An overly simplified calculation to show the rough scale of this is to take the reported annual net profit and divide that by the number of employees. This neglects many workers that work for subcontractors and capital reinvestment and so many things but let’s take Microsoft for an example in 2024. 92.75B / 228,000 workers = $406,798 per worker.
What is the purpose of bringing this up if it’s unusable for our needs?
let’s take Microsoft for an example in 2024. 92.75B / 228,000 workers = $406,798 per worker.
The original goal was to value a worker based on the value they actually produce, separate from the other workers.
If you are trying to force the top lawyers, sales people, and engineers to share the same salary as the average of everyone else around them you’ve done the exact opposite of what you set out to do.
i mean… trying to calculate an individual’s labor output is pointless.
nobody produces anything in a vacuum.
you can’t separate the office excel wizards economic output from the janitor’s, or the maintenance crew’s, or the accountant’s, or the sales person’s, and so on, and so forth.
labor, especially modern labor, is built entirely upon cooperative, mutually beneficial structures.
the part that isn’t working and parasitizes the worker’s economic accomplishments, that’s really 90% of the issue we have right now.
so the original calculation, which takes the entire profit of the company + CEO income - CEO salary (or the reasonable amount they should be getting) dividend by the number of employees does give you a reasonable baseline of compensation for all employees.
it doesn’t make much sense that one “class” of employee would make more than any other, when all of them rely on each other…
You could compare that 400k to the median salary, calculate how far that’s off, then apply that ratio to the individual salaries. It’s still just a ballpark number, but it isn’t a terrible way of looking at things
An overly simplified calculation to show the rough scale of this is to take the reported annual net profit and divide that by the number of employees. This neglects many workers that work for subcontractors and capital reinvestment and so many things but let’s take Microsoft for an example in 2024. 92.75B / 228,000 workers = $406,798 per worker.
What is the purpose of bringing this up if it’s unusable for our needs?
The original goal was to value a worker based on the value they actually produce, separate from the other workers.
If you are trying to force the top lawyers, sales people, and engineers to share the same salary as the average of everyone else around them you’ve done the exact opposite of what you set out to do.
i mean… trying to calculate an individual’s labor output is pointless.
nobody produces anything in a vacuum.
you can’t separate the office excel wizards economic output from the janitor’s, or the maintenance crew’s, or the accountant’s, or the sales person’s, and so on, and so forth.
labor, especially modern labor, is built entirely upon cooperative, mutually beneficial structures.
the part that isn’t working and parasitizes the worker’s economic accomplishments, that’s really 90% of the issue we have right now.
so the original calculation, which takes the entire profit of the company + CEO income - CEO salary (or the reasonable amount they should be getting) dividend by the number of employees does give you a reasonable baseline of compensation for all employees.
it doesn’t make much sense that one “class” of employee would make more than any other, when all of them rely on each other…
You could compare that 400k to the median salary, calculate how far that’s off, then apply that ratio to the individual salaries. It’s still just a ballpark number, but it isn’t a terrible way of looking at things