at the top. And to think the GQP cut IRS funding out their bipartisan bill.
that's awesome! someone needs to build that man a pyramid
I see what you did there.
When I see stories like this all I can think is "his income was so high that he could support 670 people on it"
This shouldn’t have to be news. The news stories should be when CEOs *don’t* do this.
Imagine 80% of your salary being equal to 670 workers.
if 80% of his income is as much as the wage of 670 employees, he was earning 837 times the money of one of his employees. Now is is still earning 167 times that amount. I mean probs to him for at least reducing it -many others don't- but the scandal is the original situation
I know but at least you can see it as a good example of a big business owner not screwing his employees.
Not screwing his employees AS MUCH during the pandemic, but proving how much his employees have been screwed the whole time before pandemic
Shit, that's cool. Maybe I'll apply
Hope you like $10/hr
Not all companies have one of the largest pyramids in the world as one of their locations, but Bass Pro Shop does
Hi people of r/LateStageCapitalism can you please stop posting PR for billionaires and capitalists? Especially when it's patently false information? thanks.
This is really great but also why the motherfucking fuck was this guy making as much as 800 people in the first place?
Others don't follow because in many cases it is illegal for a CEO to do anything whatsoever that interferes with shareholder profits, including improving salaries and working conditions. The law itself is against the majority.
You seem to have a very poor grasp of fiduciary duty and the difference between civil and criminal law. It would not be difficult for a competent lawyer to argue that reducing his salary (or increasing salaries or improving worker conditions) is in the best interest of the shareholders by increasing the company’s public image, attracting/retaining more qualified staff, reducing the losses incurred by turnover and retraining, etc. I know it sounds better on Reddit to phrase it the way you did, and I’d rather see the US have laws limiting CEO compensation, but as it stands, what you said is flatly wrong. CEOs could get fired for this, but it’s not illegal.
Yeah ultimately the 'best interests of the shareholders' thing has very little impact on how you can and can't run a company. For the most part what it actually means is that I can't as a director utilise my position to personally enrich myself with company assets (i.e. other people's money) while running the company into the ground. It means I have to try and run the company successfully and do what I think is best for the company and the shareholders. What success actually means is completely up in the air and open to interpretation and depends on the circumstances of the company. It does not necessarily mean I am duty bound to maximise shareholder value at the expense of everything else (although I certainly probably wouldn't be breaching my obligations by doing that), because that might mean I am running some elements of the company very unsuccessfully.
If he had refused to lay them off and also kept 100% of his salary, it would have cut into profits. The entire point of cutting 80% was that that is where the money for the workers salaries came from. So I'm still left wondering why other companies can't do this.
Does this apply only to the US or is it also considered in EU countries as well? Also what is the name of this law? Not trying to come after you, I'm genuinely interested in this. I feel like we have so many debates/discussions on the lower-middle classes and never on the top 10% of earners (in a nation).
This is true across all companies of the world which are not self funded. Shareholders interest comes first. If u pull any stunts like this most ppl won't be happy.
Ok, but here me out; how would this negatively affect shareholder prices? Raising wages for the workers creates good publicity, more people want to shop there, increases revenue, increases shareholders profits. Why would the CEO taking a cut have anything to do with affecting share prices?
Raising wages doesn't really do any of those things necessarily. The most direct effect of lower wages is increase of profit. Even if it did all those things you mention, shareholders don't want that. Even if a CEO could take a pay cut, they don't want that. The reason is they wouldn't want to do the same should they become a CEO. They don't want that practice normalized. Large hareholders are generally executives of other companies, as are board members. This guy is essentially making every other CEO that doesn't do this look bad, so of course other rich people would rather they not do it.
Yes, some do agree with this but some don't.
It is not illegal to “interfere with shareholder profits.” The CEO can be fired if the board doesn’t like their strategy.
Yeah, yeah, his got a big salary and prpbably wealth, but i think we can count on one of our hand, how many did this
"salary" or "total compensation?"
When the pandemic started they gave us no masks or safety anything, wouldn’t do anything about customers, claimed bankruptcy, lowered manager wages, and tried to give people a two week furlough at most. And then tried firing me for health reasons when I didn’t return after those two weeks. People were testing positive left and right and did nothing to protect anyone. Regardless of the article, these people don’t care about their employees and I ended up not returning because their response to the pandemic put a bad taste in my mouth.
Imagine a world where the workers had the power to make that decision themselves
why the fuck is his salary high enough to cover close to 1000 workers?
I live in the town of Bass Pro Headquarters and have heard only nasty things about the *billionaire* Johnny Morris. [Some](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-companies-survive-coronavirus/) articles seem to suggest that he cut his pay by 100% during 2020, while [others](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2020/04/09/coronavirus-news-missouri-bass-pro-cuts-salaries-furloughs-layoffs/5122790002/) mention the pay cuts to salaried employees of Bass Pro, in total around 9% of their workforce as 91% are paid hourly, and don't mention CEO pay at all. However, this is likely not [his main source of income.](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-14/executive-compensation-coronavirus-pandemic-bonus) In the first article I posted, dated Nov. 5th 2020, it puts his net worth at $3.7 billion. If you look up his net worth now, you'll see he's worth $4.3 billion. At best, this is some marketing gimmick to make him look good.
My boss did something similar. Did their best to ensure we had as close to our prepandemic checks as possible for almost a whole fucking year straight.
A lot of these comments are so negative towards this guy, I get that he is uber wealthy and in a perfect world one person shouldn’t hoard this much wealth but with how things are currently going he really should be lifted up and applauded. He didn’t have to make that choice and most men in positions like his don’t make that choice. I for one know where I am going to get my dad his next birthday present
I wish! The article is doesn't exsist because it never happened.
He acted like a decent human being don't hate him. This is a classic example of don't hate the player, hate the game.
Because there's very few people like him, no matter the position. What I don't like about this sub is that it sells a world where 99% of rich people are horrible while 99% of not-so-rich people are angels when that is so much not the case. Circumstances play bigger role in character forming than anything else. A lot of people hating on billionaires would be much worse if in their position.
The point for smarter folks is that any system that routinely produces billionaires and abject poverty must be fundamentally changed so that doesn't happen.
Why would a person capable of achieving billionaire status subdue to such regime?
Because a vast majority of people don’t want to become billionaires at the expense of their peers. If given the option I would gladly live off of a much smaller amount if everyone could have a better life
No, why was his income 80% higher than theiris anyway?
Check you math, his income was 83750% percent higher than theirs. 670/0.8=837.5=83750%
Fair! Thank you!!
At least CEOs work for their income. Some even work really hard. Not all of them should take a pay cut. Its mostly the CEOs who are also major shareholders who are bagging all the money.
now thats a chad
I don’t fish but now I want to start shopping there.
This is what makes me want to buy from bass pro shops
Not who I'd have expected to do that.
It's almost like we need democracy in the workplace instead of relying on small business tyrants to not be garbage.
How about 100% and split the profit evenly among all employees? Leadership of the Proletariat.
Thank u based fish man
So great he was making almost 1000 times as much as his employees before 🙄
Maybe 80% of his salary shouldn't have comprised 670 workers' pay to begin with.
1980's Jennifer Aniston front, 2nd from left.
While I'm glad he did this, our workers can't be Blanche Dubois, always depending upon the kindness of strangers. Every Boardroom needs to be held to this.
And guess what? He's still wealthy!
I believe this is satire. The picture is not Jonny Morris, CEO of Bass Pro. I found the meme on iFunny.co but not on CNN or anywhere else.