It matches closely, but doesn't cancel. So Gap Inc spent more than $60 million on its payroll. ~50% went to one person, and the rest to its hourly laborers (not that it's safe to assume that was the case throughout the year). Also: considering that the $30M CEO raise went into place in 2012 and surely was matched if not exceeded in 2013, that doubles the "extra" cost of bumping their minimum to $9/hour. With that in mind, it's still overly simplistic to will away the CEO's compensation as a non-contributory factor.$1.75 x 9,000 x 2,000 hours cancels out that 30million bump.
It doesn't bother me at all that wages were increased to $9/hr.It matches closely, but doesn't cancel. So Gap Inc spent more than $60 million on its payroll. ~50% went to one person, and the rest to its hourly laborers (not that it's safe to assume that was the case throughout the year). Also: considering that the $30M CEO raise went into place in 2012 and surely was matched if not exceeded in 2013, that doubles the "extra" cost of bumping their minimum to $9/hour. With that in mind, it's still overly simplistic to will away the CEO's compensation as a non-contributory factor.
(Related: it bothers you that worker salaries were raised $1.75/hour, or <20%, but doesn't seem to bother you at all that one person's salary went up more than 150% - a seven-and-a-half fold factor, not taking the wealth gap into account?)
You miss the point that YOU DON'T OWN THE COMPANY!!! Neither does the gov't!!!! They should have the right and freedom to pay anyone the salary that they determine. Concern yourself with matters that actually are in your wallet, like the crazy spending of the federal gov't. You think you know how to best spend other people's money, GREAT!!!! BUT WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE GOV'T FORCE THIS ON A PRIVATE COMPANY?It matches closely, but doesn't cancel. So Gap Inc spent more than $60 million on its payroll. ~50% went to one person, and the rest to its hourly laborers (not that it's safe to assume that was the case throughout the year). Also: considering that the $30M CEO raise went into place in 2012 and surely was matched if not exceeded in 2013, that doubles the "extra" cost of bumping their minimum to $9/hour. With that in mind, it's still overly simplistic to will away the CEO's compensation as a non-contributory factor.
(Related: it bothers you that worker salaries were raised $1.75/hour, or <20%, but doesn't seem to bother you at all that one person's salary went up more than 150% - a seven-and-a-half fold factor, not taking the wealth gap into account?)
The CEO can spend that money, sure. But they can't dine out like thousands of GAP employees can (unless it's Mr. Creosote, I suppose), they won't buy items in the same amounts that thousands of employees can, they can't vacation like thousands of employees...okay, that they certainly can do ().
My point is that the wage bump, circulated into the hands of hourly employees, is more likely to do FAR more to improve the sluggish side of the economy - demand. Demand is weak because people are afraid to spend the money they have (or, more likely, they don't have money left after paying bills). When they use their extra money to buy an Xbox, or dine out, or go to a movie, that increases the sales figures and operating income of those businesses. The economic benefit of giving a large berth of people more money is more immediately felt, and more widespread, than giving that same amount of money to one person.
Gap has clearly done something wrong in recent years in order to have to close so many stores. Maybe they're not in style anymore; maybe discretionary spending is so low that consumers are opting for $20 jeans at Wal-Mart instead of $60 jeans at the Gap. I'm not certain. Their overhead increases may have contributed to that - however, the additional $30 million that they *might* have spent on all their hourly labor in one year is, at best, half as powerful a factor in closing stores at the $60 million in additional salary they *did* spend on one employee over the last two years.
The board.And this isn't a rhetorical question but how does a CEO go about getting a 30M pay increase? Who signs off on that?
You miss the point that YOU DON'T OWN THE COMPANY!!! Neither does the gov't!!!! They should have the right and freedom to pay anyone the salary that they determine. Concern yourself with matters that actually are in your wallet, like the crazy spending of the federal gov't. You think you know how to best spend other people's money, GREAT!!!! BUT WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE GOV'T FORCE THIS ON A PRIVATE COMPANY?
Good response. Logical, well thought out, succinct, and you made such compelling arguments.....please enlighten us further.
Dude, Msut77's post TOTALLY went over your head...Thanks, Bob. The first definition I saw also had that magic word "voluntary". I am at work and the copy/paste touch functions suck or I would have replied with almost the same post. The key here is that the gov't takes from you by force that what you have earned, and disperses it to others that have not earned it.
Please enlighten me. Which post and what was the true meaning that I couldn't decipher? Wait, is this like the secret about me that you kept trying to threaten me with a while ago?![]()
Dude, Msut77's post TOTALLY went over your head...![]()
Keep sending in those taxes, bro. I need some new pillows for the couches at the station.....HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA....whew, you should have a Comedy Central special....I like the hey I'm at my government job and I had nothing better to do than post thing.
