EAs CEO makes $20MM. They have 13k employees. That’s an $1100 raise, give or take, if you take every penny from the CEO. For the vast majority of their employees, that is less than a 1% raise.
So no, it won’t get you both, in any meaningful sense.
Edit: And yes, if you are not productive, you get paid less. That’s the whole point. If you are not 100x productive, you don’t deserve to get 100x the wages of a regular employee too.
And a guy sitting in their office biting nails all day is somehow much more valuable than the people developing the product. Sure, if you would believe in that.
If I follow your search terms, the first Google result is this. If the data were to be trusted, then most of the employees are absolutely paid much less than the “top positions”.
If you are taking the CEO’s income literally (without considering their assets), then you are hopeless.
Part of me wants to argue that the games industry has a long-standing history of under-compensating workers, which makes being within the top 25% not particularly impressive, but instead I’m just going to admit that you caught me ragging on EA with an easy jab.
They did lay off a shed load of workers earlier this year mere days after announcing record profits though. Still, they’re not quite the miserable black hole that they were in the ‘EA Widows’ era when they were forcing unpaid overtime on a straight up illegal level.
Gotta pick one chief.
Cut the CEOs’ pay and you’ll be able to get both
EAs CEO makes $20MM. They have 13k employees. That’s an $1100 raise, give or take, if you take every penny from the CEO. For the vast majority of their employees, that is less than a 1% raise.
So no, it won’t get you both, in any meaningful sense.
I am pretty sure we don’t need to raise every employee’s wages. Some of the upper management who sit in their offices biting nails, for example.
The point is to reduce the wage inequality inside a company.
So you want to raise the wages of the people making $140k per year but not $170k?
Why?
Where did you pull those numbers from, then?
Edit: And yes, if you are not productive, you get paid less. That’s the whole point. If you are not 100x productive, you don’t deserve to get 100x the wages of a regular employee too.
People do not get paid based on production but based on value.
And a guy sitting in their office biting nails all day is somehow much more valuable than the people developing the product. Sure, if you would believe in that.
Who do you think is “biting their nails all day?” Like, which positions specifically.
Also game devs work in offices (or at home offices)
I googled median EA wages (gave me median, top 75%, etc), EA CEO pay and number of employees at EA and then did division
If I follow your search terms, the first Google result is this. If the data were to be trusted, then most of the employees are absolutely paid much less than the “top positions”.
If you are taking the CEO’s income literally (without considering their assets), then you are hopeless.
Yeah if you don’t work in CS you’re making at or near 100k and the math holds.
Compare the salary ranges with # of employees per role.
EA chose neither.
Do you have a source on that? Because EA pays in the top 20-25% for their market.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/electronic-arts-e/salaries
Part of me wants to argue that the games industry has a long-standing history of under-compensating workers, which makes being within the top 25% not particularly impressive, but instead I’m just going to admit that you caught me ragging on EA with an easy jab.
They did lay off a shed load of workers earlier this year mere days after announcing record profits though. Still, they’re not quite the miserable black hole that they were in the ‘EA Widows’ era when they were forcing unpaid overtime on a straight up illegal level.