Abigail Disney finds Bob Iger's pay absurd
Posted
From the article:
“Pointing out the incongruity of pay at the top and pay at the bottom provokes a reaction because it so violates of our innate sense of fairness it is impossible not to wince,” Disney wrote. She argued that it was not enough simply to pay above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 — a figure, she said, that is “too low to live on.”
Read more from The Washington Post.
Whoops. Missed that. Huntington, WV to Anaheim, CA:
A salary of $31,200 in Huntington, West Virginia should increase to $68,729 in Anaheim, California (assumptions include Homeowner, no Child Care, and Taxes are not considered. Click here to customize.)
Comparison Highlights
- Overall, Anaheim, California is 120.3% more expensive than Huntington, West Virginia
- Median Home Cost is the biggest factor in the cost of living difference.
- Median Home Cost is 685% more expensive in Anaheim.
Now we're looking at around $33/hour to match $15/hour in West Virginia.
Edit: And $15/hour ($31,200/year) in Anaheim is equivalent to less than $7/hour ($14,164/year) in Huntington.
So is the argument here that California is awful or that West Virginia is?
Because I can get on board with either one.
Lord Gonchar said:
So is the argument here that California is awful or that West Virginia is?
Because I can get on board with either one.
I don't see how these are mutually exclusive.
On a site where people can hate coasters they have never ridden (or have not yet been built), not sure living in both places (or either) is necessary (or maybe even helpful).
No, you live in the nice part of WV. That isn’t 500 hours drive to the nearest airport and entertainment.
Thats not really West Virginia. It’s WV adjacent.
just something to read..
For those still interested in watching this horse's continuous beating, 200 of the nation's top CEOs might have just acknowledged that Abigail Disney was not completely "off base" in her assessment of Disney's corporate priorities: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-ceos-of-nearly-two-hundred-companies-say-shareholder-value-is-no-longer-their-main-objective.html
tall and fast but not much upside down
"The CEOs of nearly 200 companies just said shareholder value is no longer their main objective"
Well, there's nearly 200 companies I now know not to invest my money in.
fortunately your self-imposed restriction will still allow you to invest in GE. Larry Culp was one of only 7 CEOs in the round table not to sign the letter. And, it seems that GE's strict adherence to the 1980's at-the-time revolutionary corporate value system is doing awesome for its shareholders... (bwhahaha).
tall and fast but not much upside down
Guess I read it more as a marketing piece aimed at people (most notably politicians) seeking to change how companies do business than anything substantive.
I read it as a win-win for these corporation.
If revenue and/or profits dip: "Well, we would have been profitable if we hadn't <enter some other stakeholder and their reason for needing money here>." Then, after about 5 years of that, they'll announce that their new stakeholder-focused strategies aren't working and they're back to shareholder-focused strategies.
If revenue and/or profits rise: "Investing in our stockholders was the best things we could have done!"
I read the letter as an effort (dare I write "last-ditch effort?") by some of the country's largest corporations to convince the public that they are capable of self-regulation.
tall and fast but not much upside down
urumqi said:
fortunately your self-imposed restriction will still allow you to invest in GE. Larry Culp was one of only 7 CEOs in the round table not to sign the letter. And, it seems that GE's strict adherence to the 1980's at-the-time revolutionary corporate value system is doing awesome for its shareholders... (bwhahaha).
Good point.
These 181 and GE are out. I guess I'm stuck looking at the other 3500 publicly traded companies in the US for ones that don't suck at making me money and haven't participated in the PR stunt by signing a document proclaiming that if I give them money, creating value for my investment is not a priority.
Building shareholder value is not mutually exclusive of serving customers and workers. Disney buying a bunch of IP and putting out good movies (if you don't count these live action cash grabs) is good for me when it results in Disney+ packaged with other streaming stuff. And I still don't think they're doing wrong by their front-line employees headed toward $12/hr in Florida, either, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of professional jobs that also employ people all over the world.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
I don't know where, if to jump into this... But will say West Virginia is a hell of a lot more beautiful then congested LA. In this new day in age of remote working conditions. We should see a little bit of a leveling of the playing field eventually. It might take a half century... but it's coming.
I worked for the mouse right out of $34k a year college for $42k starting. Not a front of the line role. I don't think Disney's underpaid and I don't agree with Abigail.
Lord Gonchar said:
proclaiming that if I give them money, creating value for my investment is not a priority.
not that anyone has shown a proclivity for accuracy in this forum, but the signed document did not state that shareholder investments were no longer a priority. Rather, it simply states that shareholder investments shall no longer be the only priority.
tall and fast but not much upside down
You must be logged in to post
