I'm not sure what the spirit of your comment is, but I feel like I should point out that this is to some extent the "point" of technology: to create more value with less human capital.
Which is funny because many people in tech who are fighting against/for regulations tout how tech is creating so many jobs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps the raw number of jobs isn't the best denominator then, since many of the jobs in tech likely pay more to acknowledge this fact. A better measure would be something like the total of wages payed, or total of wages payed for the bottom 4 quintiles of workers by salary (cut out C-class executive outliers). Equity of course makes that harder, but most of the companies on this list are big enough that they're probably paying more in salary at this point anyways. I'd be interested to see where that places tech companies vs. more traditional businesses.
i think that's an interesting idea. instead of "how many jobs did we create?" you could ask "how much socioeconomic mobility did we create?". or something along those lines
I think Pfizer has 3 times the number of employees and 2 times the valuation. So not really something that jumps out as being such a huge difference. Even though you would expect a large difference since most tech companies don’t employ unskilled labor and instead just (ab)used them through the gig economy.
Pfizer is a bio-tech company.
Bank of America has ~1/3 the valuation : employee ratio.
Allstate is worth ~1/4 as much while having more employees.
Ford employs over 50x as many people as Airbnb at roughly the same valuation.