81–90 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because those 50,000 employees were making the major directional decisions for the company, not the C level execs
The only reason those people are able to contemplate such decisions is because of the thousands of workers supporting the enterprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because those 50,000 employees were making the major directional decisions for the company, not the C level execs
No rationalization about value can ever hide the obvious and deep-rooted lord / serf dynamic.
I know it's foolish to compare myself to the top 0.01%, but every year it seems like I fall further behind. Athletes used to make tens of millions of dollars. Nowadays some retire with over a billion dollars of lifetime earnings. CEOs used to make what? It was common to hear 20-25MM a year, today that number seems ridiculously low. I know staff on professional sports teams, low men on the totem pole, who make quarter…
I use increasing athlete salary as an easy analogy to help ppl understand wealth disparity in this country. Micheal Jordan once made $4 million dollars in the prime of his career. Today Steph Curry can sign a $200 million deal in 2017 because that amount is nothing to his owner. Russell Westbrook signed a $200 million NBA extension to go with his $200 million sneaker endorsement this summer. Sounds crazy if you've be…
Sure they are. After this season, $30m is going to be the starting salary for even a mediocre quarterback in the NFL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
And if the company had done poorly, would be game for the employees taking a pay cut? It works both ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something I find curious is the degree to which HN seems to want to break out the torches and pitchforks when a CEO profits handsomely by increasing shareholder value. There doesn't seem to be the same animus towards ordinary developers becoming millionaires in a few short years by getting lucky and landing at the right unicorn startup pre-IPO. CEOs interests are aligned perfectly in this situation: increase sharehol…
> CEOs interests are aligned perfectly in this situation: increase shareholder value. That is wrong. The CEO's risk is asymmetric. Huge upside with limited downside, which encourages reckless risk taking. It is also shorter term (until his grants vest), encouraging short term profit over long term value. > I don't quite grok the idea that employees with no ownership stake in the company are somehow owed a share of th…
I think you maybe underestimate the job market for senior executives. It's not like a CEO of a S&P500 company can find another job on LinkedIn. Sometimes they land a new gig. A lot of the times they don't.
I'd also suggest you try the job of leading people and groups of that size. There are very few who can do this sort of work effectively.
Also consider that a CEO has to consider the types of challenges he or she would like to tackle. A Board of Directors is shopping for talent and trying to get the right fit. Why does a CEO not get the same opportunity to negotiate a pay package?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
I respectfully disagree with the way you are positioning this. The relative impact of a CEO, whose job is to set strategic direction and direct human (tens of thousands of employees) and financial capital (billions of dollars) at scale, dwarfs that of any of its individual employees and the vast swath of them combined. Most relevant to you, the majority of the benefit of this 7x increase in value in 7 years is actual…
Or - according to my anecdotal experience - get out of the way and stop interfering with employees that know what they’re doing? I can think of several asinine “big plans” that just ended up burning huge stashes of capital and costing even more in opportunities that were heralded as the new Advent of Christ, “and don’t you dare be the naysayer!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I respectfully disagree with the way you are positioning this. The relative impact of a CEO, whose job is to set strategic direction and direct human (tens of thousands of employees) and financial capital (billions of dollars) at scale, dwarfs that of any of its individual employees and the vast swath of them combined. Most relevant to you, the majority of the benefit of this 7x increase in value in 7 years is actual…
I don't think anyone is arguing that he has a more than average impact on the direction of the company. But, like any humble CEO would say, it's all about the people, the people below them, the people throughout the organization. So, while he deserves a decent bonus, fine, why does it need to be roughly thirty-three thousand times minimum wage. And this is just the bonus, he probably still has a very happy salary as…
Because that's what he negotiated with his employers.
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
would you accept $50 bonus and $1 to each of your 450 covorkers if you were set to receive $500 bonus instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is off topic from this thread, but I’m honestly curious as to why you think this. What evidence exists to support your statement? Normally, I would just assume this type of comment is simply trolling, but I looked at your profile and it seems you are a real person with generally intelligent comments so now I’m curious.
I didn't read the budget, and likely you didn't read it too. We can't do all things at the same time, so we have experts to take care of things. (Say, you get a CT scan, you are not going to view it and interpret it, your radiologist will.) The same with the budget: I trust the president and the Republicans, as I take their word for it.
That's a bad strategy for a citizen in a democracy. If you blindly believe a party or politician you can't make educated choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
I respectfully disagree with the way you are positioning this. The relative impact of a CEO, whose job is to set strategic direction and direct human (tens of thousands of employees) and financial capital (billions of dollars) at scale, dwarfs that of any of its individual employees and the vast swath of them combined. Most relevant to you, the majority of the benefit of this 7x increase in value in 7 years is actual…