Hmmm... I didn't see the answer to my question. What right does the gov't have to force certain salaries or have any say on a private companies money? If you were just suggesting that the GAP should decide for themselves to pay higher wages then I apologize for misunderstanding. We need, like Obama says, R-S-P-E-C-T....wait, that had to be Bush, right?Charming.
Perhaps you can address what your herp-n-derp rant has to do with Gap, Inc., minimum wage, and the closure of 450 stores.
Otherwise it's a dumbnon-sequitur. You addressed *nothing*, you just spouted off nonsense like a jackass.
GAP did decide for themselves to raise wages to $9/hr. They (GAP) paraded that around like they were special and in fact a VS member linked the original article as if he was something special.... for pointing out that a retailer was awesome for 1) originally having 9,000 employees at $7.25 hour and 2) Brave for raising those wages to $9/hrHmmm... I didn't see the answer to my question. What right does the gov't have to force certain salaries or have any say on a private companies money? If you were just suggesting that the GAP should decide for themselves to pay higher wages then I apologize for misunderstanding. We need, like Obama says, R-S-P-E-C-T....wait, that had to be Bush, right?![]()
But is milk $10/gallon now that GAP raised their minimum wage?GAP did decide for themselves to raise wages to $9/hr. They (GAP) paraded that around like they were special and in fact a VS member linked the original article as if he was something special.... for pointing out that a retailer was awesome for 1) originally having 9,000 employees at $7.25 hour and 2) Brave for raising those wages to $9/hr
when only a few pages earlier people were calling for hikes of $15/hr.
And what makes it even better is this all came ahead of an announcement that they are closing hundreds of stores and losing market share. It's almost like they planned this so they could use their wage hike as an excuse for poor fiscal numbers.
How do you reconcile pointing the finger of fiscal irresponsibility at hourly wages, when the CEO's compensation went from $20M in 2011 to $50M in 2012?GAP did decide for themselves to raise wages to $9/hr. They (GAP) paraded that around like they were special and in fact a VS member linked the original article as if he was something special.... for pointing out that a retailer was awesome for 1) originally having 9,000 employees at $7.25 hour and 2) Brave for raising those wages to $9/hr
when only a few pages earlier people were calling for hikes of $15/hr.
And what makes it even better is this all came ahead of an announcement that they are closing hundreds of stores and losing market share. It's almost like they planned this so they could use their wage hike as an excuse for poor fiscal numbers.
I don't think it was irresponsible for them to raise the wage. If they thought they could do it more power to them. I just don't think raising wages from $7.25/hr to $9/hr is "breaking the barrier" like so many people wanted it to be.How do you reconcile pointing the finger of fiscal irresponsibility at hourly wages, when the CEO's compensation went from $20M in 2011 to $50M in 2012?
But is milk $10/gallon now that GAP raised their minimum wage?
Pretty sure that GAP and it's shareholders don't really give a shit about "living with it" nor do they actually have to "live with it." Those poor people that are getting canned because the CEO is making 50 mil are the ones actually living with it.I don't think it was irresponsible for them to raise the wage. If they thought they could do it more power to them. I just don't think raising wages from $7.25/hr to $9/hr is "breaking the barrier" like so many people wanted it to be.
I would much rather see the $50 million spread among 1,000 workers instead of 1 but apparently GAP thought it'd be better spent on a single CEO. That's their decision to live with.
I just wonder if GAP is going to spin their recent decline into "we spent too much money on wages". Surely before they made that announcement two weeks ago they must of had an idea of what the numbers were going to be.
That's fair, and thoughtful. Thanks for that. I'm not sure what to make of it - a quick skim of their quarterlies (like, really quick) show increases. Maybe the increases are online, so storefronts are simply less relevant than they were in the past. Malls are certainly rather arcane institutions, yes?I don't think it was irresponsible for them to raise the wage. If they thought they could do it more power to them. I just don't think raising wages from $7.25/hr to $9/hr is "breaking the barrier" like so many people wanted it to be.
I would much rather see the $50 million spread among 1,000 workers instead of 1 but apparently GAP thought it'd be better spent on a single CEO. That's their decision to live with.
I just wonder if GAP is going to spin their recent decline into "we spent too much money on wages". Surely before they made that announcement two weeks ago they must of had an idea of what the numbers were going to be.
Anyone who thinks it's going to be $1:$1 is... well... interesting.Well $7.25:$9.00 isn't exactly $3.50:$10:00
I imagine that anyone who thinks raising the minimum wage is going to have a direct effect on inflation believes it is going to happen proportionally.