• TehBamski@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    Here’s what I came up with.

    Using Meredith Kopit-Levien’s annual pay from the New York Times, at $10.2 million (as stated in the graph.) Then pluging in the 36% raise she was ‘given’ in 2024(?) and divide by 600 Times Tech Guild members. The following is what I got.

    Base salary: $10.2 million 36% of $10.2 million = $10.2 million × 0.36 = $3.672 million $3.672 million ÷ 600 = $6,120 per person

    Current average salary: $158,000 (using what was stated in the graph) Potential raise: $6,120 Percentage increase = ($6,120 ÷ $158,000) × 100 = 3.87%

    So if the value of the 36% raise ($3.672 million) were distributed equally among the 600 guild members: Each member would receive a $6,120 raise This would represent approximately a 3.87% increase to their current average salary.

    • MelodiousFunk@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Or, to put it another way, at baseline, the CEO does the work of 64 people (10.2m/158k). And after raises, the CEO does the work of 85 people (13.9m/163k).

      Wow, what a real bootstrapper. I stand in awe.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean there certainly are some CEOs that do sound like 85 assholes whenever they open their mouth. Elon Musk comes to mind as a good public example.

    • Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I see this possibly as this scenario perhaps. boss went 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me…